State v. Schneider, 2021 Ohio 653

Background

In January 2017 Schneider’s minor stepdaughter found a hidden camera in the shower; police seized multiple computers, external drives, cameras, and memory cards and recovered videos of the stepdaughter and video fragments of child pornography involving a Russian minor.
Schneider was indicted in two consolidated Athens County cases on numerous counts including pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor, illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, voyeurism, and possession of criminal tools.
After a bench trial the court convicted Schneider on 110 of 111 counts and issued an aggregate eight‑year prison term. Schneider appealed the December 18, 2018 sentencing entry.
On appeal Schneider raised three main challenges: (1) that certain offenses were allied and should have merged under R.C. 2941.25; (2) that evidence was insufficient to support one pandering count based on video fragments found in a swap file/RAM; and (3) that multiple convictions for possessing criminal tools (several items used in concert) were improper.
The appellate court affirmed: it rejected merger claims (finding separate harms/animus and distinct files/angles), found the pandering conviction supported by sufficient circumstantial evidence (active user + other similar materials), and upheld multiple possessing‑criminal‑tools convictions (statute permits separate convictions per item).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by failing to merge allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25	Counts reflect dissimilar import/separate animus and harm (mounting camera vs recording; different files/angles/timestamps) so multiple convictions permitted	Multiple files were from the same single event (camera auto‑saves in increments); offenses are allied and must merge	No error; defendant failed to meet burden to show merger required; separate identifiable harms and separate animus supported multiple convictions
Whether evidence was sufficient to convict on pandering count based on video fragments found in swap file/RAM	Forensic evidence placed child‑porn fragments in a swap file on a partition where Schneider was the active user; together with other similar material and his known possession of videos of the stepdaughter, a rational trier could infer intentional download/knowledge	No evidence that Schneider intentionally obtained, watched, or knew nature of fragments; fragments in RAM/swap can be created without user action; conviction impermissibly stacks inferences	Evidence sufficient; a rational factfinder could infer Schneider downloaded/created and knew the character of the fragments; inference‑stacking did not render the proof insufficient
Whether multiple convictions for possessing criminal tools (several items used in concert) were permitted under R.C. 2923.24(A)	Each item possessed/controlled with the purpose to use it criminally supports a separate conviction	Items were used together; statute wording and rule of lenity favor treating the collection as a single offense	No error; statute criminalizes possession/control of any single substance/device/instrument/article with criminal purpose and does not preclude multiple convictions for separate items

Key Cases Cited

State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (2015) (R.C. 2941.25/allied‑offenses framework: dissimilar import, separate conduct, or separate animus allow multiple punishments)
State v. Martin, 149 Ohio St.3d 292 (2016) (child‑nudity‑oriented material creates a permanent record and distinct harm)
State v. Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12 (2014) (Jackson‑standard for sufficiency review: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
Jenks v. Ohio, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (paragraph two of the syllabus setting Ohio sufficiency test)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (criminal sufficiency standard for conviction)
State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482 (2012) (standard of review de novo for allied‑offenses merger determinations)
State v. Cowans, 87 Ohio St.3d 68 (1999) (limits on permissible inference‑stacking)
State v. Fannon, 117 N.E.3d 10 (2018) (appellate guidance on burden to prove merger and allied‑offenses analysis)