State v. Hart, 2017 Ohio 1246

Defendant Thomas M. Hart was charged with one count of misdemeanor theft (R.C. 2913.02(A)(1)) after a Sega gaming system went missing from Dollar General. Trial court: Coshocton Municipal Court; bench trial held July 6, 2016.
Store video showed a man in a red sweatshirt and black hat examine the Sega on Nov. 18, 2015, and on Nov. 19, 2015 grab the same box from the shelf, walk out of camera view, then return without the box and purchase another item.
The Sega was discovered missing during inventory on Nov. 20, 2015; the item was not recovered. Manager Heather Powell testified no one else touched the Sega between the defendant’s appearance and discovery of the loss.
Deputy Woitel identified Hart from the Nov. 19 video; Hart admitted being in the store but denied taking the Sega, claiming he left it in the deodorant aisle — the video showed he never entered that aisle; the Nov. 19 video showed something near the front pocket of the sweatshirt.
The trial court denied Hart’s Crim.R. 29 motion, found him guilty, sentenced him to 60 days (50 suspended) and imposed a $250 fine plus $49 restitution. Hart appealed asserting errors on acquittal denial, sufficiency, and manifest weight grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the Crim.R. 29 motion properly denied (sufficiency)?	State: Evidence (video, ID, manager testimony, defendant’s inconsistent statement) was sufficient to prove theft.	Hart: No eyewitness to the taking; video doesn’t show the act; item could have been misplaced by someone else.	Denied — viewing evidence in light most favorable to State, a rational trier could find elements proven.
Was the conviction supported by sufficient evidence?	State: Video plus identification and contradictory statement support conviction beyond reasonable doubt.	Hart: Lack of direct proof and alternative explanations undermine sufficiency.	Affirmed — evidence sufficient under Jenks standard.
Was the conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence?	State: Credible video and testimony; trial court reasonably found State’s version more persuasive.	Hart: Evidence conflicted; conviction rests on inference and not direct proof.	No — appellate court, as thirteenth juror, found the trial court did not lose its way; conviction not against manifest weight.
Did any trial errors require reversal (cumulative or other)?	State: No reversible error shown; single ruling on sufficiency/weight dispositive.	Hart: Relied on same sufficiency/weight arguments; no additional errors raised.	No reversible error; judgment affirmed.

State v. Williams, 74 Ohio St.3d 569 (1996) (Crim.R. 29 and sufficiency principles referenced)
State v. Miley, 114 Ohio App.3d 738 (1996) (Crim.R. 29 tests sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Dennis, 79 Ohio St.3d 421 (1997) (standards for Crim.R. 29 and appellate review)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency of the evidence standard for criminal convictions)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishing sufficiency from manifest weight; appellate role as thirteenth juror)