State v. Rosa
2016 Ohio 5282
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Michael Rosa, a Tier III registered sex offender, was required to notify the sheriff of any change of residence at least 20 days before moving and to re-register every 90 days.
- Rosa had been registered at 2225 E. 35th St.; a tip alleged he was living at 1775 E. 31st St. After investigating, police learned Rosa co-signed a lease for the 31st Street property in November 2014 and were told he moved out of the 35th Street address around December 1, 2014.
- Grand jury indicted Rosa for tampering with records (registering an address after moving) and for failing to provide the required notice of an address change under R.C. 2950.05(F)(1).
- At trial Rosa testified he changed his address on January 30, 2015; the State amended the indictment to allege the change occurred between December 1, 2014 and January 30, 2015. Jury acquitted on tampering, convicted on failure-to-notify; court sentenced him to three years.
- Rosa appealed, arguing (1) the court erred by permitting the indictment amendment beyond the grand jury date, (2) the trial court erred denying his Crim.R. 29 motions for insufficiency of evidence, and (3) the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by allowing indictment amendment (narrowing/widening dates) | State: amendment corrected variance with proof and did not change identity of the offense | Rosa: amendment allowed prosecution for acts not presented to the grand jury; changed substance of indictment | Court: no abuse; amendment only broadened timeframe for same offense and defendant was not prejudiced |
| Whether evidence was insufficient (Crim.R. 29) to support failure-to-notify conviction | State: testimony and lease evidence permitted inference Rosa left 35th St. around Dec 1 and failed to provide 20-day notice | Rosa: no proof he was not at 35th St. on Dec 1; only later change shown; Crim.R. 29 should have been granted | Court: evidence viewed in State's favor was sufficient for a rational jury to find offense proven beyond reasonable doubt |
| Whether conviction was against manifest weight of the evidence | State: witness accounts, lease, detective observations supported verdict | Rosa: leased property wasn't ready; detectives did not search 31st St.; tip source questionable; he testified he moved in with his mother on Jan 30 and notified Feb 2 | Court: weighing credibility, jury did not lose its way; conviction not against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vitale, 96 Ohio App.3d 695 (8th Dist. 1994) (amendment that expands timeframe/address can change identity of offense and be improper)
- State v. Sellards, 17 Ohio St.3d 169 (Ohio 1985) (precise dates are ordinarily not essential elements of an offense)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review: evidence must allow any rational trier of fact to find essential elements beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (legal standard for reviewing sufficiency; differentiating sufficiency and manifest weight review)
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist. 1986) (manifest-weight standard: appellate court may reverse only in exceptional cases where jury clearly lost its way)