State v. Spear, 2017 Ohio 169

Police raided an Akron residence on Nov. 15, 2014, after suspecting a large-scale, clandestine dogfighting event; 47 people were arrested.
Spear was among those arrested; officers recovered $1,496 on his person and the police seized about $52,000 from the scene.
Evidence at the property included a blood-stained, freestanding dogfight ring inside a detached garage, break sticks, buckets, sponges, kennels, injured dogs, and vehicles with kennels.
Two co-defendants (Wynn and Hollis) testified pursuant to plea agreements that fights were held at the residence, admission money was collected, and gambling occurred.
Spear was indicted for dogfighting under R.C. 959.16(A)(5) (and a forfeiture spec. for the cash); the forfeiture spec. was resolved in his favor, but a jury found him guilty of dogfighting.
On appeal Spear argued (1) insufficient evidence to convict and (2) trial-court error in declaring State witness Wynn hostile/adverse and permitting leading questioning.

Issue	State's Argument	Spear's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence under R.C. 959.16(A)(5) (whether Spear knowingly was present at a dogfight)	The evidence (physical scene, injured dogs, cash on persons/ground, crowd behavior, co-defendant testimony, police observation of crowd moving to garage) supports a finding that Spear knowingly was present at a dogfight.	Spear conceded a dogfight occurred but argued there was no proof he paid admission, entered or actually observed the fight, or otherwise knowingly was present.	Affirmed. Viewing evidence in State’s favor, a rational trier of fact could find Spear knowingly present at a dogfight.
Trial court declaring witness hostile/adverse and permitting leading questions (Wynn)	The court may treat co-defendants/testifying cooperator as adverse/hostile under Evid.R. 611(C) and allow leading questions.	The court abused discretion: Wynn had not yet shown hostility; prior hearings in other cases cannot justify hostility finding; Wynn was part of plea agreement and not adverse.	Overruled. Even assuming abuse of discretion, Spear failed to show prejudice from leading questions; the same facts were supported by other evidence.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (discussing standard of review for sufficiency and adequacy of evidence)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (establishing the Jackson/Jenks sufficiency standard: whether any rational trier of fact could find elements beyond a reasonable doubt)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse-of-discretion standard)