State v. Ohara, 2014 Ohio 5532

Officers responded to a disturbance at an apartment after a neighbor reported loud noises and found the door ajar and moaning from inside.
Officers entered, observed a man (Ohara) semi-conscious on the floor with white residue on his nostrils and a disordered apartment.
On a coffee table near Ohara officers found a white substance, a paper tube, and a rolled-up dollar bill; an officer field-tested the substance for meth and tagged it into evidence.
BCI later tested the submitted exhibit and identified the substance as methoxetamine; the State amended the indictment to charge aggravated possession of methoxetamine.
At bench trial the court found Ohara guilty and imposed 18 months of community control; Ohara appealed arguing the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence due to an alleged break in the chain of custody.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ohara)	Held
Whether conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence given an alleged break in the chain of custody	Evidence (officers’ identifications and BCI testing) sufficiently established that the tested exhibit was the substance recovered from the apartment; any gaps affect weight not admissibility	Failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody between collection and BCI testing undermines the reliability of the lab result and thus the conviction	Affirmed: Court held any alleged breaks go to weight/credibility; the trier of fact did not lose its way and conviction stands

State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986) (standard for manifest-weight review)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (new-trial standard; appellate reversal on weight is for exceptional cases)