State v. Shaw

Citations

• 2024 Ohio 506

Syllabus

Appellant's conviction for voyeurism was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the state proved appellant, with the intent to view the private areas of another, hid a Ring camera in his bathroom and recorded the buttocks and pubic area of a home-health aide. The trial court complied with the dictates of Crim.R. 32(A) and afforded appellant the right to allocution at sentencing as appellant was personally addressed by the court and permitted to read a statement and present any evidence in support of mitigation of punishment.