State v. Campbell, Unpublished Decision (5-17-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Campbell, Unpublished Decision (5-17-2000)

DecidedMay 17, 2000

DocketT.C. No. 99CRB-14907, C.A. No. C-990623.

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Campbell, Unpublished Decision (5-17-2000) (State v. Campbell, Unpublished Decision (5-17-2000)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Campbell, Unpublished Decision (5-17-2000), (Ohio Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

JUDGMENT ENTRY Raising a single assignment of error, defendant-appellant Donald Ray Campbell challenges the sufficiency of the evidence adduced to support his conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, in violation of R.C. 2923.12, following a trial to the court. Campbell essentially contends that the knife found concealed in his jacket pocket was not a deadly weapon capable of inflicting death.

The test for the sufficiency of the evidence required to sustain a conviction was enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia (1979), 443 U.S. 307,99 S.Ct. 2781. The relevant question 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 beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. at 319,99 S.Ct. at 2789; see, also, State v. Allen (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 626, 630,653 N.E.2d 675, 682.

The record here reflects substantial, credible evidence from which the court could have reasonably concluded that all the elements of the charged crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, including the contested element that Campbell's knife was a deadly weapon. See R.C. 2923.11(A); see, also, State v. Singh (1996), 117 Ohio App.3d 381,387, 690 N.E.2d 917, 920. Campbell's knife was admitted into evidence, and the court had an opportunity to observe the nearly four-inch-long lock blade and finger grooves in the handle. The unrebutted testimony of the arresting officer was that while the knife could have other uses, it was designed to be used as a weapon. The assignment of error is overruled. See State v. Allen.

Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

______________________________ DOAN, PRESIDING JUDGE

GORMAN and SUNDERMANN, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

JUDGMENT ENTRY Raising a single assignment of error, defendant-appellant Donald Ray Campbell challenges the sufficiency of the evidence adduced to support his conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, in violation of R.C. 2923.12, following a trial to the court. Campbell essentially contends that the knife found concealed in his jacket pocket was not a deadly weapon capable of inflicting death.

The test for the sufficiency of the evidence required to sustain a conviction was enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia (1979), 443 U.S. 307,99 S.Ct. 2781. The relevant question 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 beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. at 319,99 S.Ct. at 2789; see, also, State v. Allen (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 626, 630,653 N.E.2d 675, 682.

The record here reflects substantial, credible evidence from which the court could have reasonably concluded that all the elements of the charged crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, including the contested element that Campbell's knife was a deadly weapon. See R.C. 2923.11(A); see, also, State v. Singh (1996), 117 Ohio App.3d 381,387, 690 N.E.2d 917, 920. Campbell's knife was admitted into evidence, and the court had an opportunity to observe the nearly four-inch-long lock blade and finger grooves in the handle. The unrebutted testimony of the arresting officer was that while the knife could have other uses, it was designed to be used as a weapon. The assignment of error is overruled. See State v. Allen.

Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

______________________________ DOAN, PRESIDING JUDGE

GORMAN and SUNDERMANN, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Campbell, Unpublished Decision (5-17-2000), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-campbell-unpublished-decision-5-17-2000-ohioctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack