FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE ELYRIA MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY OF
LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 2016CRB00037
ZACHARY B. SIMONOFF, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
SERAZIN, Law Director, and SCOTT STRAIT, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
JENNIFER HENSAL, PRESIDING JUDGE.
Susie Delaney appeals a judgment of the Elyria Municipal
Court that convicted and sentenced her for criminal damaging.
For the following reasons, this Court affirms.
Jeannette Orshoski testified that she was smoking a cigarette
in the garage of her apartment unit on the evening of January
1, 2017, when she heard footsteps outside. When she looked
out the garage door's peephole, she saw Ms. Delaney
approach her car and stab one of its tires, causing it to
deflate. Ms. Orshoski filed a complaint, and Ms. Delaney was
charged with criminal damaging under Revised Code Section
2909.06(A). At a trial to the bench, Ms. Delaney testified
that it could not have been her that Ms. Orshoski saw because
she was at her father's house that night and only
ventured out to go to a convenience store with her grandson
and daughter. The municipal court found Ms. Delaney guilty of
the offense, however, and sentenced her to 50 hours of
community service. Ms. Delaney has appealed, assigning two
OF ERROR I
THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT THE DEFENDANT OF
CRIMINAL DAMAGING OR ENDANGERING R.C. 2929.06, SINCE THE
STATE FAILED TO PRESENT UNBIASED, SUFFICIENT CREDIBLE
EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN ITS BURDEN OF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
Ms. Delaney argues that her conviction is not supported by
sufficient evidence. 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
rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph
two of the syllabus. The criminal damaging statute, Section
2909.06, prohibits a person from knowingly causing physical
harm to the property of another without their consent. R.C.
Ms. Delaney notes that the only evidence that she committed
the offense was Ms. Orshoski's testimony. She argues that
Ms. Orshoski only observed the offense through a tiny
peephole, however, was looking into a dark parking lot, and
was not wearing her reading glasses. In addition, Ms.
Orshoski initially testified that she was only "pretty
sure" Ms. Delaney was the perpetrator. Ms. Orshoski also
admittedly had difficulty identifying an "unknown
woman" who she saw at the apartment building earlier
that day. Ms. Delaney further argues that, although a police
officer looked at Ms. Orshoski's car through the ...