State v. Wesemann
2012 Ohio 247
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Wesemann and Riccardi had a volatile relationship with two children; Wesemann previously assaulted Riccardi in 2000.
- He stayed with Riccardi in her apartment without being on the lease or having a key, despite Riccardi’s fear and her decision not to ask him to leave.
- On May 22, 2008, Wesemann grabbed Riccardi’s wrist, threw her phone, and threatened family members; he fled when police arrived.
- Riccardi and the children stayed at a hotel for about a week; Wesemann sought access to the apartment, and Riccardi notified police after learning of his actions.
- A grand jury indicted Wesemann for burglary, criminal damaging or endangering, and domestic violence (with two additional DV counts added later; some DV counts were dismissed).
- A jury convicted on all counts except one, and Wesemann was sentenced to three years; on appeal, post-release control issues were remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for convictions | State argues evidence supports all convictions beyond reasonable doubt. | Wesemann contends evidence is insufficient to sustain the convictions. | Convictions supported; sufficient evidence. |
| Substantial similarity of the PA simple assault prior conviction to Ohio DV for elevation | State contends the Pennsylvania simple assault is substantially similar to Ohio DV, justifying elevation. | Wesemann argues the PA offense is not substantially similar to Ohio DV. | Argument rejected; prior conviction properly elevated DV level. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for criminal damaging or endangering | State presented circumstantial and direct evidence of damage to the apartment. | Wesemann asserts the evidence is insufficient to prove damage. | Evidence sufficient to prove criminal damaging beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for burglary | Riccardi testified Wesemann had no permission to enter; items and access during absence supported trespass. | Wesemann challenges elements of trespass, presence, and intent. | Rational trier of fact could find burglary proven beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Morris, 9th Dist. No. 25519, 2011-Ohio-6594 (9th Dist. 2011) (Crim.R. 29 sufficiency standard; light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 1991 (Supreme Court, 1991) (establishes standard for reviewing evidence on appeal)
- State v. Cook, 9th Dist. No. 25573, 2011-Ohio-4391 (9th Dist. 2011) (circumstantial and direct evidence hold equal probative value)
- Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 1997 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997) (sufficiency standard articulated)