State v. Wachee, 2021 Ohio 2683

Wachee and his wife married in 2018; marriage had deteriorated and divorce was discussed.
On May 21, 2019, Wachee discovered his wife engaged in sexual activity with Mylz Reed; she later went to work and returned to the apartment building at 4:18 p.m.
Building key‑fob and surveillance data place Wachee entering the building at 4:35 p.m. and repeatedly coming and going between 6:36 p.m. and 12:23 a.m., sometimes carrying plastic bags.
The victim was found strangled in the foyer the next morning; there was no forced entry. Wright testified Wachee told him he had “choked his wife out” and sought help disposing of the body.
Wachee’s cellphone contained text/call records corroborating the timeline and late‑night Google searches (beginning ~11:38 p.m.) about disposing a body and removing DNA; DNA evidence was inconclusive but a Y‑STR major component from the neck swab could not exclude Wachee.
At a bench trial Wachee was acquitted of aggravated murder but convicted of murder and felonious assault; he appealed on sufficiency and manifest‑weight grounds and the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions	The circumstantial record (key‑fob/surveillance, texts/calls, Wright’s confession, plastic bags, cell searches) proved identity and killing beyond a reasonable doubt	No direct eyewitness or conclusive DNA; witnesses biased/unreliable; phone searches and behavior consistent with grief/processing, not guilt	Evidence viewed in state’s favor was sufficient; circumstantial proof lawful and convincing — conviction upheld
Manifest weight of the evidence	Witness testimony was corroborated by phone records, key‑fob/surveillance, and search history; no miscarriage of justice	Witnesses (Mylz, Wright) lacked credibility; evidence could support alternate inferences	Record does not show the factfinder lost its way; weight of evidence supports convictions — no new trial

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest‑weight review)
State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 739 N.E.2d 749 (2001) (circumstantial evidence carries same weight as direct evidence)
State v. Franklin, 62 Ohio St.3d 118, 580 N.E.2d 1 (1991) (conviction may be sustained on circumstantial evidence alone)
State v. Nicely, 39 Ohio St.3d 147, 529 N.E.2d 1236 (1988) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency principles)
State v. Heinish, 50 Ohio St.3d 231, 553 N.E.2d 1026 (1990) (standard quoted for circumstantial evidence convincing the average mind)
State v. McKnight, 107 Ohio St.3d 101, 837 N.E.2d 315 (2005) (circumstantial evidence test citation)
State v. Tate, 140 Ohio St.3d 442, 19 N.E.3d 888 (2014) (identity of perpetrator may be proved circumstantially)
Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc., 364 U.S. 325 (1960) (circumstantial evidence can be more persuasive than direct evidence)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1983) (standard for granting a new trial on manifest‑weight grounds)