State v. Amos — Theft Conviction Affirmed on Sufficiency and Manifest Weight Grounds

Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Amos

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 1424
• Docket Number: 2025 CA 008

• Judges: Baldwin

• Opinion

• Authorities (12)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (19.1K)

• PDF

Syllabus

Manifest weight; Sufficiency

Combined Opinion

[Cite as State v. Amos, 2026-Ohio-1424.]

IN THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
HOLMES COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, Case No. 2025 CA 008

Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry

-vs- Appeal from the Holmes County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 24CR062
KELSEY AMOS,
Judgment: Affirmed
Defendant - Appellant
Date of Judgment Entry: April 20, 2026

BEFORE: William B. Hoffman; Craig R. Baldwin; Robert G. Montgomery, Judges

APPEARANCES: MATT MUZIC, Prosecuting Attorney, MATTHEW C. LATANICH,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee; DAVID M. HUNTER, for
Defendant-Appellant.

Baldwin, J.

{¶1} The appellant, Kelsey Amos, appeals his conviction in the Holmes County

Court of Common Pleas for Theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1). The appellee is the

State of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE CASE

{¶2} On December 3, 2024, the Holmes County Grand Jury indicted the

appellant on one count of Theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1).

{¶3} On May 19, 2025, the matter proceeded to a bench trial.

{¶4} At trial, the victim, A.S., testified that on November 4, 2024, she was

running errands in Holmes County when she stopped at Winesburg Meats. She was using
her e-bike with a trailer attached. A.S. stated that she left the e-bike running when she

went into Winesburg Meats. When she came outside, she discovered the e-bike was no

longer there. She then notified the owner of the store.

{¶5} A.S. further testified that after discovering her e-bike missing, she and the

store owner reviewed the store’s security footage. She stated the video showed an

individual whom she did not know get on her bike and take it. She paid $2,500 for the e-

bike and $400 for the trailer.

{¶6} The store owner also testified that although he did not personally observe

anyone take the e-bike, he did review the security footage. He then contacted law

enforcement.

{¶7} Detective Henry testified that he is employed by the Holmes County

Sheriff’s Office. The Detective observed, from the security footage, that an individual,

K.B., got out of a Cadillac and onto A.S.’s e-bike at Winesburg Meats. He then removed it

from the premises. The Cadillac was owned by a third party but was being driven by the

appellant. The video showed K.B. exit the vehicle, speak with the appellant, and walk

behind the vehicle while pulling up his hood. He then went straight to the e-bike, got on,

and rode away.

{¶8} After K.B. exited the parking lot, the appellant followed him in the Cadillac.

The trailer was recovered near Wineburg Cemetery. Later that day, the appellant was

observed in possession of the Cadillac and returned it to its owner. K.B. followed the

appellant to the residence of the Cadillac owner in a truck owned by the appellant to pick

him up.

{¶9} K.B. testified for the defense. He admitted that he was the individual who

took A.S.’s e-bike. He stated that he had been helping the appellant work on the Cadillac.
They took it for a test drive to see if the radiator was operating properly. He said that he

and the appellant had argued. K.B. said that he got his belongings and exited the vehicle.

He saw the unattended e-bike and took it. K.B. testified that the appellant had nothing to

do with the theft.

{¶10} At the close of evidence, the trial court found the appellant guilty. The

appellant was sentenced on July 9, 2025.

{¶11} The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and raised the following two

assignments of error:

{¶12} “I. WHETHER THE CONVICTION FOR THEFT IS AGAINST THE

MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE?”

{¶13} “II. WHETHER THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE

CONVICTION FOR THEFT?”

I., II.

{¶14} In his first and second assignments of error, the appellant argues that the

trial court’s verdict is not based upon sufficient evidence and was against the manifest

weight of the evidence. We disagree.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

{¶15} Sufficiency of the evidence was addressed by the Supreme Court of Ohio in

State v. Worley, 2021-Ohio-2207, as follows:

The test for sufficiency of the evidence is” whether, after viewing the

evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of

fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a

reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991),
paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by constitutional amendment on

other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 102, 1997-Ohio-

355, 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997), fn. 4, and following Jackson v. Virginia, 443

U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). “ ‘Proof beyond a reasonable

doubt’ is proof of such character that an ordinary person would be willing

to rely and act upon it in the most important of the person’s own affairs.”

R.C. 2901.05(E). A sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge asks whether the

evidence adduced at trial “is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as

a matter of law.” State v. Long, 129 Ohio St.3d 512, 2011-Ohio-4215, 954

N.E.2d 596, ¶219.

Id. at ¶57. Thus, a review of the constitutional sufficiency of evidence to support a criminal

conviction requires a court of appeals to determine whether, after viewing the evidence in

the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

{¶16} Manifest weight of the evidence, on the other hand, addresses the evidence’s

effect of inducing belief. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386-387, 1997-Ohio-52,

678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as

stated by State v. Smith, 1997-Ohio-355, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 684 N.E.2d 668. The

Thompkins Court stated:

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.” (Emphasis added.) Black’s, supra, at 1594.

Id. at 387 The Court stated further:

When a court of appeals reverses a judgment of a trial court on the

basis that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the appellate

court sits as a “thirteenth juror” and disagrees with the fact finder’s

resolution of the conflicting testimony. Tibbs, 457 U.S. at 42, 102 S.Ct. at

2218, 72 L.Ed.2d at 661. See, also, State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d

172, 175, 20 OBR 215, 219, 485 N.E.2d 717, 720-721 (“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.”).

Id.

In addition, the Court stated in Seasons Coal Co. Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d

77, 10 Ohio B. 408, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984):

“* * * [I]n determining whether the judgment below is manifestly against

the weight of the evidence, every reasonable intendment and every

reasonable presumption must be made in favor of the judgment and the

finding of facts. * * *
“If the evidence is susceptible of more than one construction, the reviewing

court is bound to give it that interpretation which is consistent with the

verdict and judgment, most favorable to sustaining the verdict and

judgment.”

Id. at 80, fn. 3, quoting 5 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d, Appellate Review, Section 603, at 191-

192 (1978).

ANALYSIS

{¶17} R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) states:

(A) No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property or services,

shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property or services

in any of the following ways:

(1) Without the consent of the owner or person authorized to give

consent;

The appellee proceeded on a theory of complicity under R.C. 2923.03(A)(2). R.C.

2923.03(A)(2) states:

(A) No person, acting with the kind of culpability required for the

commission of an offense, shall do any of the following:

---

(2) Aid or abet another in committing the offense;

{¶18} In order to prove complicity, the appellee was required to show that the

appellant supported, assisted, encouraged, cooperated with, advised, or incited K.B. in

committing the theft, and that the appellant shared K.B.’s criminal intent. State v.

Jackson, 2003-Ohio-5946, ¶32 (10th Dist.). Criminal intent may be inferred from the

presence, companionship, and conduct before and after an offense is committed. Id.
{¶19} In the case at bar, the evidence showed that the appellant was driving K.B.

in a Cadillac. They pulled up right next to A.S.’s e-bike. The appellant stopped the car,

allowed K.B. to exit, spoke with K.B., and then followed K.B. in the Cadillac after K.B.

stole the e-bike. Later in the day, K.B. and the appellant were again seen together. The

appellant claims he did not know K.B. was going to steal the e-bike and that he did not

aid him either before or after. K.B. testified in support of the appellant’s theory.

{¶20} The finder of fact was free to accept or reject any and all of the testimony

offered by K.B. and assess the witness’s credibility; they need not believe all of a witnesses’

testimony. State v. McGregor, 2016-Ohio-3082, ¶10 (5th Dist.). Accordingly, the trial

court was in the best place to assess the credibility of K.B.’s testimony and reach the

conclusion that the appellant supported, assisted, encouraged, cooperated with, advised,

or incited K.B. in committing the theft.

{¶21} After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we

cannot conclude that no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of

complicity to theft beyond a reasonable doubt. Nor can we say that the trial court clearly

lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the appellant’s

conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.

{¶22} The appellant’s first and second assignments of error are overruled.
CONCLUSION

{¶23} Based upon the foregoing, the judgment of the Holmes County Court of

Common Pleas is hereby affirmed.

{¶24} Costs to the appellant.

By: Baldwin, J.

Hoffman, P.J. and

Montomgery, J. concur.