[Cite as State v. Vogelsong, 2025-Ohio-5107.]
COURT OF APPEALS COSHOCTON COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, Case No. 2025CA0001
Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry
-vs- Appeal from the Coshocton County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2024CR0056 AMANDA VOGELSONG, Judgment: Affirmed Defendant – Appellant Date of Judgment Entry: November 6, 2025
BEFORE: Craig R. Baldwin; William B. Hoffman, Robert G. Montgomery, Judges
APPEARANCES: CHRISHANA L. CARROLL, for Plaintiff-Appellee; TODD W. BARSTOW, for Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION
Montgomery, J.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
{¶1} Amanda Vogelsong (hereinafter “Vogelsong”) was indicted in the
Coshocton County Court of Common Pleas on June 24, 2024, on one count of Breaking
and Entering in violation of R.C. 2911.13(A).
{¶2} Vogelsong was arraigned on August 26, 2024, and entered a plea of not
guilty.
{¶3} A jury trial was held on November 14, 2024, and the jury returned a verdict
of guilty on November 15, 2024.
{¶4} The trial court sentenced Vogelsong on December 23, 2024. {¶5} Vogelsong filed a timely appeal and asserts the following assignment of
error:
{¶6} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF DUE
PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE ONE SECTION TEN OF THE OHIO
CONSTITUTION BY FINDING HER GUILTY OF BREAKING AND ENTERING, AS THAT
VERDICT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND WAS ALSO
AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.”
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶7} The legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence
are both quantitatively and qualitatively different. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d. 380,
385 (1997).
{¶8} “With respect to sufficiency of the evidence, ‘sufficiency' is a term of art
meaning that legal standard which is applied to determine whether the case may go to
the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter
of law." Id., p. 386, citing Black's Law Dictionary (6 Ed.1990).
{¶9} “A court of appeals may determine that a judgment of a trial court is
sustained by sufficient evidence, however, that court may nevertheless conclude that the
judgment is against the weight of the evidence.” Id.
{¶10} “Weight of the evidence concerns ‘the inclination of the greater amount of
credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the
other. It indicates clearly to the jury that the party having the burden of proof will be entitled
to their verdict, if, on weighing the evidence in their minds, they shall find the greater amount of credible evidence sustains the issue which is to be established before them.
Weight is not a question of mathematics but depends on its effect in inducing belief.’ " Id.,
p. 387, citing Black's, supra, at 1594.
{¶11} "The court, 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 reversed and a new trial ordered. The
discretionary power to grant a new trial should be exercised only in the exceptional case
in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction." State v. Martin, 20 Ohio
App.3d 172, 175 (1983).
ANALYSIS
{¶12} Vogelsong was charged with one count of breaking and entering. R.C.
2911.13(A) states, “No person by force, stealth, or deception, shall trespass in an
unoccupied structure, with purpose to commit therein any theft offense, as defined
in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, or any felony.”
{¶13} The evidence the jurors considered in making their decision consisted of
testimony from Casey Albright, Brandon Smith, Jeffrey Hostetler, Cheryl Cole and Seth
Andrews and photos from a trail camera.
{¶14} Casey Albright (hereinafter “Albright”) provided testimony that she drove her
car with Vogelsong and two others to Township Rd. 251 on April 27, 2024. Trial
Transcript, p. 120. {¶15} The property at Township Rd. 251 is owned by Cheryl Cole (hereinafter
“Cole”). There is a house and another building located on this property. 1
{¶16} Albright testified that while at Cole’s property, she served as a lookout while
Vogelsong and the two men made multiple trips from the property to her car carrying
items that did not belong to them. Id., p. 125.
{¶17} Jeffrey Hostetler (hereinafter “Hostetler”), a friend of Cole, saw Albright’s
car on Cole’s property that morning and asked her what she was doing. Albright lied to
Hostetler and told him that she was having car trouble and was waiting for help. Hostetler
did not believe Albright, took a picture of Albright’s license plate and called Cole.
{¶18} Albright testified that after Hostetler left, she approached the house to notify
Vogelsong and the two men that the police may be on their way and they left the property.
{¶19} Prior to April 27, 2024, Cole’s property had been broken into, so Hostetler
installed two trail cameras.
{¶20} The trail cameras recorded four pictures on the morning of April 27, 2024.
State’s Exhibits, Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7.
{¶21} Albright testified that one of the pictures shows Vogelsong running from the
house. Id., p. 143.
{¶22} Albright testified that she did not see Vogelsong go into the garage at Twp.
Rd. 251 but saw her “[b]ringing things from that area to my car.” Id.
{¶23} Albright stated she did not see Vogelsong go into the home but saw her
come out the front door. Id., p. 126.
1 This building was called both a garage and a spring house by the various witnesses. {¶24} Albright stated that she saw Vogelsong and the two men make five to ten
trips from the garage located at Township Rd. 251 to her car. Id., p. 125.
{¶25} When Albright was asked, “Could you see specifically what they were
carrying?” She replied, “I noticed log chains.” Id., p. 126.
{¶26} Vogelsong argues, “It was only Albright that identified Vogelsong as a
participant, no other evidence links her to this affair.” Appellant Brief, p. 4.
{¶27} However, the State submitted photographic evidence from the trail cameras
located on Cole’s property. State’s Exhibits, Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7.
{¶28} The jury considered this evidence and was able to draw their own
conclusion as to the identity of the people in the pictures.
{¶29} Albright testified that she took the stolen items to Litty’s Scrapyard. This
testimony was corroborated by Brandon Smith (hereinafter “Smith”), an employee with
Litty’s Scrapyard, who stated Albright brought sheet iron and electronic motors to his store
to be scrapped. Trial Transcript, pp. 186, 187. Smith testified that log chains can fall under
the commodity of sheet iron. Id.
{¶30} Albright was not truthful about the events that occurred on April 27, 2024,
when she was initially interviewed by law enforcement. Id., p. 238. However, Sergeant
Seth Andrews testified that the testimony she gave at the jury trial was consistent with the
interview she did with law enforcement on April 30, 2024. Id.
{¶31} Lastly, Vogelsong argues that the testimony of Albright is not credible
because, “She was not prosecuted at all in exchange for her cooperation.” Appellant Brief,
p. 3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Vogelsong, 2025-Ohio-5107.]
COURT OF APPEALS COSHOCTON COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, Case No. 2025CA0001
Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry
-vs- Appeal from the Coshocton County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2024CR0056 AMANDA VOGELSONG, Judgment: Affirmed Defendant – Appellant Date of Judgment Entry: November 6, 2025
BEFORE: Craig R. Baldwin; William B. Hoffman, Robert G. Montgomery, Judges
APPEARANCES: CHRISHANA L. CARROLL, for Plaintiff-Appellee; TODD W. BARSTOW, for Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION
Montgomery, J.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
{¶1} Amanda Vogelsong (hereinafter “Vogelsong”) was indicted in the
Coshocton County Court of Common Pleas on June 24, 2024, on one count of Breaking
and Entering in violation of R.C. 2911.13(A).
{¶2} Vogelsong was arraigned on August 26, 2024, and entered a plea of not
guilty.
{¶3} A jury trial was held on November 14, 2024, and the jury returned a verdict
of guilty on November 15, 2024.
{¶4} The trial court sentenced Vogelsong on December 23, 2024. {¶5} Vogelsong filed a timely appeal and asserts the following assignment of
error:
{¶6} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF DUE
PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE ONE SECTION TEN OF THE OHIO
CONSTITUTION BY FINDING HER GUILTY OF BREAKING AND ENTERING, AS THAT
VERDICT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND WAS ALSO
AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.”
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶7} The legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence
are both quantitatively and qualitatively different. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d. 380,
385 (1997).
{¶8} “With respect to sufficiency of the evidence, ‘sufficiency' is a term of art
meaning that legal standard which is applied to determine whether the case may go to
the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter
of law." Id., p. 386, citing Black's Law Dictionary (6 Ed.1990).
{¶9} “A court of appeals may determine that a judgment of a trial court is
sustained by sufficient evidence, however, that court may nevertheless conclude that the
judgment is against the weight of the evidence.” Id.
{¶10} “Weight of the evidence concerns ‘the inclination of the greater amount of
credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the
other. It indicates clearly to the jury that the party having the burden of proof will be entitled
to their verdict, if, on weighing the evidence in their minds, they shall find the greater amount of credible evidence sustains the issue which is to be established before them.
Weight is not a question of mathematics but depends on its effect in inducing belief.’ " Id.,
p. 387, citing Black's, supra, at 1594.
{¶11} "The court, 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 reversed and a new trial ordered. The
discretionary power to grant a new trial should be exercised only in the exceptional case
in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction." State v. Martin, 20 Ohio
App.3d 172, 175 (1983).
ANALYSIS
{¶12} Vogelsong was charged with one count of breaking and entering. R.C.
2911.13(A) states, “No person by force, stealth, or deception, shall trespass in an
unoccupied structure, with purpose to commit therein any theft offense, as defined
in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, or any felony.”
{¶13} The evidence the jurors considered in making their decision consisted of
testimony from Casey Albright, Brandon Smith, Jeffrey Hostetler, Cheryl Cole and Seth
Andrews and photos from a trail camera.
{¶14} Casey Albright (hereinafter “Albright”) provided testimony that she drove her
car with Vogelsong and two others to Township Rd. 251 on April 27, 2024. Trial
Transcript, p. 120. {¶15} The property at Township Rd. 251 is owned by Cheryl Cole (hereinafter
“Cole”). There is a house and another building located on this property. 1
{¶16} Albright testified that while at Cole’s property, she served as a lookout while
Vogelsong and the two men made multiple trips from the property to her car carrying
items that did not belong to them. Id., p. 125.
{¶17} Jeffrey Hostetler (hereinafter “Hostetler”), a friend of Cole, saw Albright’s
car on Cole’s property that morning and asked her what she was doing. Albright lied to
Hostetler and told him that she was having car trouble and was waiting for help. Hostetler
did not believe Albright, took a picture of Albright’s license plate and called Cole.
{¶18} Albright testified that after Hostetler left, she approached the house to notify
Vogelsong and the two men that the police may be on their way and they left the property.
{¶19} Prior to April 27, 2024, Cole’s property had been broken into, so Hostetler
installed two trail cameras.
{¶20} The trail cameras recorded four pictures on the morning of April 27, 2024.
State’s Exhibits, Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7.
{¶21} Albright testified that one of the pictures shows Vogelsong running from the
house. Id., p. 143.
{¶22} Albright testified that she did not see Vogelsong go into the garage at Twp.
Rd. 251 but saw her “[b]ringing things from that area to my car.” Id.
{¶23} Albright stated she did not see Vogelsong go into the home but saw her
come out the front door. Id., p. 126.
1 This building was called both a garage and a spring house by the various witnesses. {¶24} Albright stated that she saw Vogelsong and the two men make five to ten
trips from the garage located at Township Rd. 251 to her car. Id., p. 125.
{¶25} When Albright was asked, “Could you see specifically what they were
carrying?” She replied, “I noticed log chains.” Id., p. 126.
{¶26} Vogelsong argues, “It was only Albright that identified Vogelsong as a
participant, no other evidence links her to this affair.” Appellant Brief, p. 4.
{¶27} However, the State submitted photographic evidence from the trail cameras
located on Cole’s property. State’s Exhibits, Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7.
{¶28} The jury considered this evidence and was able to draw their own
conclusion as to the identity of the people in the pictures.
{¶29} Albright testified that she took the stolen items to Litty’s Scrapyard. This
testimony was corroborated by Brandon Smith (hereinafter “Smith”), an employee with
Litty’s Scrapyard, who stated Albright brought sheet iron and electronic motors to his store
to be scrapped. Trial Transcript, pp. 186, 187. Smith testified that log chains can fall under
the commodity of sheet iron. Id.
{¶30} Albright was not truthful about the events that occurred on April 27, 2024,
when she was initially interviewed by law enforcement. Id., p. 238. However, Sergeant
Seth Andrews testified that the testimony she gave at the jury trial was consistent with the
interview she did with law enforcement on April 30, 2024. Id.
{¶31} Lastly, Vogelsong argues that the testimony of Albright is not credible
because, “She was not prosecuted at all in exchange for her cooperation.” Appellant Brief,
p. 3. {¶32} The Supreme Court of Ohio has stated, “In either a criminal or civil case the
weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are primarily for the
trier of the facts.” State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231 (1967).
{¶33} The jury, as the trier of fact, is free to believe all, part or none of the
testimony of any witness who appears before it. State v. Hoover, 2008-Ohio-6136, ¶11
(4th Dist.), citing State v. Long, 127 Ohio App.3d 328, 335 (1988).
{¶34} “A reviewing court must give great deference to the jury's determination of
witness credibility. This is so because the jury 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.” State v. Cowans, 2020-Ohio-5250, ¶1
(10th Dist.).
{¶35} In the case at hand, the jury heard the testimony of the witnesses and
viewed all the evidence, deliberated, and found Vogelsong guilty of breaking and entering.
{¶36} After reviewing the entire record, weighing the inferences and examining
the credibility of witnesses, we cannot say that this is the exceptional case
where the jury clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice in finding
Vogelsong guilty. Accordingly, Vogelsong's sole assignment of error is overruled. CONCLUSION
{¶37} Based upon the foregoing, we find that Vogelsong's conviction on the
charge of breaking and entering was supported by sufficient evidence and was not
against the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, Vogelsong’s sole assignment
of error is overruled, and the judgment of the Coshocton County Court of Common Pleas
is hereby affirmed.
{¶38} Costs to Appellant.
By: Montgomery, J.
Baldwin, P.J. and
Hoffman, J. concur.