FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE AKRON MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. 17 CRB 06166
M. MEDVICK, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
BELFANCE, Director of Law, and BRIAN D. BREMER, Assistant
Director of Law, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
JENNIFER L. HENSAL JUDGE.
Eric Schell appeals his convictions for criminal damaging and
criminal trespassing in the Akron Municipal Court. For the
following reasons, this Court affirms.
Mr. Jones hired a fencing company to install a fence along
the property line he shared with Mr. Schell. After the
fencing company set the posts for the fence in concrete, Mr.
Schell allegedly shook one of the posts, requiring the
company to re-set it. Officer Anthony Molea, who was
providing security during the installation, subsequently
charged Mr. Schell with one count of criminal damaging and
one count of criminal trespassing. A jury found Mr. Schell
guilty of the offenses, and the municipal court sentenced him
to 60 days in jail, which it suspended. Mr. Schell has
appealed, assigning two errors.
OF ERROR I
CONVICTION WAS BASED UPON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN
CONVICTION. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT'S
CRIM.R. 29 MOTION.
Mr. Schell argues that the trial court incorrectly denied the
motion for acquittal that he made after the State rested its
case. 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
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.
Officer Molea charged Mr. Schell with criminal damaging and
criminal trespassing. The criminal damaging statute provides
that no person, by any means, shall knowingly "cause, or
create a substantial risk of physical harm to any property of
another without the other person's consent[.]" R.C.
2909.06(A)(1). "A person acts knowingly, regardless of
purpose, when the person is aware that the person's
conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably
be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of
circumstances when the person is aware that such