State v. Wynn, 2017 Ohio 8045

Shaun Wynn was convicted after a bench trial of domestic violence for allegedly choking and punching his wife, Jennifer, when she arrived to pick up her children.
Jennifer testified they had been married for about seven years, were not living together at the time of the incident, but were "still together." She also said she lived at her mother’s and Wynn stayed with his sister.
At the close of the prosecution’s case Wynn moved for a judgment of acquittal under Crim.R. 29, which the trial court denied; Wynn then testified in his defense, admitting prior cohabitation at some point but denying the assault.
The trial court found Wynn guilty and sentenced him to 180 days in jail.
On appeal Wynn challenged (1) the denial of his Crim.R. 29 motion/sufficiency of the evidence as to the statutory definition of "family or household member" (requiring that a spouse "is residing or has resided with the offender") and (2) that the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding the state presented sufficient evidence (including reasonable inferences from testimony) that the spouse had resided with Wynn; it also rejected the manifest-weight claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Wynn)	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient at close of prosecution to show victim was a "family or household member" (spouse who "is residing or has resided with the offender")	Jennifer’s testimony allows a reasonable inference that she and Wynn had previously resided together during their seven-year marriage	Jennifer’s testimony only showed they were not living together at the time and did not affirmatively show past cohabitation; insufficiency of the state’s case	Affirmed: court found Jennifer’s testimony reasonably supported inference of prior cohabitation and thus sufficiency of evidence (trial court’s Crim.R.29 denial upheld). Concurring judge disagreed on that inference but held any defect was cured because Wynn testified and thereby waived the narrow challenge to the state’s case-in-chief.
Whether conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence	The trial court’s credibility determinations and the evidence support the conviction	Jennifer’s testimony and claimed injuries were not credible; conviction thus against manifest weight	Affirmed: appellate court found no miscarriage of justice; credibility determinations were for the trial court and the record did not show the court lost its way.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review and use of circumstantial evidence)
State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 255 (2006) (Crim.R.29 standard equals sufficiency review)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (credibility determinations are for the trier of fact)
State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 (1978) (reasonable-minds sufficiency rule on acquittal motions)
State v. Guidugli, 157 Ohio App.3d 383 (2004) (discussion of waiver of sufficiency challenge when defendant testifies)