STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- RANDY LEE DOWDLE, Defendant-Appellant
Case No. 2015CA00119
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
February 9, 2016
2016-Ohio-485
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J., Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J., Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2014CR2111. JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED.
For Plaintiff-Appellee: JOHN D. FERRERO, JR., STARK CO. PROSECUTOR, RENEE M. WATSON, 110 Central Plaza South, Ste. 5110, Canton, OH 44702-1413
For Defendant-Appellant: RODNEY A. BACA, 610 Market Ave. N., Canton, OH 44702
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Appellant Randy Lee Dowdle appeals from the June 9, 2015 Judgment Entry of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas convicting and sentencing him upon one count of breaking and entering. Appellee is the state of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} Appellant is a member and longtime patron of the Slovak Home Club, a bar and party hall in Canton, Ohio. Members of the Club use a swipe card to enter a locked main entrance. Appellant‘s home is a very short walking distance from the Club. Nancy is the manager of the Club, and Brenda and Erica are employees there. All three women are very familiar with appellant and have frequently served him in the Club; appellant comes in at least two or three times a week.
{¶3} On Friday, December 5, 2014, all three women were at the Club at various times during the day and evening. Nancy was working and Brenda and Erica were decorating the hall for a party. There were about 25 or 30 patrons in the Club throughout the afternoon and evening. All three women noticed appellant in the Club that day; he arrived around 2:30 p.m. All three women saw appellant drinking throughout the afternoon and playing the Club‘s “Puzzle Bug” machine, a tabletop video “skills game.”1 None of the women saw appellant leave the Club that evening, although Erica saw him heading in the direction of the restroom around 10:00 p.m. and assumed he was leaving.
{¶5} The next day, around 2:30 p.m., Nancy returned to the Club to unlock and open up. She found the door already unlocked. When she entered the Club, she discovered the Puzzle Bug machine was missing. She called Erica and asked whether she had been to the Club because it appeared there had been a break-in. Erica had not yet been to the Club that day.
{¶6} The Slovak Home Club has a number of security cameras in place that record 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Recorded areas include the bar inside, the outside of the Club, and the stairwell leading to the main entrance. The area where the Puzzle Bug was kept is not covered by the cameras. Upon discovering the break-in, Nancy, Erica, and Brenda viewed the videotape of the afternoon and evening of December 5, 2014. On the tape, all three women observed appellant arrive at the Club around 2:30 in the afternoon; the tape also showed appellant helping the Club‘s “beer rep” bring in a delivery that afternoon. The tape never showed appellant leave the Club, however. At 11:23 p.m., the tape showed Nancy, Brenda, and Brenda‘s son leaving the Club and locking up. Then, at 12:02 a.m., the tape reveals someone still inside the Club.
{¶7} The tape showed a person come up from the bar area, unlock the door, come back down, and then walk out the door carrying the Puzzle Bug machine. Nancy, Erica, and Brenda unequivocally identified the person on the tape as appellant: he wore
{¶8} After the theft was discovered, Erica called appellant and told him the Club only wanted the machine back, no questions asked. Appellant said he had no idea what she was talking about. Nancy also confronted appellant at a restaurant and he denied taking the machine.
{¶9} Detective Pierson of the Canton Police Department took a report on December 8, 2014, and took the Club‘s videotape into evidence. At trial, Pierson identified appellant as the person on the video who walks out of the Club with the machine.
{¶10} Appellant testified on his own behalf and claimed he arrived at the Club around 3:30, drank and played the Puzzle Bug for about two hours, and left the Club around 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. He claimed he never returned to the Club that day. He identified himself on the video arriving at the Club and had no explanation why the tape never showed him leave. He denied being the person on the video seen in the Club after it was closed and carrying the Puzzle Bug machine out the main entrance. He said he couldn‘t have carried the machine because at the time of the break-in he was recovering from a broken foot. Appellant also testified his home was searched and law enforcement did not find the machine, although it was unclear whether law enforcement entered his home on an arrest or search warrant and whether a search warrant was ever executed.
{¶11} Appellant was charged by indictment with one count of breaking and entering pursuant to
{¶12} Appellant now appeals from the judgment entry of his conviction and sentence.
{¶13} Appellant raises one assignment of error:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶14} “I. THE CONVICTIONS OF THE TRIAL COURT ARE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW TO PROVE THE CONVICTION BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.”
ANALYSIS
{¶15} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues his conviction upon one count of breaking and entering is against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence. We disagree.
{¶16} The legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence are both quantitatively and qualitatively different. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541, paragraph two of the syllabus. The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is set forth in State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991) at paragraph two of the syllabus, in which the Ohio Supreme Court held, “An appellate court‘s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support 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
{¶17} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the court of appeals functions as the “thirteenth juror,” and after “reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be overturned and a new trial ordered.” State v. Thompkins, supra, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387. Reversing a conviction as being against the manifest weight of the evidence and ordering a new trial should be reserved for only the “exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” Id.
{¶18} Appellant was convicted upon one count of breaking and entering pursuant to
{¶19} Appellant argues the finder of fact should have afforded his testimony greater weight than that of the three Club employees, the detective, and the videotape the jurors viewed themselves. The weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are determined by the trier of fact. State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227, 231, 2002-Ohio-2126, 767 N.E.2d 216, ¶ 79. Appellant has not presented any reason why the
{¶20} Appellant‘s conviction of breaking and entering is supported by sufficient evidence and this is not the “exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against [appellant‘s] conviction.”
{¶21} Appellant‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶22} Appellant‘s sole assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Delaney, J. and
Hoffman, P.J.
Baldwin, J., concur.