State v. Pierce, 2017 Ohio 1036

Phillip Pierce was adjudged father of A.P. in juvenile court (paternity via genetic test) and a child-support order was entered on April 2, 2012 (support set using minimum‑wage income because Pierce did not appear).
Indicted June 4, 2015 for criminal nonsupport (R.C. 2919.21(B)) for the period May 1, 2012–April 30, 2014 (26 of 104 weeks specification); he pled not guilty, waived counsel, and waived jury.
At a bench trial the state presented the mother (Ferrarini) and a CSEA enforcement officer (Aliff); Pierce offered no witnesses.
Evidence: support order of $267.45/month (later adjusted to $327.36), one bank payment of $696.15 during the indicted period, other payments outside the period, and CSEA records showing arrears roughly $11,000–$11,298.37.
Trial court convicted Pierce of criminal nonsupport; imposed five years community control and ordered monthly support and payment of total arrearage ($11,298.37) as a condition of community control.
On appeal Pierce argued (1) insufficient evidence and against manifest weight, and (2) trial court erred by ordering full arrearage as restitution (exceeding the indictment period).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to convict for nonsupport (R.C. 2919.21(B))	State: juvenile court order established legal duty; CSEA and mother proved missed payments during indictment period and paternity; evidence supports recklessness element	Pierce: lacked proof he knew of the support order and lacked proof of amount owed during the indicted period	Conviction affirmed — evidence (direct and circumstantial) sufficient to prove duty and breach; knowledge not an element and record supported awareness
Authority to order full arrearage payment	State: trial court may order full arrearage as a condition of community control (not restitution)	Pierce: trial court erred by ordering restitution for full arrearage exceeding the indicted time frame	Affirmed — record shows court imposed payment as a community‑control condition (proper exercise of discretion), not as restitution limited to indictment period

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for sufficiency and weight review)
State v. Collins, 89 Ohio St.3d 524 (Ohio 2000) (criminal nonsupport requires proof of recklessness)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (circumstantial and direct evidence have equal probative value)
State v. Heinish, 50 Ohio St.3d 231 (Ohio 1990) (circumstantial evidence can sustain conviction when it convinces the average mind beyond a reasonable doubt)
Antill v. State, 176 Ohio St. 61 (Ohio 1964) (trier of fact may believe all, part, or none of a witness's testimony)
State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (Ohio 2007) (trial court best positioned to judge witness credibility)