State v. Roseberry, 197 Ohio App. 3d 256

Roseberry was convicted in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas after a court trial on counts including breaking and entering, theft, weapons while under disability, and receiving stolen property, with several firearm and forfeiture specifications.
Adams, the domestic violence victim, testified Roseberry had previously dated her and gained entry to her home using a key after their relationship ended; he broke a window to gain access in July 2010.
A handgun found in Adams’s home was later identified as stolen property; Adams testified she did not own the gun and that Roseberry had possessed it at the time of entry.
Text messages between Adams and Roseberry, presented via a handwritten transcription and later photographs, were admitted at trial over objections and used to support the State’s theory of breaking and entering and theft.
The trial court acquitted Roseberry of aggravated burglary and kidnapping and convicted him of the lesser offense of breaking and entering, along with weapons under disability and receiving stolen property; a new trial was later ordered for the breaking and entering and theft charges due to evidentiary errors.
On appeal, the court affirmed some convictions, reversed others, and remanded for a new trial on the breaking and entering and theft charges; the manifest weight challenge was resolved as to non-reversed counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for B&E and theft	Roseberry challenges sufficiency of proof for B&E and theft.	Roseberry contends the State failed to prove intent and theft elements beyond a reasonable doubt.	Sufficient evidence supported B&E and theft.
Admissibility of text messages (exhibits 11–14) as evidence of the offenses	State relied on text-message exhibits to prove intent and theft.	Exhibits 11–14 were hearsay and improperly admitted.	Exhibits 11–14 were improperly admitted; new trial ordered on B&E and theft.
Admissibility of handwritten text-message transcription and authentication	Handwritten transcription admissible under Evid.R. 803(5) and authentication satisfactory.	Transcription/authentication flawed; improper display of messages.	Handwritten transcription of texts read in court and authentication were proper; no reversible error noted for those portions.
Manifest weight of the evidence for remaining convictions (weapons under disability, receiving stolen property)	Weight of the evidence supports conviction for all assigned offenses.	Weight challenged as to some convictions.	Convictions for weapons under disability and receiving stolen property not against the manifest weight; remanded only for new trial on B&E and theft.

State v. Flowers, 16 Ohio App.3d 313 (1984) (circumstantial evidence supports intent to theft in breaking and entering context)
State v. McKnight, 107 Ohio St.3d 101 (2005) (circumstantial proof carries equal weight to direct evidence)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (reasonable juror could convict based on evidence viewed in light most favorable to the prosecution)
Dayton v. Combs, 94 Ohio App.3d 291 (1993) (laid out requirements for recorded recollections under Evid.R. 803(5))
State v. Hannah, 54 Ohio St.2d 84 (1978) (photographs may authenticate as fair and accurate depictions of subjects)
State v. Craycraft, 2010-Ohio-596 (Ohio) (authentication threshold for evidence under Evid.R. 901 is minimal)
State v. DeMarco, 31 Ohio St.3d 191 (1987) (hearsay foundations and exceptions in criminal trial contexts)