State v. Pierce, 2014 Ohio 5258

On Oct. 25, 2011, a homeowner in Bath reported men attempting to enter her house and supplied a vehicle description; the men fled when she was seen at a window.
Police located and chased the vehicle, which crashed; Lamar Pierce (driver) was indicted alongside accomplices Michael Davis and Antonio Jones.
Grand Jury charged Pierce with two counts of burglary (R.C. 2911.12(A)(1)), two counts of failure to comply with police, and driving under suspension.
At trial Davis and Jones, who received favorable treatment from the State for their cooperation, testified that they and Pierce traveled to the house to burglarize it, Pierce entered an enclosed patio, and they fled when the homeowner appeared.
The homeowner did not testify; her observations were related through police testimony. The jury convicted Pierce of one count of burglary, the failure-to-comply counts, and driving under suspension; he was sentenced to eight years.
Pierce appealed, arguing his burglary conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the accomplice testimony was unreliable and there was no physical evidence of entry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pierce's burglary conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence	State: jury reasonably credited accomplice and police testimony showing Pierce entered an occupied portion of the house with intent to commit an offense	Pierce: accomplices were untrustworthy (received leniency); no physical evidence; homeowner did not testify directly; evidence supports only trespass/attempt	Affirmed: not an exceptional case; jury properly weighed credibility and conviction is not against manifest weight

State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (1986) (appellate standard for manifest weight review)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and weight of the evidence)
State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49 (1995) (presumption that jury follows trial court instructions)