State v. Mills, 2023 Ohio 1094

Defendant Shad Mills was indicted for aggravated burglary and felonious assault, with a repeat violent-offender specification; after trial he was convicted of aggravated burglary and the lesser-included offense of assault and found to be a repeat violent offender.
On Nov. 13, 2020 A.C. texted Mills to stay away and told him not to knock because she was going to bed; earlier he and a friend had been doing work in her backyard.
A.C. testified Mills later entered her home through a bedroom window while she slept, assaulted her (kicked and punched, threatened her and her daughter), and she sought medical treatment for head and mouth injuries.
Mills argued at trial (and on appeal) that he was privileged to be at the house based on prior permission and text messages, and moved for acquittal under Crim.R. 29; he also contested a jury instruction on "consciousness of guilt" relating to his apologies and suicidal statements.
The trial court sentenced Mills to prison terms (including a 10-year term on the repeat-violent-offender specification) and the Sixth District affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Mills)	Held
Sufficiency/manifest weight: whether proof supported the trespass element of aggravated burglary	A.C. did not live with Mills, he had no key, permission (if any) was limited to backyard/work and did not include entering through the bedroom window at 8:00 a.m.; any privilege was revoked when he assaulted her	Mills had permission via text messages and prior visits to retrieve his property and to do work; he was therefore privileged to be on the premises	Affirmed. Sufficient evidence of trespass exists and the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence (jury credited A.C.)
Admissibility / jury instruction: whether giving a consciousness-of-guilt instruction based on apologies and suicidal comments was erroneous	The statements were made in context of the assault and could reasonably be viewed as consciousness of guilt; the instruction (with cautionary language) was appropriate	Apologies and suicidal comments related to the end of the relationship, not admissions or consciousness of guilt for a crime	Affirmed. Court did not abuse its discretion in giving the instruction; apologies/suicidal statements could be considered evidence of consciousness of guilt

State v. Brinkley, 824 N.E.2d 959 (Ohio 2005) (Crim.R. 29/sufficiency standard)
State v. Tenace, 847 N.E.2d 386 (Ohio 2006) (same-sufficiency standard for Crim.R. 29)
State v. Smith, 684 N.E.2d 668 (Ohio 1997) (standard for reviewing sufficiency)
State v. Walker, 378 N.E.2d 1049 (Ohio 1978) (credibility not weighed on sufficiency review)
State v. Richardson, 84 N.E.3d 993 (Ohio 2016) (review of elements and state’s evidence)
State v. Thompkins, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (manifest-weight review standard)
State v. Williams, 679 N.E.2d 646 (Ohio 1997) (flight/resistance/related conduct admissible as consciousness of guilt)
Eaton v. State, 249 N.E.2d 897 (Ohio 1969) (related-conduct rule for consciousness of guilt)
State v. Sneed, 584 N.E.2d 1160 (Ohio 1992) (duty to give correct and comprehensive jury instructions)