State v. Rini, 2013 Ohio 745

Rini was indicted in September 2011 for trafficking heroin in the vicinity of a juvenile, a fourth‑degree felony.
The case proceeded to a bench trial, resulting in an 18‑month prison sentence.
Undercover agents arranged a heroin purchase from Neuendorff; she was downstairs in a duplex where Rini lived downstairs.
During the transaction, Neuendorff’s children (ages 5 and 6) were in the residence and acknowledged by Rini.
Agent Bors provided money to Neuendorff; a hand‑to‑hand exchange occurred between Neuendorff and Rini, with four bindles of heroin later recovered.
Video and audio surveillance, plus phone calls, were admitted as evidence at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	Rini argues Crim.R. 29 should have been granted due to insufficient evidence.	Rini contends the state failed to prove sale of heroin in the vicinity of a juvenile.	Evidence sufficient to support conviction
Admissibility of hearsay	Rini challenges hearsay statements/video from Neuendorff and the informant, violating evidentiary rules.	State asserts admissible or invited error, with cross‑examination and nonprejudicial impact.	No plain error; admission not outcome‑determinative
Manifest weight of the evidence	Rini claims conviction was against the manifest weight given the inability to observe the exact hand‑to‑hand transfer.	Rini argues weight of evidence undermines guilt given alternative explanations.	Conviction not against the manifest weight
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed to object to hearsay and other evidentiary issues; questions challenged conduct.	Counsel strategy and lack of prejudice negate ineffectiveness claim.	No ineffectiveness established; strategy apparent; no prejudicial impact
Post‑release control notice at sentencing	Court failed to notify about post‑release control as required by law.	Not applicable beyond error; remand for proper notification is needed.	Error recognized; remand for post‑release control determination

State v. Frashuer, 9th Dist. No. 24769, 2010–Ohio–634 (9th Dist. 2010) (sufficiency standard for Crim.R. 29 review)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 273 (1991) (Ohio Supreme Court 1991) (sufficiency review requires viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Denny, 9th Dist. No. 08CA0051, 2009-Ohio-3925 (9th Dist. 2009) (consideration of all evidence in evaluating sufficiency)
State v. Hardges, 9th Dist. No. 24175, 2008-Ohio-5567 (9th Dist. 2008) (plain error standard for evidentiary claims)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002) (Ohio Supreme Court 2002) (plain error and impact on outcome considerations)
State v. Mundt, 115 Ohio St.3d 22, 2007–Ohio–4836 (Ohio Supreme Court 2007) (ineffective assistance framework (Strickland))
State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 490 (2001) (Ohio Supreme Court 2001) (trial strategy respect in evaluating counsel decisions)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (two‑step review of felony sentencing)
State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499, 2012-Ohio-1111 (Ohio Supreme Court 2012) (postrelease control notice requirements at sentencing)
State v. Hood, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-6208 (Ohio Supreme Court 2012) (Crawford considerations and witness availability)
State v. Armstrong, 152 Ohio App.3d 579, 2003-Ohio-2154 (9th Dist. 2003) (invited error and trial strategy on cross‑examination)