State v. Paul, 2017 Ohio 4054

Defendant Sandra Rae Paul transported 17 chickens in a cluttered 1995 Chrysler minivan and left them parked in direct sun in an apartment complex parking lot for several hours on a humid mid‑80s day.
Maintenance personnel and police discovered the van smelled of dead animals, observed lethargic birds and apparent feces accumulation; one bird appeared dead inside the vehicle.
A volunteer removed the chickens after sunset; all were alive then but one died the next day. A veterinarian testified interior van temperatures likely reached 130–140°F and that heat exposure likely caused the death.
Paul admitted keeping the chickens in the van and said multiple windows were open; she has prior experience with poultry and as an animal control officer.
Paul was convicted after a bench trial of violating Loudonville Ord. 618.05(A)(2) (mirroring R.C. 959.13) — confining an animal without affording shelter from excessive direct sunlight when it can reasonably be expected to suffer — and sentenced to suspended jail time, probation, and a fine.
On appeal Paul argued (1) the conviction was against the manifest weight/sufficiency of the evidence and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the veterinarian’s temperature testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency/manifest weight of evidence that Paul recklessly confined animals without shelter from excessive direct sunlight	State: evidence (hot conditions, heat wave from van, lethargic birds, one death, vet opinion) supports recklessness and ordinance elements	Paul: windows were open and ordinance element requires access to shelter; vet lacked adequate foundation for temperature opinion	Court: Evidence sufficient and not against manifest weight; judge could credit prosecution and reject defendant's version
Admissibility/weight of veterinarian's testimony about interior temperature	State: vet qualified to opine based on expertise and facts	Paul: vet lacked adequate factual basis (sun angle, cloud cover, exact window openings/tint) and was not sufficiently qualified	Court: No timely objection (forfeited); even if error, testimony was harmless beyond reasonable doubt given other evidence
Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to vet's temperature testimony	State: counsel’s omission did not prejudice defendant because outcome would not have changed	Paul: failure to object was deficient and prejudicial	Court: No prejudice shown; overwhelming evidence supports conviction, so ineffective assistance claim fails

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency review in criminal cases)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993) (prejudice inquiry under Strickland focuses on fundamental unfairness/reliability)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (burden to show plain error affecting substantial rights)
Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (manifest‑weight standard and appellate court as thirteenth juror)
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (deference to trial court credibility findings on weight review)
Rigby v. Lake Cty., 58 Ohio St.3d 269 (1991) (trial court has broad discretion on admissibility of evidence)
Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (appellate review must favor findings of trial court when evidence permits more than one construction)