State v. Rodano, 2017 Ohio 1034

On November 7, 2013, five weeks after obtaining homeowner insurance, a fire heavily damaged Dale Rodano’s Parma residence; neighbor Scott Thom’s house also suffered heat damage.
Rodano claimed a pet knocked over a candle while he slept, starting the fire.
ATF Agent Joanna Lambert initially classified the fire as incendiary but later revised her conclusion to "undetermined"; the State Fire Marshal maintained an incendiary finding but did not testify.
Three witnesses (an acquaintance, Rodano’s girlfriend, and his brother) testified that Rodano had previously discussed burning his house for insurance and referenced the same candle scenario; defense witnesses, including an arson expert, concluded the cause was undetermined.
A grand jury indicted Rodano on four counts of aggravated arson and one count of insurance fraud; one arson count was later dismissed, and a jury convicted him of three counts of aggravated arson and one count of insurance fraud.
Rodano appealed, raising (1) a grand-jury-independence challenge based on the investigator’s later report change and (2) insufficiency of the evidence for the arson convictions; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Rodano)	Held
Whether indictment was invalid because grand jury relied on agent’s initial report later changed to "undetermined"	Grand jury lawfully considered the evidence available at the time; trial tests the evidence	Indictment was tainted/unbiased independence compromised because the agent’s later, less inculpatory report was not presented	Court rejected claim; no fundamental unfairness or prejudice; plain-error review failed
Sufficiency of evidence to convict as to defendant’s own residence (Count 1)	Circumstantial evidence (prior statements about burning house, timing of new policy, inflated claims, witness corroboration) supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt	State’s expert could not conclusively call the fire incendiary; therefore insufficient proof of arson	Court held evidence sufficient; circumstantial proof permitted conviction
Sufficiency of evidence as to neighbor’s property/harm risk (Counts 2 & 3)	Photographs, proximity of houses, melted siding, and defendant’s conduct permit inference he "knowingly" created risk/caused harm	No direct proof defendant intended or knew fire would spread to neighbor	Court held evidence sufficient to infer knowledge and risk; convictions sustained

Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (1956) (an indictment by a legally constituted grand jury that is facially valid calls for trial; indictment is not proof of guilt)
United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974) (grand jury’s roles include probable-cause determination and protection against unfounded prosecutions)
United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992) (grand jury assesses adequacy of basis for charges; not a guilt determination)
United States v. Short, 671 F.2d 178 (6th Cir. 1982) (prosecution’s evidence is tested at trial, not in grand jury proceedings)
Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1988) (supervisory review of grand jury limited to preventing fundamental unfairness)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review: whether reasonable juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460 (2000) (circumstantial evidence has equal probative value to direct evidence)
Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc., 364 U.S. 325 (1960) (circumstantial evidence may be more satisfying than direct evidence)