State v. Moore, 156 N.E.3d 393

D.M. obtained an ex parte civil protection order (effective May 16, 2017–May 15, 2018) that, among other things, prohibited P.M. from entering D.M.’s place of employment.
Deputy Cyrus testified he personally served P.M. with the order on May 17, 2017, and the service slip bore a signature reading "[P.M.]." The deputy described his ordinary practice in serving and explaining orders.
On July 14, 2017, a Discount Drug Mart cashier (Kuglin) identified the person in store surveillance video as P.M.; the store transaction used P.M.’s courtesy card. D.M. also identified P.M. from the video.
Witnesses for the defense (Strickland, Stafford) testified someone else paid P.M.’s bills that day and offered inconsistent statements about identity and alibi; Stafford admitted modifying a video and gave copies to P.M.
At bench trial the court acquitted P.M. of two menacing-by-stalking counts, convicted him of the lesser-included offense of violating a protection order (R.C. 2919.27(A)(1), first-degree misdemeanor), and imposed one year of community control.

Issue	State's Argument	Moore's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: Was there sufficient evidence that defendant recklessly violated the protection order?	Deputy personally served and explained the order; P.M. acknowledged order in domestic relations proceeding; surveillance and cashier ID place P.M. at victim’s workplace.	Service was improper (blank order) and P.M. was not the person in the store — Strickland paid his bills.	Sufficient. Deputy’s testimony, signed service slip, court acknowledgment, and surveillance/cashier ID permit a rational factfinder to find reckless violation. R.C. 2919.27(D) makes perfect service unnecessary if defendant was shown the order or informed of it.
Manifest weight: Did the evidence weigh against the conviction?	Video and witness testimony supporting State more persuasive; trial court credited State on Count 1 and acquitted on Counts 2–3.	Defense witnesses gave plausible alternative account and challenged identity/serving.	Not against the manifest weight. Trial court as factfinder resolved credibility issues; this is not an exceptional case warranting reversal.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (articulates the standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (discusses sufficiency v. manifest-weight standards)
State v. Getsy, 84 Ohio St.3d 180 (applies Jackson standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Hill, 75 Ohio St.3d 195 (review of sufficiency evidence guided by viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor)
State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (explains manifest-weight review and the appellate court’s role as thirteenth juror)
State v. Johnson, 88 Ohio St.3d 95 (further discussion of manifest-weight principles)
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (due process concerns when conviction rests on legally insufficient evidence)
State v. Smith, 136 Ohio St.3d 1 (referenced regarding legislative amendment context for R.C. 2919.27)