State v. Hane, 2025 Ohio 120

On August 7, 2023, Christopher Hane overdosed on fentanyl in the basement of the home he shared with his girlfriend, Jane Doe, where he was the only adult supervising three children (ages 10, 3, and 16 months).
Jane Doe left Hane with the children while she went to work, believing the house was safe and that her older child could check in if needed.
Hane overdosed while in charge of the children; he was found unresponsive in the basement by Jane Doe's older child, who called their aunt and 911.
Police responded, found the children unsupervised, and recovered fentanyl near Hane.
Hane was charged with child endangering (due to a prior conviction) and drug possession; the case proceeded to a jury trial where he was found guilty on both counts.
Hane appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence due to questions over his legal responsibility for the children and the cause of his incapacitation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hane was in loco parentis or otherwise responsible for the children	Hane lived as a parent, in a four-year relationship with Jane Doe and was the sole adult supervising the children	Hane is not named on the birth certificates, had no court-ordered support, and thus was not responsible	Hane was in loco parentis to the children at minimum, and thus responsible
Whether leaving the children unsupervised due to his overdose amounted to recklessly creating a substantial risk	Having fentanyl, overdosing, and leaving very young children unsupervised created a substantial risk, violating duty of care	Incapacitation was due to a head injury at work, not drug use; insufficient proof of substantial risk	Evidence showed Hane overdosed, endangering the children; conviction supported
Sufficiency of the evidence supporting conviction for child endangerment	All required statutory elements were met, as shown at trial	Evidence did not show statutory elements because of lack of legal relationship or own fault for incapacitation	Evidence was sufficient for conviction
Whether conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence	Jury reasonably found facts proving guilt; verdict supported by credible evidence	Jury improperly weighed evidence and credibility; evidence did not support conviction	Conviction was not against the manifest weight; jury's verdict upheld

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency from manifest weight of the evidence)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sets forth sufficiency of the evidence review standard)
State v. Noggle, 67 Ohio St.3d 31 (Ohio 1993) (defines in loco parentis for purposes of criminal liability)