State v. Stovall
2019 Ohio 4287
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On December 2, 2017, Stovall forced entry into his ex-girlfriend’s duplex unit after she told him not to return; she had placed a portable washing machine against the rear door, which was knocked over.
- Stovall grabbed the victim’s phone to prevent her from calling 9-1-1, pulled her by her hair and clothing, dragged her outside, and struck her with an open hand; the victim escaped and officers observed injuries and a disturbed rear entry.
- Stovall was arrested December 15, 2017; between arrest and trial he called the victim hundreds of times and pressured her not to testify.
- A jury convicted Stovall of aggravated burglary (R.C. 2911.11) and robbery (R.C. 2911.02); the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate 11-year prison term.
- On appeal Stovall raised: (1) sufficiency of the evidence / denial of Crim.R. 29 motion; (2) manifest-weight challenge to the verdict; and (3) alleged sentencing errors — restitution was included in the written entry but not announced in open court, and the court imposed various costs without an on-the-record consideration of his present/future ability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Stovall) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of Crim.R. 29 (sufficiency) was proper | Evidence (victim testimony, police observations) was sufficient to prove aggravated burglary and robbery beyond a reasonable doubt | Evidence was insufficient to support convictions | Denial proper; evidence sufficient; convictions affirmed |
| Whether convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence | Victim and officer testimony supported jury verdict; credibility resolved by jury | Jury lost its way given victim’s relationship with defendant and claimed reluctance/inconsistencies | Verdicts not against manifest weight; convictions affirmed |
| Whether restitution and court costs were properly imposed at sentencing | Agreed restitution should be addressed per statutory requirements; costs of prosecution statutory and proper | Restitution was not ordered in open court; court did not consider ability to pay before imposing costs of counsel and confinement | Restitution order vacated and remanded for in‑court pronouncement; costs of counsel and confinement vacated for lack of ability-to-pay consideration; costs of prosecution affirmed per statute |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review — evidence must permit any rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Prescott, 190 Ohio App.3d 702, 943 N.E.2d 1092 (6th Dist. 2010) (standard and approach for manifest-weight review)