State v. Hartley, 194 Ohio App. 3d 486

Hartley, director of a licensed child-daycare center, repeatedly gave melatonin pills to toddlers to induce afternoon sleep.
She failed to disclose to parents that the children were receiving melatonin, though she did not affirmatively misrepresent its use.
Evidence included Hartley’s admissions to police and tablets found in Hartley’s office and discarded items in the daycare garage.
Two daycare employees alerted police after observing Hartley administer adulterated candy containing a pill to children.
The trial court convicted Hartley on three counts of endangering children and three counts of misrepresentation by a child-care provider.
On appeal, the court affirmed the endangering-children convictions but reversed and discharged the misrepresentation convictions for omissions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was sufficient evidence of substantial risk to health or safety	Hartley argues no substantial risk shown; evidence lacked medical proof.	Hartley contends risk was speculative and not proven by common knowledge.	Yes; evidence supported substantial risk and recklessness even without medical proof.
Admissibility of Merkle’s melatonin- harm testimony	Merke’s testimony explained investigative context and Hartley’s recklessness.	Testimony is improper lay/expert testimony about medical effects.	Admissible to show investigation context; not offered as substantive medical evidence.
Whether Hartley’s failure to disclose constitutes a misrepresentation under R.C. 2919.224	omission constitutes misrepresentation under statute	Statute requires affirmative misrepresentation, not omissions.	Omissions do not satisfy misrepresentation; convictions reversed and Hartley discharged.
Whether misrepresentation convictions were supported by weight of the evidence	Hartley’s failure to disclose adversely affected health/safety.	No affirmative misrepresentation; insufficient evidence under statute.	Misrepresentation convictions reversed and Hartley discharged; weight issues moot.

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review (Jackson v. Virginia) applied to criminal convictions)
State v. Caton, 137 Ohio App.3d. 742 (Ohio App. 2000) (no need for expert testimony to prove substantial risk in endangering-children cases)
State v. Massey, 128 Ohio App.3d. 438 (Ohio App. 1998) (negligence vs. recklessness in endangering-children cases; reasonable inferences reviewed)
State v. Gray, 62 Ohio St.3d 514 (Ohio 1992) (statutory construction principles; how to interpret omissions vs. misrepresentations)
State v. Warner, 55 Ohio St.3d 31 (Ohio 1990) (limits on applying broad misrepresentation language; omission not covered)
State v. McGee, 79 Ohio St.3d 193 (Ohio 1997) (recklessness standard in criminal statutes)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (weight-of-the-evidence standard; standard for review of jury verdicts)
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1982) (basic standard for manifest weight and sufficiency considerations)
State v. Warner (related to Warner引用), 55 Ohio St.3d 31 (Ohio 1990) (discussed above; see Warner)
State v. Massey (duplicate reference), 128 Ohio App.3d. 438 (Ohio App. 1998) (see Massey)