State v. Jones
2017 Ohio 288
Ohio Ct. App. 9th2017Background
- Michael D. Jones was indicted for burglary (R.C. 2911.12(A)(2)) and grand theft (R.C. 2913.02(A)(1)); he waived a jury and was tried before the bench.
- Neighbors observed a man and woman running from a nearby house carrying a TV and a laptop bag; a neighbor later identified a photo of Jones as the male he had seen.
- Police found a broken window and signs of ransacking at the victim Dongo’s home; a cellphone found near the back door displayed a lockscreen photo of Jones.
- Several stolen items were recovered hidden behind the home of Jones’s girlfriend’s roommate (Cupach); Cupach later returned an unopened package of the victim’s shirts.
- Jones fled when officers approached Cupach’s residence and hid in a crawl space; no fingerprints or DNA tied Jones to the crime scene.
- The trial court convicted Jones, found a community-control violation, and imposed consecutive sentences; on appeal the court modified the burglary conviction and reviewed sufficiency, weight, and consecutive-sentence findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of burglary evidence under R.C. 2911.12(A)(2) ("present or likely to be present") | State: evidence showed entry, stolen items, identification links Jones to burglary | Jones: no eyewitness to break-in, no fingerprints/DNA, victim often away from home | Reversed as to (A)(2); state failed to prove "present or likely to be present" element |
| Conviction as lesser-included burglary (R.C. 2911.12(A)(3)) | State: circumstantial proof (photo, ID, recovered items, flight) supports burglary without "likely present" element | Jones: same challenges to identity and evidence sufficiency | Affirmed as to burglary under (A)(3) and grand theft — evidence sufficient and not against manifest weight |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | State: circumstantial evidence strongly supports conviction | Jones: challenges credibility and gaps in direct proof | Affirmed: not an exceptional case warranting reversal for manifest weight |
| Consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | State: trial court made required findings at hearing and in journal entry | Jones: contends findings insufficient | Affirmed: trial court complied with Bonnell requirements; consecutive sentences upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for reviewing sufficiency and manifest weight of evidence)
- State v. Kilby, 50 Ohio St.2d 21 (1977) (occupants temporarily absent but "in and out" can satisfy "likely to be present")
- State v. Tate, 140 Ohio St.3d 442 (2014) (identity may be proven by circumstantial evidence and need not include in-court pointing out)
- State v. Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378 (2006) (flight and concealment admissible as consciousness of guilt)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make and journal required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentence findings)