State v. Holliday, 2017 Ohio 2581

On November 15, 2014, a robbery occurred at a Subway in Toledo; appellant Benjamin Holliday was identified on surveillance video and by employees and charged with robbery under R.C. 2911.02(A)(2) (physical-harm robbery).
Victim Shanelle Smith (shift leader) testified Holliday entered, asked for cookies, then demanded the cash drawer while keeping one hand in his pocket in a manner that made her think he had a gun.
The coworker opened the register and Holliday grabbed the money, ordered the employees to the back and told them to turn around until he left.
Holliday moved for acquittal under Crim.R. 29(A) and later renewed; he also challenged the jury instruction that permitted consideration of the victim’s fear/apprehension when assessing a threat to inflict physical harm.
The trial court convicted Holliday of second-degree felony robbery and sentenced him to six years; Holliday appealed arguing insufficiency/manifest weight and erroneous jury instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient / conviction against manifest weight for physical-harm robbery	State: victim reasonably believed Holliday threatened physical harm because of his hand-in-pocket demeanor and commands, supporting conviction	Holliday: prosecution failed to prove a threat to inflict physical harm; jury lost its way	Court: Evidence (victim’s fear + defendant’s conduct) was sufficient; verdict not against manifest weight
Whether jury instruction allowing consideration of victim’s fear/apprehension for a threat determination was erroneous	State: victim’s fear is relevant to whether an implied threat existed; instruction proper	Holliday: fear/apprehension language applies only to robbery-by-force, not R.C. 2911.02(A)(2)	Court: Instruction proper; victim’s state of mind is relevant to implicit threats; no abuse of discretion

State v. Brinkley, 824 N.E.2d 959 (Ohio 2005) (standard for reviewing Crim.R. 29 sufficiency challenges)
State v. Jenks, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency test: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Dennis, 683 N.E.2d 1096 (Ohio 1997) (appellate review of jury verdicts and reasonableness of conclusions)
State v. Thompkins, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (weight-of-the-evidence standard and reversal only for manifest miscarriage)
Eastley v. Volkman, 972 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 2012) (instructions on weighing evidence and deference to factfinder)
Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (Ohio 1984) (presumptions in favor of judgment when reviewing weight challenges)
State v. Evans, 911 N.E.2d 889 (Ohio 2009) (victim’s reasonable belief of a weapon or danger can establish a threat to inflict physical harm)
State v. Wolons, 541 N.E.2d 443 (Ohio 1989) (abuse-of-discretion standard for jury-instruction decisions)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (defining abuse of discretion standard)