State v. Schoeneman, 2017 Ohio 7472

Defendant Charles Schoeneman was charged and convicted in Canton Municipal Court of criminal damaging or endangering (R.C. 2909.06(A)(1)) for removing/altering memorial items from his parents’ grave.
Victim Robin Minor placed a handmade wreath and flowers on the grave for Labor Day; items bore a label stating they were her property and when she would retrieve them.
Robin’s husband, Daniel, videotaped Schoeneman removing a star from the wreath, placing the wreath in a tree and later on another grave, and stomping on the flowers. The video and Daniel’s testimony were played at trial.
Schoeneman argued the video had unexplained gaps, that cemetery rules authorized removal of nonconforming items, and contested witness credibility; he also raised juror- and counsel-related claims.
Trial court admitted a duplicate of the video, denied additional juror inquiry (record corrected to show juror said “no”), and the jury convicted; sentence was 90 days with all but two days suspended. Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by not further questioning a juror who indicated familiarity with a witness	State: Record showed no juror bias; no further inquiry necessary	Schoeneman: Juror knew a witness; failure to inquire denied fair trial	Record corrected to show juror answered “no”; no error found
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not following up on juror’s answer	State: No deficient performance because no juror issue existed	Schoeneman: Counsel failed to investigate potential juror bias	Denied—based on corrected record there was no juror issue
Whether the trial court abused discretion by admitting a duplicate video with gaps	State: Video duplicate accurately depicted what was taped; witness authenticated it	Schoeneman: Gaps undermine authenticity; duplicate should be excluded	Admission upheld; witness testimony and officer’s observation supported authentication
Whether conviction was supported by sufficient evidence / against manifest weight	State: Video and eyewitness testimony established knowingly causing harm to another’s property	Schoeneman: Damage was minimal; cemetery rules meant removal would occur anyway; credibility issues	Conviction affirmed; damage interfered with use/enjoyment and no consent shown; jury credibility determinations respected

State v. Tibbetts, 92 Ohio St.3d 146 (Ohio 2001) (proponent need only supply evidence supporting finding that duplicate is what it is claimed to be; trial court has discretion to admit duplicates)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight review; court of appeals acts as "thirteenth juror" for weight challenges)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency standard: whether reasonable minds could find elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt viewing evidence in the light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (credibility and weight of evidence are for the trier of fact)
Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (trial court has superior opportunity to observe witness demeanor and assess credibility)