State v. Roulette, 2011 Ohio 6993

Roulette was convicted by a Scioto County jury of two felonies and two misdemeanors related to an extortion/abuse incident involving Mary Helmick on June 9, 2009.
Mary Helmick and two co-participants, Martin and Husted, were involved after a Columbus trip for crack cocaine.
Roulette threatened $600 and violent acts to obtain money from Ed Helmick, Mary’s father.
Police arranged Ed’s payoff至 in a Wal-Mart parking lot; Roulette and others were arrested when approached.
The trial court ruled some photographs of Mary inadmissible as a discovery sanction, then allowed review during jury deliberations after consent by Roulette’s counsel.
The jury found Roulette not guilty of kidnapping and aggravated robbery, but guilty of extortion, assault, robbery, and attempted theft; the trial court entered judgment, with errors in the judgment entry later identified and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility ruling during deliberations	Roulette argues the court lacked authority to revisit its ruling.	Roulette contends revisiting a prior ruling after deliberations violated R.C. 2945.35 and jurisdiction.	Not reversible; court acted within discretion and Roulette invited the error.
Sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence	State contends there was substantial evidence supporting each conviction.	Roulette claims the evidence was insufficient and/or the verdict against the weight of the evidence.	Convictions supported by substantial evidence; not against the manifest weight; thus sufficient evidence.

State v. Ahmed, 103 Ohio St.3d 27 (2004-Ohio-4190) (admissibility and the trial court’s discretion over evidentiary rulings)
State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (1987) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (definition of abuse of discretion and discretionary rulings)
State v. Callahan, (unpublished) (2000) (illustrative on reconsideration of rulings during deliberations)
Henry v. U.S., 204 F.2d 817 (6th Cir. 1953) (discretionary latitude in reconsidering evidentiary rulings)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (credibility and weight of witness testimony primarily for the jury)
State v. Eskridge, 38 Ohio St.3d 56 (1988) (manifest weight vs. sufficiency standard differences)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review (Jackson v. Virginia))
State v. Lombardi, 11 N.E.3d - (example) (2005-Ohio-4942) (relationship between weight and sufficiency)
State v. Graven, 52 Ohio St.2d 112 (1977) (exclusion of evidence not admitted; deliberation context)
State v. Smith, 2007-Ohio-502 (Pickaway App. 2007) (standard for sufficiency reviewing evidence)