State v. Whitt, 2018 Ohio 1257

On Aug. 5, 2016, Daniel Whitt, covered in blood and acting erratically, forcefully banged on the doors and windows of the Bowling residence at night while occupants (including grandchildren) were present.
The Bowlings feared Whitt was armed and harmed; they locked doors, called 911, and observed property damage (broken ashtray, broken porch furniture, blood trails).
Responding deputies found Whitt jittery, talkative, and admitted to ingesting methamphetamine; he said he cut himself on an ashtray he had taken from an apartment complex.
Whitt was indicted on attempted trespass into a habitation (R.C. 2911.12(B) / attempt statute) and criminal damaging (R.C. 2909.06(A)(1)).
A jury convicted Whitt of both counts; the trial court sentenced him to 11 months imprisonment (to run consecutively to another term).
On appeal Whitt argued the convictions were based on insufficient evidence/against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the jury instruction on “force” was structurally defective.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency/manifest weight of evidence for attempted trespass	State: evidence shows Whitt violently banged on doors/windows while occupants were present and acted threateningly; his meth use corroborated dangerous conduct	Whitt: he sought help, not to force entry or threaten — conduct was to obtain aid, not to commit trespass	Court: conviction upheld — evidence supports attempt (substantial step by force) and verdict not against manifest weight
Sufficiency/manifest weight of evidence for criminal damaging	State: testimony and photos showed property damage and blood trail consistent with damage caused by Whitt	Whitt: did not meaningfully contest damaging facts in brief; implied damage incidental to seeking help	Court: conviction upheld — property damage proved and jury credibility determinations reserved to trier of fact
Jury instruction on "force" / structural error	State: instruction followed R.C. 2901.01(A)(1) and appropriate	Whitt: instruction improperly defined force and constituted structural error	Court: no structural error — instruction proper and not prejudicial

State v. Group, 98 Ohio St.3d 248 (2002) (defines when conduct constitutes a "substantial step" strongly corroborative of criminal purpose)
State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191 (2001) (discusses structural error and when harmless-error review is obviated)
State v. Lane, 50 Ohio App.2d 41 (10th Dist. 1976) (approves statutory definition of "force" used in jury instructions)