State v. Armstead

Citations

• 2021 Ohio 4000

Syllabus

VOYEURISM – CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – EVID.R. 404(B) – EVID.R. 403(A) – FORFEITURE – WAIVER: Defendant's conviction for voyeurism was based upon sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where his secretive tactics and unusual conduct in filming the victim in a state of undress under the partition of a bathroom stall permitted the jury to infer that he acted with a sexual purpose. The trial court did not violate Evid.R. 404(B) or 403(A) in admitting evidence that defendant had recorded approximately 30 videos of individuals under bathroom stalls because the evidence was probative of defendant's specific intent in recording the videos, which was a material issue at trial. Defendant waived appellate review of the forfeiture of his cell phone where defense counsel stated at sentencing that there was no objection to forfeiture of the cell phone.