State v. Pineda, 2021 Ohio 1540

Consolidated appeals from Ashtabula C.P. Court: Case No. 2018 CR 00668 (sexual imposition) and Case No. 2018 CR 00733 (domestic violence and obstructing official business).
Sexual-imposition facts: babysitter Tina Cowell testified Pineda, intoxicated, sat next to her on a couch, touched her breast, and made sexual remarks; Cowell texted and Ms. Fink (victim) called the sheriff; deputies arrested Pineda at the scene.
Domestic-violence facts: Ms. Fink testified Pineda choked her for an extended period, tore her clothes, pulled hair, forced sexual acts, and she later reported injuries; deputies found Pineda intoxicated and resisted arrest, requiring taser use.
Procedural outcomes: juries convicted Pineda of sexual imposition (misdemeanor), obstructing official business (felony fifth degree), and domestic violence (misdemeanor); acquitted on rape, kidnapping, and resisting-counts in the second case.
Sentencing: concurrent terms (12 months prison for obstructing; 6 months jail for domestic violence; 60 days for sexual imposition) and Tier I sex-offender classification for the sexual-imposition conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.06)	State: testimony of victim plus corroborating "slight circumstances" (texts, phone call to sheriff, dispatch) satisfy R.C. 2907.06(B).	Pineda: conviction rested solely on victim testimony; no independent corroboration as required by statute.	Court: Affirmed sufficiency — Economo standard (slight circumstances suffice) met by texts, calls, and dispatch.
Sufficiency of evidence for obstructing official business (R.C. 2921.31)	State: deputies’ testimony showed Pineda fought, reached under bedding, was tased 3 times, delayed arrest, and created a risk of physical harm.	Pineda: contested that acts were non-affirmative refusal/brief and did not show purposeful hindrance or risk to officers.	Court: Affirmed — found affirmative acts, purposeful resistance, hampering of officers, and creation of risk of physical harm (tasing, scuffle).
Sufficiency of evidence for domestic violence (R.C. 2919.25)	State: testimony, photos of injuries, and Pineda’s admissions (interview) established he knowingly caused physical harm.	Pineda: argued intoxication and claim he was dreaming/blackout so lacked the requisite mental state.	Court: Affirmed — evidence supports that Pineda was aware his conduct would probably cause harm (knowingly); voluntary intoxication irrelevant.

State v. Economo, 76 Ohio St.3d 56 (Ohio 1996) (corroboration for sexual-imposition conviction need only be slight circumstances)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Richardson, 150 Ohio St.3d 554 (Ohio 2016) (reviewing evidence requires examination of elements and state’s proofs)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (trial court is primary trier of witness credibility)
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1982) (appellate court as thirteenth juror on manifest-weight review)
State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (Ohio 2007) (explains weight-of-evidence inquiry)
State v. Gordon, 95 N.E.3d 994 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017) (attempt to flee or brief scuffle can suffice to show hampering of officers)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (new-trial-on-weight grounds reserved for exceptional cases)