State v. Marshall, 2019 Ohio 1154

Surveillance video showed a male (C.O.) remove a window screen and enter H.B.'s occupied apartment while a female (Kyre Marshall) watched nearby, then entered the building at the front and exited less than two minutes later behind him.
Police identified and arrested C.O. and Marshall; Marshall was indicted for burglary but tried on burglary and aiding-and-abetting instructions; jury acquitted on burglary but convicted of aiding and abetting burglary.
Evidence included the surveillance video, officer testimony, Marshall’s statements to police (she admitted watching C.O. remove the screen and later identified items taken), and C.O.’s inconsistent statements to police and at trial (initially implicating Marshall, later recanting at trial).
The trial court sentenced Marshall to two years’ imprisonment; she appealed raising four assignments of error (sufficiency, manifest weight, improper witness testimony, and refusal to give a jury instruction on accessory after the fact).
The Ninth District affirmed, rejecting challenges to sufficiency and manifest weight, concluding any alleged improper witness opinion testimony was non-prejudicial and forfeited in part, and holding the trial court did not abuse discretion in refusing the accessory-after-the-fact instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Marshall)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aiding and abetting burglary	Evidence (video, statements, C.O.’s prior statement, Marshall’s knowledge of stolen items) supports that Marshall aided/encouraged C.O.	Evidence insufficient to prove she shared C.O.’s criminal intent or aided the burglary	Affirmed: Evidence sufficient; reasonable jury could find she aided and abetted
Manifest weight of the evidence	Conviction supported by whole record; witnesses and video credible	Conviction against manifest weight; jury should have acquitted	Affirmed: Marshall failed to meaningfully argue weight; no exceptional miscarriage of justice shown
Alleged improper witness testimony (officers opining witnesses lied)	Officer testimony aided the State but did not prejudice outcome	Testimony improperly opined on credibility; denied fair trial	Affirmed: Most objections forfeited; single objection not preserved on this ground and no prejudice shown
Jury instruction denying accessory-after-the-fact language	Aiding-and-abetting instructions given were sufficient	Court should have instructed that accessory after the fact is not criminal and cannot support aiding-and-abetting conviction	Affirmed: Trial court properly instructed on aiding/abetting; refusal was not an abuse of discretion

Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (standard for reviewing sufficiency and manifest weight issues)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sufficiency review standard)
State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240 (definition of complicity/aiding and abetting)
In re T.K., 109 Ohio St.3d 512 (aider-and-abettor intent may be inferred from presence, companionship, and conduct)
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (manifest weight standard for appellate review)
State v. Were, 118 Ohio St.3d 448 (aider-and-abettor jury instruction principles)
State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (trial court’s discretion on evidentiary rulings)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (plain error standard)