State v. Moss
2018 Ohio 4747
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- At 3:50 A.M., two Akron officers found a car with two occupants parked in the rear lot of a closed bar in a high‑crime area; officers suspected criminal activity (e.g., prostitution, public indecency, trespass).
- Officers observed furtive movements: Moss reclined nearly flat in the driver’s seat while the passenger (S.M.) leaned into the driver’s area; both readjusted as officers approached.
- Officers requested identification per department policy. S.M. eventually gave her name and was released; Moss refused to identify himself, repeatedly moved his hands toward his waist/legs, jostled in his seat, yelled, and told S.M. not to cooperate.
- Officers called a supervisor; the encounter lasted ~40 minutes. Moss was arrested and charged under Akron City Code 136.11(A) (obstructing official business).
- Moss waived a jury, was convicted in a bench trial, sentenced (fine, costs, community service, suspended jail time), and appealed arguing insufficiency of the evidence and erroneous denial of his Crim.R. 29 motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove Moss acted with purpose to prevent/obstruct/delay officers (and denial of Crim.R. 29) | State: Moss’s repeated refusals, physical movements toward waist, yelling, and directing S.M. not to cooperate were affirmative, purposeful acts that significantly delayed and impeded the officers’ investigation | Moss: Mere refusal to identify is not an affirmative act; his conduct was not purposeful obstruction but repeated noncompliance | Court affirmed: Viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, Moss’s combined affirmative acts supported a finding of purposeful obstruction; Crim.R. 29 denial proper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (legal standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (evidentiary sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
- North Ridgeville v. Reichbaum, 112 Ohio App.3d 79 (purpose can be inferred from surrounding circumstances)
- State v. McCrone, 63 Ohio App.3d 831 (refusal to produce a license, standing alone, may not constitute obstruction)