[Cite as State v. Jordan, 2025-Ohio-732.]
COURT OF APPEALS MORROW COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. Kevin W. Popham, J. : Hon. David M. Gormley, J. -vs- : : BRANT JORDAN, JR. : Case No. 2024 CA 0003 : Defendant - Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Morrow County 2023 CR 0121
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: March 6, 2025
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
Edwin M. Bibler Peter B. Galyardt 60 E. High St. 250 E. Broad St., Suite 1400 Mt. Gilead, Ohio 43338 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Gormley, J.
{¶1} Defendant Brant Jordan, Jr. challenges his convictions in Morrow County on
multiple felony charges involving his alleged possession of child pornography. Though
he contends that the jury’s guilty verdicts on the charges were against the manifest weight
of the evidence, we find otherwise and now affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} In June 2023, Verizon told the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children and the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force that one of its customers
had downloaded suspected child pornography. Verizon has systems in place that
automatically detect suspected child pornography, and that company then routinely
notifies law enforcement when a customer downloads those images or videos. The
Verizon report in this case identified Jordan as the customer, and it included Jordan’s
email address, date of birth, and phone number. The report was thereafter sent to
Detective James Coulter of the Morrow County Sheriff’s Office.
{¶3} Based on the contents of the report, Detective Coulter obtained a search
warrant for Jordan’s electronic devices. Detective Coulter seized Jordan’s laptop, touch-
screen tablet, and phone, and the detective’s subsequent search of the tablet and phone
revealed hundreds of images and videos depicting child sex abuse. Detective Coulter did
not find any illegal content on the laptop.
{¶4} In March 2024, Jordan was found guilty by a jury on four felony charges
relating to the images and videos that were found on his tablet and phone. It is from these
convictions that Jordan appeals. The Convictions Were Not Against the Manifest Weight of the Evidence
{¶5} In his sole assignment of error, Jordan contends that his convictions were not
supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. He argues that the jury lost its way in
resolving what he claims was a conflict in the evidence relating to the identity of the person
who downloaded the child pornography. We disagree.
{¶6} “In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the
evidence, the court of appeals functions as the ‘thirteenth juror,’ and after ‘reviewing the
entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility
of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly
lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must
be overturned and a new trial ordered.’” State v. Hane, 2025-Ohio-120, ¶ 20 (5th Dist.),
quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997).
{¶7} “In weighing the evidence, the court of appeals must always be mindful of the
presumption in favor of the finder of fact.” State v. Butler, 2024-Ohio-4651, ¶ 75 (5th
Dist.). “‘The underlying rationale of giving deference to the findings of the trial court rests
with the knowledge that the [trier of fact] is best able to view the witnesses and observe
their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing
the credibility of the proffered testimony.’” (Bracketed text in original.) State v. Williams,
2024-Ohio-5578, ¶ 61 (5th Dist.), quoting Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 10
Ohio St.3d 77, 80 (1984). “[A]n appellate court will leave the issues of weight and
credibility of the evidence to the factfinder, as long as a rational basis exists in the record
for its decision.” State v. Sheppard, 2025-Ohio-161, ¶ 66 (5th Dist.). {¶8} Jordan did not testify at trial, call any witnesses, or introduce any exhibits.
Jordan, instead, points to the testimony of Detective Coulter as introducing an evidentiary
conflict regarding identity. Coulter testified that, when he first spoke with Jordan while
officers were executing the search warrant, Jordan alleged that someone else must have
accessed his devices and downloaded the images and videos without Jordan’s
knowledge or permission.
{¶9} The jury did not, however, lose its way in rejecting that rationalization. At trial,
the state introduced uncontroverted evidence that Detective Coulter received a report
from Verizon that a user of an electronic device owned by Jordan had downloaded
suspected child pornography. Detective Coulter then testified that Verizon sends a report
to law enforcement only when a customer takes permanent action to download the illegal
content. The Verizon report here identified Jordan as the operator of the device.
{¶10} The state thereafter introduced substantial evidence tying Jordan to the
phone and the tablet. When the devices were seized by Detective Coulter, they were in
Jordan’s sole possession. When Detective Coulter searched the devices, they were
logged into WhatsApp group chats called “Kid Models VIP” and “Teen Models Only Fans.”
Jordan admitted to Detective Coulter that he was a member of these groups. Detective
Coulter’s search also revealed that the devices were logged into multiple accounts that
listed Jordan’s personal information. The search revealed, too, that no other person’s
accounts were being used on the devices. Moreover, the phone contained numerous
clothed and unclothed selfies of Jordan, and the tablet was Jordan’s personal work tablet. {¶11} In light of the evidence that the state presented tying Jordan to the devices,
the jury could reasonably have concluded that it was Jordan who downloaded the images.
Certainly nothing in the record before us suggests that the jury lost its way.
{¶12} Jordan’s hunch that someone else put the child pornography on his devices
does not undermine the jury’s verdicts. In a case on which he relies — State v. Ryan,
2018-Ohio-4739 (5th Dist.) — we addressed an unrelated appeal involving a defendant’s
convictions on several child-pornography charges. Id. at ¶ 1. That defendant testified at
trial that he had never downloaded the images to his computer and that someone else
must have done so. Id. at ¶ 9. As part of the police investigation in that case, the
investigating officer checked that defendant’s home for any unsecured Wi-Fi connections.
Id. at ¶ 54. We concluded that the absence of any unsecured Wi-Fi connections, taken
together with other circumstantial evidence tying that defendant to the computer, gave
the jury a sound basis to conclude that the man was guilty. Id. at ¶ 58. Jordan now argues
here that, because Detective Coulter did not check for any unsecured Wi-Fi connections
in Jordan’s home, the state did not establish that Jordan was the person who downloaded
the child pornography found on his devices.
{¶13} Jordan’s reliance on Ryan is misplaced. We never held in that case that the
state must prove that no other person, aside from the accused, could have accessed his
devices.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Jordan, 2025-Ohio-732.]
COURT OF APPEALS MORROW COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. Kevin W. Popham, J. : Hon. David M. Gormley, J. -vs- : : BRANT JORDAN, JR. : Case No. 2024 CA 0003 : Defendant - Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Morrow County 2023 CR 0121
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: March 6, 2025
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
Edwin M. Bibler Peter B. Galyardt 60 E. High St. 250 E. Broad St., Suite 1400 Mt. Gilead, Ohio 43338 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Gormley, J.
{¶1} Defendant Brant Jordan, Jr. challenges his convictions in Morrow County on
multiple felony charges involving his alleged possession of child pornography. Though
he contends that the jury’s guilty verdicts on the charges were against the manifest weight
of the evidence, we find otherwise and now affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} In June 2023, Verizon told the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children and the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force that one of its customers
had downloaded suspected child pornography. Verizon has systems in place that
automatically detect suspected child pornography, and that company then routinely
notifies law enforcement when a customer downloads those images or videos. The
Verizon report in this case identified Jordan as the customer, and it included Jordan’s
email address, date of birth, and phone number. The report was thereafter sent to
Detective James Coulter of the Morrow County Sheriff’s Office.
{¶3} Based on the contents of the report, Detective Coulter obtained a search
warrant for Jordan’s electronic devices. Detective Coulter seized Jordan’s laptop, touch-
screen tablet, and phone, and the detective’s subsequent search of the tablet and phone
revealed hundreds of images and videos depicting child sex abuse. Detective Coulter did
not find any illegal content on the laptop.
{¶4} In March 2024, Jordan was found guilty by a jury on four felony charges
relating to the images and videos that were found on his tablet and phone. It is from these
convictions that Jordan appeals. The Convictions Were Not Against the Manifest Weight of the Evidence
{¶5} In his sole assignment of error, Jordan contends that his convictions were not
supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. He argues that the jury lost its way in
resolving what he claims was a conflict in the evidence relating to the identity of the person
who downloaded the child pornography. We disagree.
{¶6} “In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the
evidence, the court of appeals functions as the ‘thirteenth juror,’ and after ‘reviewing the
entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility
of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly
lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must
be overturned and a new trial ordered.’” State v. Hane, 2025-Ohio-120, ¶ 20 (5th Dist.),
quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997).
{¶7} “In weighing the evidence, the court of appeals must always be mindful of the
presumption in favor of the finder of fact.” State v. Butler, 2024-Ohio-4651, ¶ 75 (5th
Dist.). “‘The underlying rationale of giving deference to the findings of the trial court rests
with the knowledge that the [trier of fact] is best able to view the witnesses and observe
their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing
the credibility of the proffered testimony.’” (Bracketed text in original.) State v. Williams,
2024-Ohio-5578, ¶ 61 (5th Dist.), quoting Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 10
Ohio St.3d 77, 80 (1984). “[A]n appellate court will leave the issues of weight and
credibility of the evidence to the factfinder, as long as a rational basis exists in the record
for its decision.” State v. Sheppard, 2025-Ohio-161, ¶ 66 (5th Dist.). {¶8} Jordan did not testify at trial, call any witnesses, or introduce any exhibits.
Jordan, instead, points to the testimony of Detective Coulter as introducing an evidentiary
conflict regarding identity. Coulter testified that, when he first spoke with Jordan while
officers were executing the search warrant, Jordan alleged that someone else must have
accessed his devices and downloaded the images and videos without Jordan’s
knowledge or permission.
{¶9} The jury did not, however, lose its way in rejecting that rationalization. At trial,
the state introduced uncontroverted evidence that Detective Coulter received a report
from Verizon that a user of an electronic device owned by Jordan had downloaded
suspected child pornography. Detective Coulter then testified that Verizon sends a report
to law enforcement only when a customer takes permanent action to download the illegal
content. The Verizon report here identified Jordan as the operator of the device.
{¶10} The state thereafter introduced substantial evidence tying Jordan to the
phone and the tablet. When the devices were seized by Detective Coulter, they were in
Jordan’s sole possession. When Detective Coulter searched the devices, they were
logged into WhatsApp group chats called “Kid Models VIP” and “Teen Models Only Fans.”
Jordan admitted to Detective Coulter that he was a member of these groups. Detective
Coulter’s search also revealed that the devices were logged into multiple accounts that
listed Jordan’s personal information. The search revealed, too, that no other person’s
accounts were being used on the devices. Moreover, the phone contained numerous
clothed and unclothed selfies of Jordan, and the tablet was Jordan’s personal work tablet. {¶11} In light of the evidence that the state presented tying Jordan to the devices,
the jury could reasonably have concluded that it was Jordan who downloaded the images.
Certainly nothing in the record before us suggests that the jury lost its way.
{¶12} Jordan’s hunch that someone else put the child pornography on his devices
does not undermine the jury’s verdicts. In a case on which he relies — State v. Ryan,
2018-Ohio-4739 (5th Dist.) — we addressed an unrelated appeal involving a defendant’s
convictions on several child-pornography charges. Id. at ¶ 1. That defendant testified at
trial that he had never downloaded the images to his computer and that someone else
must have done so. Id. at ¶ 9. As part of the police investigation in that case, the
investigating officer checked that defendant’s home for any unsecured Wi-Fi connections.
Id. at ¶ 54. We concluded that the absence of any unsecured Wi-Fi connections, taken
together with other circumstantial evidence tying that defendant to the computer, gave
the jury a sound basis to conclude that the man was guilty. Id. at ¶ 58. Jordan now argues
here that, because Detective Coulter did not check for any unsecured Wi-Fi connections
in Jordan’s home, the state did not establish that Jordan was the person who downloaded
the child pornography found on his devices.
{¶13} Jordan’s reliance on Ryan is misplaced. We never held in that case that the
state must prove that no other person, aside from the accused, could have accessed his
devices. Ryan, in recounting the steps taken by an officer, simply described certain
investigative methods that could be used to prove identity.
{¶14} At trial in this case, the state introduced substantial circumstantial evidence
identifying Jordan as the one who downloaded the child pornography. The jury was in the best position to resolve any evidentiary conflicts, and the jury’s findings were surely
supported by a rational basis in the record.
{¶15} Our review of the record readily leads us to the conclusion that the jury’s
guilty verdicts were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Jordan’s sole
assignment of error is overruled.
{¶16} For the reasons explained above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
By: Gormley, J.
Hoffman, J. and
Popham, J. concur.