STATE OF OHIO v. DEBORAH CAMPANALIE
C.A. No. 26383
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
August 14, 2013
[Cite as State v. Campanalie, 2013-Ohio-3509.]
CARR, Judge.
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE STOW MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. 2011CRB03401
Dated: August 14, 2013
CARR, Judge.
{1} Appellant, Deborah Campanalie, appeals the judgment of the Stow Municipal Court. This Court affirms.
I.
{2} On November 23, 2011, the Cuyahoga Falls police filed a complaint in Stow Municipal Court charging Campanalie with one count of theft in violation of
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING [DEBORAH‘S] CRIMINAL RULE 29 MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL AS THE STATE FAILED TO PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE CONVICTION.
{4} In her first assignment of error, Campanalie argues that the trial court erred by denying her motion for acquittal because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain her conviction. This Court disagrees.
{5} Campanalie was convicted of theft in violation of
- (1) Withhold property of another permanently, or for a period that appropriates a substantial portion of its value or use, or with purpose to restore it only upon payment of a reward or other consideration;
- (2) Dispose of property so as to make it unlikely that the owner will recover it;
- (3) Accept, use, or appropriate money, property, or services, with purpose not to give proper consideration in return for the money, property, or services, and without reasonable justification or excuse for not giving proper consideration.
{6} At trial, the State presented the testimony of Joani Bеnton, a plain clothes detective who works at Giant Eagle monitoring potential shoplifters, and Rueben Miller, a patrol officer for the Cuyahoga Falls police department. After the State rested its case, Campanalie
{7} Crim.R. 29(A) provides:
The court on motion of a defendant or on its own motion, after the evidence on either side is closed, shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment, information, or complaint, if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses. The court may not reserve ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the state‘s case.
{8} A review of the sufficiency of the State‘s evidence and the manifest weight of the evidence adduced at trial are separate and legally distinct determinations. State v. Gulley, 9th Dist. Summit No. 19600, 2000 WL 277908 (Mar. 15, 2000). When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must review the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether the evidence before the trial court was sufficient to sustain a conviction. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 279 (1991).
An appellate court‘s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to suppоrt a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.
{10} Benton found the two women together outside the store. Benton testified that the women were “side by side” and she stopped them as they were making their way toward the parking lot. When Benton identified herself as security, one of the women said they went outside to retrieve some money so that they could go back into the store and pay for the food. In
{11} Officer Rueben Miller also testified on behalf of the State at trial. As part of his patrol duties, Officer Miller responds to shoplifting calls from the Giant Eagle in Cuyahoga Falls, and he responded to the call in this case. Officer Miller met Benton, Campanalie, and Ramsey in the conference room. Officer Miller spoke with the defendants in order to get their identification information, but he did not interrogate them regarding the theft. When asked if any comments were made by the defendants, Officer Miller testified that one of the women said they were picking up the turkeys because their dog was on a special diet. Officer Miller then spoke with Benton regarding the allegations. After Benton signed the complaint, Officer Miller left the store.
{12} The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to survive Campanalie‘s motion for acquittal. Upon entering the store, Campanalie and Ramsey immediately made their way to the frozen foods section where each selected turkeys from the case and placed them in the motorized cart. After subsequently securing a pound of lunchmeat from the deli, the women promptly exited the store without paying for the items they had placed in the cart. Ramsey did not leave her motоrized cart inside store as mandated by store policy, and Benton stopped the women as they were “side by side” on their way to the parking lot. Benton specifically testified that the women went nowhere near the cash registers before exiting the store, nor did they give any indication that they intended to pay for the items prior to the time they were stopped outside the store. This evidence, when construed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to
{13} The first assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{14} In her second assignment of error, Campanalie argues that her theft conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. This Court disagrees.
{15} Unlike an analysis of whether the State met its burden of production, a determination of whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence does not permit this Court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine whether the State has mеt its burden of persuasion. State v. Love, 9th Dist. Summit No. 21654, 2004-Ohio-1422, ¶ 11. Rather,
an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justicе that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.1986).
Weight of the evidence concerns the tendency of a greater amount of credible evidence to support one side of the issue more than the other. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997). Further, when reversing a conviction on the basis that it was against the manifest weight of the evidence, an аppellate court sits as a “thirteenth juror,” and disagrees with the factfinder‘s resolution of the conflicting testimony. Id.
State v. Tucker, 9th Dist. Medina No. 06CA0035-M, 2006-Ohio-6914, ¶ 5.
{16} This discretionary power should be exercised only in exceptional cases where the evidence presented weighs heavily in favor of the defendant and against conviction. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387.
{18} In regard to her recollection of the events that transpired at Walmart prior to her trip to Giant Eagle, Campanalie testified that she has severe ADD and ADHD and that she had lost her medicine at the time of the incident. Campanalie testified that she is easily distracted when she is not on her medication, stating “It‘s just like I‘ll start doing something, stop doing it, [and] start doing something else.” Campanalie remembered looking over and noticing that her purse was gone. Campanalie recollected feeling “frozen” when she noticed her purse was gone. Campanalie testified that she still had not made sense of what happened to her purse, and that she remembered “staring at my cart and some woman [] coming toward me with my purse.”
{19} After Campanalie purchased several items at Walmart, she rode with Ramsey to Giant Eagle to take advantage of the turkey sаle. When asked how she knew that turkeys were on sale, Campanalie responded, “I think one of my neighbors told me because everybody in the complex around me knows about my dog.” Campanalie testified that upon entering the store, she walked ahead to check and see if there were any sales in the cat food aislе while Ramsey was getting a motorized cart. Campanalie indicated that she did not walk with Ramsey because “the
{20} In regard to what happened prior to exiting the store, Campanalie explained, “I started fumbling through my purse and I was like oh, my God, they took my card, they took my card. And I stаrt yelling. * * * And I thought I checked it, but I‘m like thinking, okay, maybe I didn‘t check it because I questioned myself, especially when I‘m not on my medication. And I thought oh, my God. And I couldn‘t find it.” Campanalie continued, “I was telling Lisa we got to get out of here, we got to get out of here. They must have taken my card. We‘ve got to go. So I said we‘ve got to come back so I grаbbed an ad and she went ahead” Campanalie explained that she stopped to pick up an ad on her way out of the store to remind herself that the turkeys were on sale. Campanalie testified that as she was stopped exiting the store, she did not immediately realize what was going on. As Campanalie started to scream at Ramsey urging her to find her debit card, Benton informed Campanalie that her debit card was in her hand. When asked if the card was in her hand the entire time, Campanalie responded, “It was in my hand.” Campanalie further indicated that she was “kind of confused” but she did offer to pay for the food.
{21} After a careful review of the record, this Court сannot conclude that the trier of fact created a manifest miscarriage of justice when it convicted Campanalie of theft. It is evident from the record that conflicting testimony was presented at trial. The State presented testimony demonstrating that Campanalie and Ramsey methodically moved through the store together and then exited without going anywhere near the cash register to pay for Campanalie‘s items.
{22} The second assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{23} Campanalie‘s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Stow Municipal Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Stow Municipal Court, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
Costs taxed to Appellant.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
MOORE, P. J.
WHITMORE, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
MARTHA HOM, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
JOHN CHAPMAN, Assistant City Prosecutor, for Appellee.