State v. Hayes, 2017 Ohio 7716

Defendant Jovan Hayes was indicted on counts including attempted murder (with firearm specification), two counts of felonious assault (with specs), having weapons while under disability, and witness intimidation stemming from a September 2015 shooting of a 13‑year‑old (L.C.) in a Cleveland housing complex.
Eyewitness Samantha Law, a long‑time neighbor, identified Hayes (street name “Big Daddy”) as the shooter, testified she saw him fire ~8 shots, and later identified him in a photo array.
Victim L.C. was shot in the arm but testified that he would not cooperate with police and said the shooter (who he called “Big Daddy”) was not in court; he feared retribution.
Law also testified Hayes later confronted and intimidated her (references to “snitches” and displaying a gun), but she ultimately provided a written statement to police.
Physical evidence: seven shell casings recovered; no firearm recovered and no forensic testing on casings.
Jury convicted Hayes on all counts; trial court merged offenses for sentencing and imposed consecutive terms aggregating 20 years (including a mandatory 3‑year firearm specification). Hayes appealed convictions and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions	State: Law’s eyewitness ID plus other circumstantial evidence (seven casings, tracking conduct, victim injured) sufficed to prove elements including intent and weapons‑under‑disability	Hayes: State relied on unreliable/biased eyewitness; no weapon or forensic link; L.C. denied Hayes was shooter	Court: Evidence sufficient — eyewitness ID and circumstantial evidence could prove attempted murder, felonious assault, weapons disability, and intimidation beyond reasonable doubt
Manifest weight of the evidence	State: Jury reasonably credited Law despite cross‑examination and inconsistencies; victim’s refusal to cooperate explained by fear	Hayes: Law’s testimony inconsistent and biased; L.C.’s testimony contradicted ID, so conviction is against manifest weight	Court: Not an exceptional case; jury credibility determinations were permissible; convictions not against manifest weight
Sentencing challenge and consecutive sentences	State: Trial court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors and statutory criteria for consecutive terms; sentence within statutory ranges	Hayes: Trial court failed to properly weigh purposes/seriousness/recidivism factors and erred imposing consecutive terms	Court: Sentence within statutory ranges; court expressly considered required factors and made R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; consecutive 20‑year aggregate affirmed

Jenks v. Ohio, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (evidentiary sufficiency standard; review whether any rational trier could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (distinguishes sufficiency from manifest weight review)
Cress v. Ohio, 112 Ohio St.3d 72 (definition and limits of “unlawful threat” for witness intimidation)
Marcum v. Ohio, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (standard for appellate review of felony sentences; clear and convincing evidence)
Bonnell v. Ohio, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (requirement that trial court make and record R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive‑sentence findings)