FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE WAYNE COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT
COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO CASE No. 2018 CR-B 001433
A. JOHNSTON, ATTORNEY AT LAW, FOR APPELLANT.
R. LUTZ, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, AND ANDREA D. UHLER, ASSISTANT
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, FOR APPELLEE.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
JENNIFER HENSAL JUDGE.
Desiree Black appeals her convictions and sentences from the
Wayne County Municipal Court. For the following reasons, this
According to Paul Lewis, Ms. Black pushed him into a lake
while he was fishing from a dock, causing him to lose his
father's fishing rod and a reel he had recently
purchased. He had to leave to pickup his girlfriend, but they
returned to the lake in swimsuits later in the day prepared
to search for the missing gear. When they got back to the
lake, they learned that Ms. Black had found the rod and reel
while they were gone. He asked for it back, but she refused
to return it to him. The next day, Mr. Lewis's father
went to Ms. Black's home and got his rod back, but Ms.
Black refused to return the reel. After Mr. Lewis filed a
police report, Ms. Black was charged with disorderly conduct,
unauthorized use of property, and petty theft. A jury found
her guilty of the disorderly conduct and petty theft
offenses, and the trial court sentenced her to 30 days in
jail. Ms. Black has appealed, assigning two errors.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
APPELLANT'S CONVICTION WAS BASED ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
AS A MATTER OF LAW AND WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE
Ms. Black argues that her theft conviction was not supported
by sufficient evidence and is against the manifest weight of
the 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.
If a defendant asserts that her conviction is against the