State v. McCoy
2017 Ohio 4163
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Police executed a multi-agency raid on November 15, 2014 at an Akron residence suspected to be hosting dogfights; 47 people arrested and ~ $52,000 seized. Angelo McCoy was arrested on the property with $436 and attempted to flee along the north fence line.
- McCoy was indicted for dogfighting (R.C. 959.16(A)(5)) with a forfeiture specification for the $436; jury convicted him of dogfighting but the forfeiture specification was dismissed.
- Trial evidence: surveillance and testimony that attendees formed a line and entered the garage after the gate closed; a constructed 12x12 ring with blood-soaked carpet, break sticks, weighted chains, bloody sponges/buckets, cages and injured dogs; co-defendant witnesses admitted attending/funding fights and described admission payments.
- Humane officer testified dogs had deep, fresh puncture wounds consistent with dog bites; an animal welfare report describing injuries was produced in discovery.
- Sentence: 180 days jail and one year community control (commenced Jan 2016 and expired Jan 2017). McCoy appealed raising four assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McCoy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / manifest weight of evidence that McCoy was "knowingly present" at a dogfight under R.C. 959.16(A)(5) | Evidence of presence on property, flight, organized entry into garage after gate closed, physical fight indicia (ring, blood, injured dogs), large sums of money — supports knowing presence | No witness placed McCoy inside or at the fight or showed he paid admission; evidence insufficient and conviction against manifest weight | Affirmed: viewed favorably to prosecution, rational juror could find knowing presence; not an exceptional case to reverse for weight |
| Admissibility / expert testimony of humane officer re: dog injuries (Evid. R. 701/702) | Officer Harland’s testimony was lay-opinion based on perception and experience; animal welfare report was produced in discovery | Harland testified as an expert without Crim.R. 16(K) report; State violated discovery rules, prejudiced defense | Affirmed: testimony permissible as lay opinion; even if expert, nondisclosure was not shown prejudicial where report existed and other evidence corroborated injuries |
| Trial court’s denial of Crim.R. 29 motion (judgment of acquittal) | Evidence sufficed to survive Crim.R. 29: viewing evidence most favorably to prosecution | McCoy argued insufficient evidence to support conviction | Affirmed: court properly denied acquittal motion because evidence could convince rational trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Sentencing notifications (R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) community control consequences and post-release control) | Court complied or errors are moot where community control expired and no prison term imposed | Court failed to notify McCoy of possible harsher sanctions for violation of community control and failed to advise of post-release control | Affirmed in part; challenge under 2929.19(B)(4) is moot because community control expired; no post-release-control error because no prison term was imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight review standards)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review—view evidence most favorably to prosecution)
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist. 1986) (standard for manifest-weight review and when to reverse for a manifest miscarriage of justice)
- State v. Berndt, 29 Ohio St.3d 3 (Ohio 1987) (appeal is moot where no collateral disability or loss of rights follows completed sentence)