State v. Mabberly

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 891

Syllabus

Appellant's conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and, thus, the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. As such, trial counsel's apparent failure to make a Crim.R. 29(A) motion for acquittal was of no consequence. Further, trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court did not improperly refer to the charges against Appellant in the jury instructions so that Appellant's guilt was implied. With regard to the State's cross-assignment of error, we agree with the State that the trial court abused its discretion by giving the limits on human memory instruction delivered to the jury. However, this error does not entitle the State to any relief in this case. Judgment affirmed. (Welbaum, P.J., concurring.)