State v. Jali, 2020 Ohio 208

On June 28, 2018, Dayton Police Officer Alaina Hammond worked undercover as a decoy in a known high‑prostitution area; Detective Bailey monitored and interviewed suspects nearby.
Hammond approached Abdalla S. Jali at a bus stop; after brief conversation Jali invited her to sit, asked if she had a boyfriend, said “you know what I want,” and expressly said “Sex I was thinking.”
Hammond asked how $20 sounded; Jali twice indicated $20 was "not too much," and Hammond then signaled for his arrest. No audio/video recording of the encounter was made.
Jali, a Sudanese refugee who primarily spoke Arabic, testified he misunderstood references to money and denied offering payment; he admitted asking for sex but said he did not solicit sex for hire.
Jali was convicted by a jury of solicitation (not loitering), sentenced to jail time suspended, probation, community service, testing, and fines; he appealed asserting entrapment/insufficiency/manifest‑weight error and erroneous exclusion of a written exhibit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient / conviction against manifest weight because of entrapment	State: Jali solicited sex for hire—he initiated contact, asked to "go with" her, said he wanted sex, and twice confirmed $20; entrapment is an affirmative defense for jury to resolve	Jali: Officer induced the crime by introducing money; language barrier caused misunderstanding (thought "twenty" meant kisses/pounds); he never offered money and lacked predisposition	Court: Affirmed — evidence sufficient and not against manifest weight; jury credited officer; entrapment not shown because solicitation (including counteroffers) established and predisposition is an evidentiary issue for jury
Whether trial court erred excluding Defendant's Exhibit A (handwritten English/Arabic note)	State: Exhibit was self‑serving hearsay and cumulative	Jali: Exhibit would show his English proficiency and reinforce his testimony about using written translations when calling police	Court: No error — exhibit marginally relevant and cumulative of Jali's testimony; exclusion was within trial court's discretion

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (standard for manifest‑weight review)
State v. Swann, 142 Ohio App.3d 88, 753 N.E.2d 984 (discusses solicitation as the asking and entrapment arguments)
State v. Howard, 7 Ohio Misc.2d 45, 455 N.E.2d 29 (entrapment when police originate the criminal idea)
State v. Drummond, 111 Ohio St.3d 14, 854 N.E.2d 1038 (appellate deference on manifest‑weight review)
State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173, 510 N.E.2d 343 (trial court's discretion on admitting evidence)