State v. McMillen, 2016 Ohio 370

Defendant Lloyd McMillen, a roofing subcontractor, was indicted for one count of theft against the elderly (fifth-degree felony) after a 74‑year‑old homeowner paid him $330 for roof repairs she claims were not performed.
At trial, the homeowner testified McMillen agreed to repair a soil vent, fix chimney flashing, and reseal nails for $330, promised to provide before-and-after photos (which he never produced), and left after about 30 minutes; the roof continued to leak.
McMillen testified he took "before" photos on his phone but not "after" photos (battery died) and disputed some details of the homeowner’s account.
A subsequent roofer who later repaired the roof testified it appeared no work had been done before his repairs; Detective Perella obtained McMillen’s "before" photos and showed them to that roofer, who said they matched the roof’s condition when he arrived.
Trial court denied McMillen’s Crim.R. 29 motion; the jury convicted him, and the court imposed 12 months community control and $330 restitution (imprisonment suspended).
The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting both sufficiency and manifest‑weight challenges; one judge dissented, arguing the conviction was against the manifest weight.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: Did evidence permit a rational trier of fact to find theft by deception beyond a reasonable doubt?	State: Homeowner paid $330 for agreed repairs that were not performed; subsequent roofer corroborated that no work had been done.	McMillen: He performed the work and took photos; discrepancies in witness recollection undermine proof.	Affirmed — evidence, taken in light most favorable to State, was sufficient.
Manifest weight: Did the conviction constitute a manifest miscarriage of justice?	State: Witness testimony and roofer’s opinion supported the verdict; credibility determinations are for the jury.	McMillen: Witnesses were inconsistent and not credible; later roofer’s memory was limited; this is essentially a civil dispute.	Affirmed — appellate court concluded jury did not lose its way; dissent would reverse.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency review from manifest‑weight review and governs standards of review)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sets standard for sufficiency: whether any rational trier of fact could find elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist. 1986) (explains manifest‑weight standard and that reversal is warranted only in exceptional cases)