State v. Honorable, 2017 Ohio 4160

Defendant Carl C. Honorable was charged with aggravated burglary and disrupting public services after an October 2015 incident; jury acquitted on aggravated burglary and convicted on disrupting public services (R.C. 2904.04(A)(1)).
Victim and Honorable knew each other from childhood; Honorable had been staying at the victim’s apartment for several weeks prior to the incident.
On the night in question the victim and Honorable argued; the victim locked herself in her apartment, Honorable kicked the door, grabbed the victim by the neck, and took her cell phone.
The victim testified Honorable threw her phone to the floor, causing it to break and the battery to separate; she then ran to a neighbor to call 9‑1‑1. Police entered and arrested Honorable inside the apartment.
At trial police testified the person found in the apartment was Honorable, officers visually identified him in court, and shoeprints on the door matched his shoes; photographs and officer testimony corroborated that the phone was in pieces.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency — identity	State: circumstantial evidence (victim knew him, lived together, police found him inside, officers identified him) proves identity	Honorable: victim never visually identified him in court and misnamed middle initial on 9‑1‑1 call	Court: evidence sufficient; identity established circumstantially
Sufficiency — damage/tampering with phone	State: victim and officers testified phone was thrown, shattered, battery dislodged; photos show damage	Honorable: cites cases where mere turning off or withholding phone was insufficient	Court: evidence showed actual physical damage/tampering; distinguishes cited cases
Sufficiency — interruption/impairment of phone service	State: throwing phone and removing battery prevented victim from calling police, delaying emergency call	Honorable: argues no evidence phone service interrupted	Court: taking and breaking the phone impaired service; victim prevented from calling 9‑1‑1
Manifest weight	State: factual credibility supports verdict	Honorable: points to inconsistencies in victim’s testimony (misidentifications, mismatched details)	Court: jury entitled to weigh credibility; inconsistencies not enough to overturn; conviction not against manifest weight

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (discusses sufficiency and weight standards)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Tate, 140 Ohio St.3d 442 (identity may be established circumstantially)
State v. Robinson, 124 Ohio St.3d 76 (telecommunication devices are property under R.C. 2901.01)
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (manifest-weight standard and exceptional-case reversal)
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (appellate court as thirteenth juror concept)