State v. Smith

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Smith

2024 Ohio 5030, 246 N.E.3d 482, 176 Ohio St. 3d 89

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 22, 2024

Docket2024-1049

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2024 Ohio 5030 (State v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Smith, 2024 Ohio 5030, 246 N.E.3d 482, 176 Ohio St. 3d 89 (Ohio 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 176 Ohio St.3d 89.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. SMITH, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. Smith, 2024-Ohio-5030.] Criminal law—Venue—Court of appeals’ judgment summarily reversed under S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.08(B)(3) based on the authority of State v. Headley. (No. 2024-1049—Submitted October 15, 2024—Decided October 22, 2024.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, Nos. C-230415 and C-230416, 2024-Ohio-2189. __________________ The per curiam opinion below was joined by KENNEDY, C.J., and DEWINE, DONNELLY, BRUNNER, and DETERS, JJ. FISCHER and STEWART, JJ., dissented and would not accept the appeal or summarily reverse the court of appeals’ judgment.

Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We accept appellant the State of Ohio’s discretionary appeal on its sole proposition of law: “A reviewing court may not independently weigh the evidence and must take into account the totality of the evidence when analyzing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting venue.” {¶ 2} Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.08(B)(3), we summarily reverse the First District Court of Appeals’ judgment holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the offenses with which appellee, Johnathan Smith, was charged occurred in Hamilton County. We have long held that although venue must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, venue “need not be proved in express terms so long as it is established by all the facts and circumstances in the case.” State v. Headley, 6 Ohio St.3d 475, 477 (1983), citing State v. Dickerson, 77 Ohio St. 34 (1907), paragraph one of the syllabus. The State presented sufficient circumstantial evidence in this case to establish that the charged offenses occurred in Hamilton SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

County, and the First District erred when it held otherwise based on a flawed view that direct evidence was required to prove venue. Judgment reversed. __________________ Melissa Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M. Donovan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. __________________

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

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 176 Ohio St.3d 89.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. SMITH, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. Smith, 2024-Ohio-5030.] Criminal law—Venue—Court of appeals’ judgment summarily reversed under S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.08(B)(3) based on the authority of State v. Headley. (No. 2024-1049—Submitted October 15, 2024—Decided October 22, 2024.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, Nos. C-230415 and C-230416, 2024-Ohio-2189. __________________ The per curiam opinion below was joined by KENNEDY, C.J., and DEWINE, DONNELLY, BRUNNER, and DETERS, JJ. FISCHER and STEWART, JJ., dissented and would not accept the appeal or summarily reverse the court of appeals’ judgment.

Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We accept appellant the State of Ohio’s discretionary appeal on its sole proposition of law: “A reviewing court may not independently weigh the evidence and must take into account the totality of the evidence when analyzing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting venue.” {¶ 2} Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.08(B)(3), we summarily reverse the First District Court of Appeals’ judgment holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the offenses with which appellee, Johnathan Smith, was charged occurred in Hamilton County. We have long held that although venue must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, venue “need not be proved in express terms so long as it is established by all the facts and circumstances in the case.” State v. Headley, 6 Ohio St.3d 475, 477 (1983), citing State v. Dickerson, 77 Ohio St. 34 (1907), paragraph one of the syllabus. The State presented sufficient circumstantial evidence in this case to establish that the charged offenses occurred in Hamilton SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

County, and the First District erred when it held otherwise based on a flawed view that direct evidence was required to prove venue. Judgment reversed. __________________ Melissa Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M. Donovan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2024 Ohio 5030, 246 N.E.3d 482, 176 Ohio St. 3d 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smith-ohio-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack