State v. Sigman, 2018 Ohio 3850

Jason Sigman and Brett Henry were cutting grass on zero-turn riding mowers; Sigman allowed a four-year-old child to ride on the foot/deck of his mower.
While Sigman made a turn the child was thrown from the deck and his hand went under the mower blade, resulting in amputation.
Sigman and Henry were jointly indicted for child endangering; after trial the jury convicted Sigman but was deadlocked as to Henry.
Sigman moved for acquittal under Crim.R. 29 at the close of the prosecution’s case; the motion was denied and he was later convicted and sentenced.
At trial the state presented testimony that Sigman did not secure the child, knew zero-turn mowers “turn fast,” had direct control of the child that day, and had an ongoing relationship and visitation with the child’s family.
Sigman appealed, arguing insufficiency and manifest-weight error as to the evidence, and that R.C. 2919.22 is unconstitutionally vague.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to convict under R.C. 2919.22(A) (child endangering)	State: evidence shows Sigman had control of the child, breached duty of care by allowing unsecured ride on a twitchy mower, creating substantial risk	Sigman: evidence insufficient to prove he had requisite control or culpable mental state	Held: Evidence sufficient—viewed in prosecution’s favor a rational juror could find elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt
Manifest weight of the evidence	State: witness credibility and physical facts support conviction	Sigman: conviction against manifest weight given contested facts and co-defendant’s deadlock	Held: Not against manifest weight; jury did not lose its way given credibility findings and record evidence
Whether ‘control’ requires in loco parentis or only temporary custody	State: R.C. 2919.22(A) requires only custody/control, which may be temporary	Sigman: argued he was not in loco parentis and lacked sufficient control	Held: Control may be temporary; Sigman had control at the time (child riding on his mower) so element satisfied
Vagueness challenge to R.C. 2919.22(A)	Sigman: statute fails to give fair notice to a person of ordinary intelligence	State: statute has long been construed and upheld; Sigman did not raise it below	Held: Issue forfeited for appeal; in any event statute is not unconstitutionally vague and has been upheld by courts

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for reviewing sufficiency and distinguishing weight of the evidence)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency review: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Sammons, 58 Ohio St.2d 460 (1979) (upholding constitutionality of child endangering statute)