State v. Hurley, 2012 Ohio 310

Hurley was indicted in Putnam County for felonious assault with a knife on Oct. 3, 2010; trial followed with a not guilty plea.
The trial court denied Hurley’s request for expert fees to evaluate wounds versus the knife.
The State presented multiple witnesses including the victim Nicole Kirk; Hurley testified in his defense.
A Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal was denied after the State’s case; the defense then presented its own witnesses.
The jury convicted Hurley of felonious assault and the trial court sentenced him to eight years in prison.
Hurley appeals, arguing abuse of discretion on expert fees, Crim.R. 29 motion, sufficiency of evidence, and sentence length.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying expert fees	State contends no necessity shown for expert funds	Hurley argues expert would clarify wounds and knife match	No abuse of discretion; first assignment overruled
Whether Crim.R. 29 should have led to acquittal	State asserts sufficient evidence to sustain guilt	Hurley argues lack of evidence that weapon caused injuries	Evidence sufficient; Crim.R. 29 denied and verdict sustained
Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support felonious assault	State maintains proof of knowing causing injury with a weapon	Hurley challenges weapon identification and victim credibility	Sufficient evidence supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether the maximum sentence was properly imposed	State argues record supports maximum due to recidivism	Hurley asserts lack of statutory basis for max sentence	Maximum sentence not clearly and convincingly contrary to law; affirmed

State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 (1978) (test for Crim.R. 29 sufficiency)
State v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d 164 (1984) (factors for appointment of experts in noncapital cases)
State v. Weeks, 64 Ohio App.3d 595 (1989) (application of expert-funding factors in noncapital cases)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (two-part test for sentencing review under Kalish plurality)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (constitutional sentencing framework for discretion within range)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (2000) (trial court need not state explicit consideration of factors)
State v. Carter, 2004-Ohio-1181 (2004) (standard of review for sentencing decisions)
State v. Daughenbaugh, 2007-Ohio-5774 (2007) (meaningful review of felony sentence)
State v. Broom, 40 Ohio St.3d 277 (1988) (standards for appointment of state-funded experts)