State v. Michel
2011 Ohio 2015
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Michel owned arcade facilities, including Jackpots Instant Bingo, and Camp Quality donations were received from these facilities.
- Law enforcement investigated legality of the games as potential gambling by focusing on skill vs. chance; officers initially advised Michel but did not finalize legality.
- Akron officers deemed Camp Quality not a service organization and ordered Michel to close and leave machines, then returned to obtain payout data.
- Machines were removed from Michel’s Archwood store before a warrant was executed; motherboards were later recovered from another Michel-owned business.
- Michel was indicted for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, money laundering, and related offenses; some counts were dismissed, others convicted after trial.
- Judgment imposed forfeiture specifications and three years of community control; Michel timely appealed raising several assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crim.R.29 sufficiency for tampering | Michel claims police orders tainted evidence collection. | Michel contends unlawful orders require acquittal on tampering charge. | Sufficiency supported; removal/damage of machines and motherboards showed intent to impair evidence. |
| Advice of counsel instruction | Due process denied by failure to instruct on this defense. | Trial court refused a specific instruction; defendant argues plain error not applicable. | No reversible error; court did not engage in plain-error analysis due to lack of objection. |
| Manifest weight regarding skill-based status | Evidence shows machines are skill-based; jury erred in finding not skill-based. | Expert testimony supported non-skill-based classification; jury not required to accept claim. | Evidence supports jury's finding; not against the manifest weight. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1991) (sufficiency standard; rational finder of fact could convict)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997) (sufficiency of evidence guidance)
- State v. Rardon, 2009-Ohio-3361 (9th Dist.) (evidence considered relevant to 'evidence' definition)
- State v. Tran, 2006-Ohio-4349 (9th Dist.) (circumstantial and direct evidence have same probative value)
- State v. Jackson, 86 Ohio App.3d 29 (9th Dist., 1993) (weighing witness credibility; jury discretion)
- State v. Feliciano, 2010-Ohio-2809 (9th Dist.) (jury may accept conflicting expert testimony)
- State v. Morten, 2010-Ohio-117 (2d Dist.) (credibility and weight for jury in expert disputes)
- State v. Jackson, 86 Ohio App.3d 29 (9th Dist., 1993) (standard for appellate review of weight and credibility)