FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 2014 11 3501 (Z)
APPEARANCES: SHUBHRA N. AGARWAL, Attorney at Law, for
BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
JENNIFER HENSAL JUDGE.
Defendant-Appellant, Angelo McCoy, appeals from his
conviction in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This
On the evening of November 15, 2014, multiple law enforcement
agencies conducted a raid at a home in Akron. The raid
occurred because the police suspected that a large scale,
illegal dogfight was set to occur on the property. As a
result of the raid, the police arrested more than 45
individuals in connection with dogfighting. Mr. McCoy was one
of the individuals whom the police arrested. At the time of
his arrest, he had $436 in cash on his person.
A grand jury indicted Mr. McCoy on one count of dogfighting,
in violation of Revised Code Section 959.16(A)(5), as well as
a criminal forfeiture specification for the $436 in cash. Mr.
McCoy ultimately went to trial along with another of his
co-defendants. The jury found him guilty of dogfighting, but
the court dismissed the forfeiture specification linked to
that count. The court sentenced him to serve 180 days in jail
and one year of community control.
Mr. McCoy now appeals from his conviction and raises four
assignments of error for our review. For ease of analysis, we
rearrange and consolidate several of the assignments of
OF ERROR II
MCCOY'S CONVICTION FOR DOGFIGHTING WAS AGAINST THE
MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
OF ERROR III
TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE AND PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT
OVERRULED MR. MCCOY'S CRIM. R. 29(A) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
OF ACQUITTAL BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT
A CONVICTION FOR DOGFIGHTING.
In his second and third assignments of error, Mr. McCoy
argues that his dogfighting conviction is based on
insufficient evidence and is against the manifest weight of
the evidence. Because Mr. McCoy has addressed the two
arguments together in his brief, we likewise consolidate them
for purposes of our discussion. For the reasons that follow,
we reject Mr. McCoy's arguments.
Under Criminal Rule 29(A), a defendant is entitled to a
judgment of acquittal on a charge against him "if the
evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction * * *."
Whether a conviction is supported by sufficient evidence is a
question of law, which we review de novo. State v.
Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). In making this
determination, we must view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution:
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 viewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any