State v. McNamara, 2016 Ohio 8050

Defendant James McNamara (stepfather) lived with victim J.R. and family; charged in a 55‑count indictment including rape, kidnapping, illegal use of a minor in nudity‑oriented material or performance (multiple counts), and possessing criminal tools (laptop).
Bench trial produced testimony that McNamara inappropriately touched J.R. over several years and took photographs of her (sports‑wear and a graphic photo of her vagina) found on his cell phone; forensic examiner found 37 bookmarked images of apparent underage females on McNamara’s laptop.
Family witnesses testified McNamara was the only person permitted to use the laptop and was protective of his electronic devices; one of his sons turned over cell phones with graphic images to police.
Trial court found McNamara guilty on multiple counts (including illegal use of a minor in nudity‑oriented material or performance and possessing criminal tools) and adjudicated him a sexually violent predator; aggregate sentence 38 years to life.
On appeal, McNamara challenged only the convictions for illegal use of a minor in nudity‑oriented material or performance and possessing criminal tools, arguing insufficient evidence linking him to producing/downloading the images and lack of criminal purpose for the laptop.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove McNamara produced/possessed nudity images of a minor and used laptop for a criminal purpose	State: forensic analysis identified images of minors on McNamara’s laptop; witnesses tied laptop/cell phone exclusively to McNamara; graphic photos of J.R. were on his phone	McNamara: laptop accessible to household members so not proven he downloaded images; no direct witness to him taking the graphic photo; laptop use not shown to be for criminal purpose	Held: Sufficient circumstantial evidence supported convictions; laptop and phone were linked to McNamara and images identified as minors
Whether convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence	State: testimony and forensic evidence consistent as to inappropriate relationship and images; minor inconsistencies immaterial	McNamara: witnesses inconsistent, possible fabrication due to marital problems, and implausibility of abuse when others present	Held: Trial court did not lose its way; deference to factfinder credibility determinations; convictions not against manifest weight

State v. Diar, 900 N.E.2d 565 (Ohio 2008) (standard for sufficiency review and discussion of circumstantial evidence)
State v. Jenks, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (Jackson v. Virginia sufficiency standard adopted for Ohio)
State v. Thompkins, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (difference between sufficiency and manifest weight review)
State v. Wilson, 865 N.E.2d 1264 (Ohio 2007) (manifest weight review as assessing which evidence is more persuasive)