State v. Schaufele, 2012 Ohio 642

Defendant-appellant Tiffany Schaufele suffers from rheumatoid arthritis treated with narcotics, including Percocet.
She sought Suboxone to curb opioid use but was referred to other physicians; Dr. Kuchynski could not prescribe Suboxone.
Schaufele instead treated with Dr. Sami Moufawad, who prescribed Suboxone and advised against obtaining narcotics from other doctors.
Between April 30, 2009 and June 19, 2009 Schaufele did not consult Dr. Kuchynski; she later obtained a Percocet prescription from Kuchynski on June 19, 2009.
She was indicted May 19, 2010 for deception to obtain a dangerous drug (Oxycodone) under R.C. 2925.22(A) relating to the June 19–21, 2009 period; the case proceeded to a bench trial and she was found guilty; she received two years of community control.
The trial court’s judgment was challenged on three assignments of error, with the appellate court ultimately sustaining the first assignment, reversing, and remanding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to support deception to obtain a dangerous drug	Schaufele contends the State failed to prove deception for the June 19, 2009 prescription	Schaufele argues there is no evidence she deceived anyone to obtain the June 19 prescription	Crim.R. 29 affirmed; evidence insufficient; conviction reversed on sufficiency grounds

State v. Wesemann, 9th Dist. No. 25908, 2012-Ohio-247 (Ninth Dist. 2012) (sufficiency review under Crim.R. 29; standard of review cited by appellate court)
State v. Morris, 9th Dist. No. 25519, 2011-Ohio-6594 (Ninth Dist. 2011) (sufficiency standard; referenced in Crim.R. 29 context)
State v. Debruce, 9th Dist. No. 25574, 2012-Ohio-454 (Ninth Dist. 2012) (sufficiency and evidentiary standards; cited in analysis)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991) (Ohio Supreme Court 1991) (sufficiency review standard for criminal convictions)