State v. Roy, 2014 Ohio 4587

Defendant Francis O. Roy convicted of one count of Non‑Support of Dependents (R.C. 2919.21) after a jury trial in Franklin County Court of Common Pleas; appeal to the Tenth District affirmed.
Roy has prior non‑support convictions and professional background as a physician and military service; he does not dispute underpayment but asserted an affirmative defense that he lacked the ability to pay.
Evidence showed minimal payments over the indictment period: zero payments in 4 of 14 months and only $10–$25 in 7 months.
Prosecution impeached Roy with an unauthenticated employer termination form indicating "job abandonment;" defense did not object at trial but elicited Roy’s denial and argued the form was unauthenticated.
Jury asked for the termination form during deliberations; court informed them only admitted exhibits were provided, indicating the form was not admitted.
Trial counsel’s tactical choice not to object was raised as ineffective assistance; court analyzed Strickland prejudice and found none given the overall evidence against Roy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to convict of non‑support	State: proved essential elements; Roy underpaid as alleged	Roy: affirmative defense — inability to pay due to employment problems	Affirmed: viewed in light most favorable to prosecution, evidence sufficient (Jenks standard)
Motion for acquittal under Crim.R. 29	State: evidence sufficient; Crim.R. 29 tests sufficiency	Roy: trial court erred denying the motion	Affirmed: Crim.R. 29 review equals sufficiency review; denial proper
Manifest weight of the evidence	State: testimonial and documentary evidence supported jury verdict	Roy: jury should have credited his testimony that he paid what he could	Affirmed: no miscarriage of justice; credibility determinations for jury (Thompkins/DeHass)
Ineffective assistance for failing to object to unauthenticated employer letter	State: document used to impeach credibility; counsel had tactical reasons	Roy: failure to object fell below reasonable standard and prejudiced outcome	Affirmed: Strickland prejudice prong not met; no reasonable probability of different outcome

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sufficiency standard: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (manifest‑weight review and role of appellate court as "thirteenth juror")
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard requiring prejudice)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (ineffective assistance framework under Ohio law)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (deference to jury on witness credibility)
Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (limits of appellate record for Strickland review)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (plain error standard under Crim.R. 52(B))
State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 (distinction between sufficiency review and consideration of affirmative defenses)
State v. Gillard, 40 Ohio St.3d 226 (cross‑examiner may ask questions based on good‑faith factual predicate)