State v. Thomas

[Cite as State v. Thomas, 2026-Ohio-3392.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2025-P-0088 CITY OF KENT, Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the Municipal Court, Kent Division - vs - ISIAH LEIGH THOMAS, Trial Court No. 2025 CRB 00859 K Defendant-Appellant. OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Decided: August 31, 2026 Judgment: Affirmed Connie J. Lewandowski, Portage County Prosecutor, and Heaven DiMartino, Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). Isiah Leigh Thomas, pro se, 119 West Williams Street, Kent, OH 44240 (Defendant- Appellant). SCOTT LYNCH, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Isiah Thomas, appeals his conviction for Assault based on surveillance video rather than direct, eyewitness testimony. For the following reasons, Thomas’s conviction for Assault is affirmed. Procedural and Factual History {¶2} On July 28, 2025, Thomas was charged with Assault, a misdemeanor of the first degree in violation of R.C 2903.13(A), and Obstructing Official Business, a misdemeanor of the second degree in violation of R.C. 2921.31(A), in the Kent Branch of the Portage County Municipal Court.  {¶3} On September 29, 2025, a bench trial was held. Sergeant James Fuller of the Kent Police Department testified on behalf of the State as follows: {¶4} On the evening of July 26, 2025, Sergeant Fuller responded to the call of a fight in the municipal parking lot behind Barrio in Kent, Ohio. Fuller found the victim, “on the ground, knocked out cold.” Fuller was taken to Barrio where he “was shown some clear precise video of what actually happened.” Several videos were played for the court. The final video depicted Gregory Boggs (the victim) “having a conversation of some sort to someone … and out of nowhere, the defendant, Mr. Thomas, comes in and knocks him out.” Fuller identified Thomas in court. {¶5} Sergeant Fuller did not observe Thomas on the scene. Fuller sent the video to his other officers to search for Thomas. He was recognized at a place called the Barfly. When approached by the police, Thomas fled through the back parking lot (also shared by Barrio) and was apprehended. {¶6} The court found Thomas guilty of both charges and imposed a five hundred dollar fine and one hundred eighty days in jail with three hundred and fifty dollars of the fine and one hundred sixty days of jail time suspended upon certain conditions. Assignments of Error {¶7} On December 4, 2025, Thomas filed a Notice of Appeal. On appeal, he raises the following assignments of error: [1.] The trial court erred in convicting the Appellant where evidence was legally insufficient to establish identity beyond a reasonable doubt. [2.] The conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. [3.] The trial court violated Appellant’s procedural and substantive due process rights by entering a conviction without reliable PAGE 2 OF 7 Case No. 2025-P-0088  identification or testimony from the alleged victim. Standards of Review {¶8} “Every criminal prosecution requires proof that the person accused of the crime is the person who committed the crime.” State v. Tate, 2014-Ohio-3667, ¶ 15. “This truism is reflected in the state’s constitutional burden to prove the guilt of ‘the accused’ beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., citing In re Winship 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970) (“we explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged”). {¶9} “Like any fact, the state can prove the identity of the accused by ‘circumstantial or direct’ evidence.” Id., citing State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 272-272 (1991). “A witness need not physically point out the defendant in the courtroom so long as there is sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence proving that the defendant was the perpetrator.” Id. at ¶ 19. {¶10} A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises the issue of “whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law.” State v. Clinton, 2017-Ohio-9423, ¶ 165. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “[t]he relevant inquiry 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.” Jenks at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶11} In contrast to sufficiency, “weight of the evidence addresses the evidence’s effect of inducing belief.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Wilson, 2007-Ohio-2202, ¶ 25. An appellate court must consider all the evidence in the record, the reasonable inferences, PAGE 3 OF 7 Case No. 2025-P-0088 the credibility of the witnesses, and 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.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997). First Assignment of Error: Sufficiency of the Evidence {¶12} Thomas argues the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to establish his identity as Boggs’s assailant. He notes that Boggs was unable to identify his assailant and did not testify at trial. Moreover, Thomas contends that the surveillance video did not clearly depict his face or otherwise establish his identity as the individual in the video by distinctive clothing, appearance, or physical characteristics. {¶13} We disagree that the State failed to identify Thomas as the assailant. The assault on Boggs was captured by surveillance video. Based on this video, Thomas was identified as a suspect that same night at a nearby bar and fled when approached by police into the same parking lot where the assault occurred. Sergeant Fuller, the police officer who obtained the video and was present at Thomas’s arrest (handcuffing him), identified Thomas in court as the assailant in the video. This is sufficient evidence, i.e., evidence from which it could be reasonably inferred that the person accused of the crime is the person who committed the crime. {¶14} “Many courts have condoned proof of identity by a jury’s [or a factfinder’s] comparison of surveillance images with the appearance of the defendant in the courtroom.” State v. Crawley, 2023-Ohio-1492, ¶ 47 (10th Dist.) (cases cited); Tate, 2014-Ohio-3667, at ¶ 19 (“[a] witness need not physically point out the defendant in the courtroom as long as there is sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence proving the PAGE 4 OF 7 Case No. 2025-P-0088 defendant was the perpetrator”); compare State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-3618, ¶ 22 (5th Dist.) (“a rational basis exists in the record for the jury’s decision,” despite there being no eyewitness to the crime of theft and the property owner being unable to identify the suspect in the surveillance video, based on the testimony of the officer who apprehended the suspect the day after the theft based on the video). {¶15} The first assignment of error is without merit. Second Assignment of Error: Weight of the Evidence {¶16} Thomas next argues that his Assault conviction is against the weight of the evidence on the grounds that “[t]he footage failed to depict the alleged assailant’s face or any distinctive characteristics conclusively linking the individual shown to the appellant.” {¶17} Again, we disagree that the videos submitted into evidence weigh heavily against Thomas’s conviction. It has often been recognized that deference is owed to the trier of fact, “be it a jury or a trial judge,” inasmuch as the trier of fact is “best able to view the witnesses,” or, in the present case, the defendant himself. (Citations omitted.) State v. Weaver, 2022-Ohio-4371, ¶ 29. Thus, it has been “held that a ‘jury was able to compare [a] photograph admitted into evidence with the physical appearance of appellant whom they had seen in the courtroom’ to judge the credibility of a witness that the photograph depicted the appellant.” (Citation omitted.) Crawley, 2023-Ohio-1492, at ¶ 47 (10th Dist.). The identification of Thomas in the present case as the assailant depicted in the video is not against the weight of the evidence. {¶18} The second assignment of error is without merit. Third Assignment of Error: Due Process {¶19} In the third assignment of error, Thomas argues he was denied due process PAGE 5 OF 7 Case No. 2025-P-0088 as “the State proceeded to trial without the testimony of the alleged victim and without the testimony from any eyewitness identifying Appellant as the individual who committed the alleged offense.” {¶20} Contrary to Thomas’s position, the foregoing authorities demonstrate that “[a] witness need not physically point out the defendant in the courtroom so long as there is sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence proving that the defendant was the perpetrator.” Tate, 2014-Ohio-3667, at ¶ 19. Moreover, Thomas was identified as the person who committed the assault, based on the surveillance video, by the officers involved in the investigation of the incident. Sergeant Fuller was subject to cross- examination by Thomas. The video was admitted into evidence. The credibility of the identification was duly considered by the municipal court judge acting as the trier of fact. We find no denial of due process. {¶21} The third assignment of error is without merit. {¶22} For the foregoing reasons, Thomas’s conviction for Assault (as well as Obstructing Official Business) are affirmed. Costs to be taxed against the appellant. MATT LYNCH, P.J., EUGENE A. LUCCI, J., concur. PAGE 6 OF 7 Case No. 2025-P-0088  JUDGMENT ENTRY For the reasons stated in the Opinion of this court, the assignments of error are without merit. The order of this court is that the judgment of the Portage County Municipal Court, Kent Division, is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against appellant. JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH, Concurs JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI, Concurs THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. PAGE 7 OF 7 Case No. 2025-P-0088