State v. Sherman, 2021 Ohio 4532

July 2019 indictment charging Sherman with attempted burglary (fel. 3), aggravated arson (fel. 2), and menacing by stalking (fel. 4); jury convicted and court imposed an aggregate prison term of 10 to 13.5 years.
Victim T.J. testified to a volatile on/off relationship, threats by Sherman (including threats to "make [her] unrecognizable" and to set fires), and a civil protection order that lapsed.
After Sherman’s release from custody in June 2019 he made repeated calls (up to 125 in a day) and came to T.J.’s residence with a red gas can, threatening arson.
In the early morning of July 11, 2019 T.J. heard banging and doorknob jingling, smelled gasoline, and observed Sherman on the porch; the front door and doormat were burned and canine and lab tests detected gasoline; investigators concluded the fire was intentionally set.
The state admitted over objection a jailhouse letter in which Sherman solicited violence against T.J.; the court gave a limiting instruction that the letter could be considered for identity and consciousness of guilt.
Sherman moved for acquittal under Crim.R. 29 and appealed, raising (1) Evid.R. 403 unfair prejudice from the letter, (2) insufficiency of evidence for each charge, and (3) manifest-weight attack; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of jailhouse letter under Evid.R. 403	Letter is relevant to identity and consciousness of guilt and its probative value outweighs prejudice	Letter is inflammatory and unfairly prejudicial; should be excluded	Admitted: probative for identity and witness tampering; limiting instruction mitigated prejudice; no abuse of discretion
Sufficiency: Attempted burglary (R.C. 2923.02/2911.12)	Evidence shows forceful attempt to enter (banging, doorknob jingling) and intent inferred from threats and use of gasoline	No proof defendant attempted entry with intent to commit a crime inside	Sufficient evidence to support conviction; Crim.R. 29 denial affirmed
Sufficiency: Aggravated arson (R.C. 2909.02)	Physical evidence of burning, canine and lab detection of gasoline, and circumstantial proof of knowing act	Evidence was weak circumstantially, insufficient to prove defendant caused the fire knowingly	Sufficient evidence to support conviction; Crim.R. 29 denial affirmed
Sufficiency: Menacing by stalking (R.C. 2903.211)	Pattern of conduct (repeated calls, threats, in-person confrontations) and the arson supported the felony stalking charge	Evidence too weak; victim not credible; lack of corroboration	Sufficient evidence to support conviction; Crim.R. 29 denial affirmed

State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49 (2001) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings and relevance)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion definition)
State v. Crotts, 104 Ohio St.3d 432 (2004) (unfair prejudice versus probative value under Evid.R. 403)
Oberlin v. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr., 91 Ohio St.3d 169 (2001) (clarifying unfair prejudice concept)
State v. Gordon, 152 Ohio St.3d 528 (2018) (admissibility of evidence showing efforts to prevent witness testimony as consciousness of guilt)
State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412 (2006) (consciousness of guilt precedent)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)
State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 255 (2006) (sufficiency review framework)
State v. Group, 98 Ohio St.3d 248 (2002) (definition of criminal attempt and substantial-step test)
State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49 (1995) (intent inferred from circumstances)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (deference to trier of fact on credibility)
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982) (appellate court as thirteenth juror in manifest-weight review)