State v. Simes, 2016 Ohio 7300

Laura Simes and her boyfriend, Ronald Towns, had a physical altercation on May 4, 2015; Towns suffered a puncture wound to his abdomen.
Before first responders arrived, Simes took the knife used in the injury and threw it into brush in a front yard a few houses away.
Simes initially told officers Towns had fallen and cut himself on glass, then later admitted a knife was involved and led officers to its location.
A grand jury indicted Simes for felonious assault (two counts), domestic violence, and tampering with evidence; the jury acquitted on the assault and domestic violence counts and convicted only on tampering with evidence (R.C. 2921.12(A)(1)).
Simes was sentenced to two years of community control; she appealed claiming insufficient evidence, manifest weight error, and that the trial court erred by refusing a duress jury instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: Did the state prove Simes acted "purposely" to impair evidence?	State: Evidence (Simes throwing knife into brush and initial false statements) permits inference of purposeful concealment to impair investigation.	Simes: She may have moved the knife but helped officers find it; no proof she acted with purpose to impair evidence.	Affirmed — viewing evidence in state’s favor, a rational juror could find purpose to impair availability.
Manifest weight: Did the conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence?	State: Witness statements, physical evidence, and timeline justify the jury’s credibility choices.	Simes: Knife was only out of scene briefly; she cooperated and moved it under Towns’s instruction; testimony conflicted.	Affirmed — credibility issues were for jury; this is not the exceptional case to overturn verdict.
Duress instruction: Should the jury have been instructed on duress?	Simes: Towns threatened her and had history of abuse; his command to remove the knife supports duress.	State: No evidence of an immediate, continuous threat preventing safe withdrawal; facts do not meet duress elements.	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; duress instruction not warranted as matter of law.

State v. Straley, 11 N.E.3d 1175 (Ohio 2014) (defines elements of tampering with evidence under R.C. 2921.12(A)(1))
State v. Hancock, 840 N.E.2d 1032 (Ohio 2006) (affirmative defenses do not negate sufficiency of prosecution’s proof)
State v. Thompkins, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (standard for sufficiency and manifest weight review)
State v. Getsy, 702 N.E.2d 866 (Ohio 1998) (duress recognized as affirmative defense but narrowly applied)
State v. Cross, 391 N.E.2d 319 (Ohio 1979) (duress requires immediate, imminent threat and inability to safely withdraw)
State v. Good, 165 N.E.2d 28 (Ohio App. 1960) (duress requires force controlling the actor’s will during the entire act)