[Cite as State v. Williams,
2024-Ohio-2307.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
SENECA COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 13-23-32
v.
JAMES D. WILLIAMS,
OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Seneca County Common Pleas Court
Criminal Division
Trial Court No. 23 CR 0003
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: June 17, 2024
APPEARANCES:
Autumn D. Adams for Appellant
Stephanie J. Kiser for Appellee
Case No. 13-23-32
WALDICK, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, James D. Williams (“Williams”), appeals the
judgment of conviction and sentence entered against him in the Seneca County
Common Pleas Court, following a jury trial in which he was found guilty of four
felony offenses. Williams argues that his four convictions were not supported by
sufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the
reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Procedural History and Facts of the Case
{¶2} This case originated on January 26, 2023, when the Seneca County
grand jury returned a four-count indictment against Williams, charging him as
follows: Count 1 – Importuning, a fifth-degree felony in violation of R.C.
2907.07(D)(2); Count 2 – Attempted Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor, a
fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2923.02(A) and R.C. 2907.04(A) and
(B)(3); Count 3 – Disseminating Matter Harmful to Juveniles, a fifth-degree felony
in violation of R.C. 2907.31(A)(1); and Count 4 – Possessing Criminal Tools, a
fifth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2923.24(A) and (C).
{¶3} On February 15, 2023, an arraignment was held and Williams pled not
guilty to the indictment. Over six months of pretrial proceedings then ensued.
{¶4} On August 29, 2023, a jury trial was held, at which both the prosecution
and the defense presented evidence.
-2-
Case No. 13-23-32
{¶5} At trial, the sole prosecution witness was Officer Kyle Reinbolt of the
Fostoria Police Department. Reinbolt testified that he became involved in the
instant case on December 30, 2022, when working in an undercover capacity online,
investigating sexual predators.
{¶6} Reinbolt testified that in such undercover operations he utilized a
number of different apps and social media platforms on which he had set up profiles
portraying himself as a young female. As persons messaged Reinbolt’s online
persona, he would converse with them via online messaging or texting, and then
would focus his investigations on persons with whom the conversations turned
sexual in nature. For his profile photos, Reinbolt used a picture of a female law
enforcement colleague that had been altered with an app to make the colleague look
like a juvenile. Reinbolt testified that he was never the person to initiate online
contact and that he would not bring up sexual topics until mentioned by the other
party. Once such communication was established, Reinbolt would then specifically
tell the other person that he is 15 years old. Reinbolt also testified that, in his
investigations, he does not suggest meeting up with the persons with whom he is
communicating but, if that idea is suggested by the other person, he then attempts
to make arrangements to meet in person. Reinbolt testified that his investigations
are intended to focus on persons who actually do want to meet with the fictitious
teenager, as there are instances where people want to communicate with a juvenile
online but not meet in person. On the other hand, if a meeting is arranged and the
-3-
Case No. 13-23-32
other person shows up, that demonstrates to Reinbolt that the person is likely
someone who would commit a sex offense against a juvenile in person.
{¶7} Reinbolt testified that on December 30, 2022, his undercover teenaged
account profile received a message from another account on an app he was
using. The person who reached out to Reinbolt had a user name of “j.D. Dub”. j.D.
Dub’s account profile listed him as a 39-year-old male from Fostoria. At that time,
Reinbolt’s profile was that of a female, and listed her age as 19 and location as
Fostoria, with photos of a very young-looking female attached to the account.
{¶8} Reinbolt testified that the initial message from j.D. Dub on December
30, 2022 stated that he and a friend were looking for a sexy lady for a Christmas
wish. In response, Reinbolt asked what the Christmas wish was. An ongoing
conversation that was sexual in nature developed from there, and Reinbolt provided
a phone number to j.D. Dub so that they could text. Reinbolt documented his digital
communications with j.D. Dub by taking screen shots of all messages. At trial,
Reinbolt identified State’s Exhibit 1 as a printed compilation of all the messages
exchanged between himself and j.D. Dub.
{¶9} Reinbolt testified that after j.D. Dub began texting, he sent Reinbolt a
photograph. The picture depicted a nude male holding a small shampoo bottle in
front of himself to cover his genital area. j.D. Dub identified the photo as being of
him. At the time j.D. Dub sent that photo, Reinbolt had not yet claimed to be 15
years of age but, soon after, Reinbolt mentioned missing school that day, in response
-4-
Case No. 13-23-32
to which j.D. Dub asked how old Reinbolt was, and Reinbolt said 15. j.D. Dub said
that seemed like a trap and that it was illegal to do the kinds of things they had been
talking about. j.D. Dub added that he was a high school coach and could get into
big trouble as an adult male talking to a cute underage girl. j.D. Dub then requested
that Reinbolt send a school I.D. and a video. Reinbolt made excuses as to why he
could not do that, and then sent a selfie of a young girl’s face to j.D. Dub.
{¶10} Over the course of the next few days, while j.D. Dub had initially
expressed some concern relating to Reinbolt’s stated age, the communications from
j.D Dub quickly became very sexually graphic in nature. j.D. Dub asked Reinbolt
about sexual experiences, offered to tutor the 15-year-old in sexual activity,
described specific sexual acts that j.D. Dub liked to engage in, sent a photograph of
j.D. Dub performing oral sex on a female, described the sexual acts that j.D. Dub
and his girlfriend would perform with the 15-year-old, and then ultimately arranged
an in-person meetup with the 15-year-old girl Reinbolt was pretending to be, for
purposes of having sex with the 15-year-old.
{¶11} Reinbolt testified that j.D. Dub arranged to meet Reinbolt’s online
persona at 1:30 p.m. on January 4, 2023 at Foundation Park in Fostoria, for the
stated purpose of j.D. Dub and his girlfriend engaging in sexual activity with the 15-
year-old. j.D. Dub said that he would be driving a white Chrysler 300, which was
very dirty.
-5-
Case No. 13-23-32
{¶12} On January 4, 2023, at 1:30 p.m., Reinbolt and another officer waited
in unmarked cars in locations near the park. The officers observed a dirty white
Chrysler 300 pull into the park, where it then parked. The officers moved in and
arrested the driver of the Chrysler 300, who was Williams. Williams’ girlfriend was
with him at that time. Reinbolt testified that the profile photos on j.D. Dub’s account
matched Williams, as did the age and height listed on the account. At the time of
Williams’ arrest, Reinbolt also confirmed that the number he had been texting
belonged to Williams by sending a test text message to that number. Williams’ cell
phone was seized at the time of his arrest and, when Reinbolt sent the test text,
Reinbolt’s undercover phone number popped up on Williams’ phone with the text
Reinbolt had just sent.
{¶13} After the prosecution rested its case at trial, Williams then took the
stand in his own defense. Williams testified that he was 39-years-old, from
Fostoria, and that he had been using the app used by Reinbolt in order to find
partners for the polyamorous lifestyle he practiced with his girlfriend. Williams
admitted that he had been the one to reach out and send the initial message to
Reinbolt’s 19-year-old user profile. However, Williams testified that he
immediately knew Reinbolt was lying about being 19, because Reinbolt wanted to
text instead of using the app, and because Reinbolt then claimed to be 15 but did not
talk like a 15-year-old.
-6-
Case No. 13-23-32
{¶14} Williams testified that at no point during the communications with
Reinbolt did he think Reinbolt was an actual teenager and that he knew it was a 30-
year-old pretending to be a child. Williams also testified that the printouts of his
communications with Reinbolt put into evidence by the state were incomplete.
Williams testified that he continued the text conversation with Reinbolt because he
felt a responsibility to protect children from the person who was pretending to be a
child and he wanted to expose the person with whom he was communicating.
{¶15} Williams testified that he began making sexually explicit comments in
the text communications in order to keep the other person interested. When asked
about the photo he sent to Reinbolt that appeared to depict Williams performing oral
sex on a female, Williams testified that the photo had been staged years before by
Williams and a friend, and that it did not depict actual oral sex or even a real female
but, rather, the body parts shown were part of a big Sumo body suit.
{¶16} Finally, Williams testified that he ultimately set up a meeting with the
other person in order to expose that person, although Williams acknowledged that
he had never alerted the authorities about his concerns and did not report the
scheduled meeting to the police.
{¶17} At the end of the one-day trial, following arguments of counsel and
instructions of law by the trial court, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts.
-7-
Case No. 13-23-32
{¶18} On October 18, 2023, a sentencing hearing was held. Williams was
sentenced to 10 months in prison on Count 1, to 16 months in prison on Count 2, to
10 months in prison on Count 3, and to 10 months in prison on Count 4. The
sentences on Counts 1, 2, and 3 were ordered to be served consecutively, with the
sentence on Count 4 to be served concurrently, for a total stated prison term of 36
months.
{¶19} On November 15, 2023, Williams filed the instant appeal, in which he
raises four assignments of error for our review.
First Assignment of Error
The jury’s finding of guilty for Importuning was against the
manifest weight and the sufficiency of the evidence because the
State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams’
conduct in texting Reinbolt would probably lead to any sexual
activity.
Second Assignment of Error
The jury’s finding of guilty for Attempted Unlawful Sexual
Conduct of [sic] a Minor was against the manifest weight and the
sufficiency of evidence as Williams did not make a substantial step
which would have resulted in having sexual conduct with a minor.
Third Assignment of Error
The jury’s finding of guilty for Disseminating Material [sic]
Harmful to Juveniles was against the manifest weight and
sufficiency of the evidence because the photo was not obscene.
Fourth Assignment of Error
The jury’s finding of guilty for Possessing Criminal Tools was
against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence.
Standards of Review
-8-
Case No. 13-23-32
{¶20} It is well established that “[t]he legal concepts of sufficiency of the
evidence and weight of the evidence are both quantitatively and qualitatively
different.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380,
678 N.E.2d 541 (1997),
paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶21} “An appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at
trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average
mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.
3d 259,
574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. Consequently, “[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.”
Id. “In deciding if the evidence was
sufficient, we neither resolve evidentiary conflicts nor assess the credibility of
witnesses, as both are functions reserved for the trier of fact.” State v. Jones, 1st
Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-120570 and C-120571,
2013-Ohio-4775, ¶ 33.
{¶22} By contrast, when reviewing whether a verdict was against the
manifest weight of the evidence, the appellate court sits as a “thirteenth juror” and
examines the conflicting testimony. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387,
678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). In doing so, an appellate court must review the entire
record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of
witnesses and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the
-9-
Case No. 13-23-32
factfinder “clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice
that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” Id. Nevertheless,
when assessing a manifest-weight challenge, a reviewing court must allow the trier-
of-fact appropriate discretion on matters relating to the credibility of the witnesses.
State v. DeHass,
10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231,
227 N.E.2d 212 (1967). When applying
the manifest-weight standard, “[o]nly in exceptional cases, where the evidence
‘weighs heavily against the conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn the trial
court’s judgment.” State v. Haller, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-11-34,
2012-Ohio-5233, ¶
9, quoting State v. Hunter,
131 Ohio St.3d 67,
2011-Ohio-6524, ¶ 119.
First Assignment of Error
{¶23} In the first assignment of error, Williams asserts that his conviction for
Importuning was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest
weight of the evidence.
{¶24} Count 1 of the indictment charged Williams with Importuning in
violation of R.C. 2907.07(D)(2), which at that time provided:
(D) No person shall solicit another by means of a telecommunications
device, as defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, to engage
in sexual activity with the offender when the offender is eighteen
years of age or older and either of the following applies:
…
(2) The other person is a law enforcement officer posing as a person
who is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age,
the offender believes that the other person is thirteen years of age or
older but less than sixteen years of age or is reckless in that regard,
and the offender is four or more years older than the age the law
-10-
Case No. 13-23-32
enforcement officer assumes in posing as the person who is thirteen
years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age.
{¶25} In the instant case, Williams argues that his Importuning conviction
was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the
evidence because the evidence showed that Williams knew he was texting an adult,
not someone who Williams believed to be a 15-year-old, and because Williams’
purpose was to expose a predator and not to solicit the other person for sexual
activity.
{¶26} As to the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to Count 1, Williams’
argument here is based upon the testimony he gave at trial, and therefore relates
largely to the weight of the evidence rather than sufficiency of the
evidence. Nevertheless, upon examining the evidence presented at trial in the light
most favorable to the state as we must in a sufficiency analysis, Officer Reinbolt’s
testimony and State’s Exhibit 1, which was the compiled printout of all messages
exchanged between Reinbolt and Williams, constituted evidence more than
sufficient to convince the average mind beyond a reasonable doubt of Williams’
guilt on Count 1. The messages sent by Williams, who was 39-years-old, quite
clearly solicited the recipient for sexual activity, and most certainly established that
Williams believed the recipient of the messages to be 15 years of age or that he was
reckless in that regard.
{¶27} As to the manifest weight of the evidence with respect to Count 1,
Williams suggests that the greater weight of evidence established that he lacked the
-11-
Case No. 13-23-32
requisite intent and knowledge to be guilty of Importuning as charged. This
argument is based on Williams’ trial testimony that he knew he was communicating
with an adult and therefore was not soliciting a 15-year-old for sexual
activity. However, Williams’ testimony was belied by the content of the numerous
text messages he sent to Officer Reinbolt over the course of several days. More
importantly, the jury was able to see, hear, and evaluate Williams’ testimony and
was free to believe or disbelieve any or all of that testimony. See e.g. State v.
Shockey, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-23-22, 2024-Ohio-296, ¶ 24, citing State v. Jones,
3d Dist. Allen No. 1-21-61,
2022-Ohio-2089, ¶ 28. This is not the exceptional case
where the evidence weighs heavily against conviction.
{¶28} As Williams’ conviction on Count 1 was supported by sufficient
evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, the first
assignment of error is overruled.
Second Assignment of Error
{¶29} In the second assignment of error, Williams asserts that his conviction
for Attempted Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor was not supported by
sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶30} Count 2 of the indictment charged Williams with Attempted Unlawful
Sexual Conduct with a Minor in violation of R.C. 2923.02(A) and R.C. 2907.04(A)
and (B)(3).
-12-
Case No. 13-23-32
{¶31} R.C. 2907.04 defines the offense of Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a
Minor, and provides in relevant part:
(A) No person who is eighteen years of age or older shall engage in
sexual conduct with another, who is not the spouse of the offender,
when the offender knows the other person is thirteen years of age or
older but less than sixteen years of age, or the offender is reckless in
that regard.
…
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of unlawful sexual conduct
with a minor.
…
(3) Except as otherwise provided in division (B)(4) of this section, if
the offender is ten or more years older than the other person, unlawful
sexual conduct with a minor is a felony of the third degree.
{¶32} R.C. 2923.02 governs attempts to commit criminal offenses. R.C.
2923.02(A) provides that “[n]o person, purposely or knowingly, and when purpose
or knowledge is sufficient culpability for the commission of an offense, shall engage
in conduct that, if successful, would constitute or result in the offense.” R.C.
2923.02(B) provides that “[i]t is no defense to a charge under [R.C. 2923.02(A)]
that, in retrospect, commission of the offense that was the object of the attempt was
either factually or legally impossible under the attendant circumstances, if that
offense could have been committed had the attendant circumstances been as the
actor believed them to be.”
{¶33} In interpreting the language in R.C. 2923.02, the Supreme Court of
Ohio has further defined a “criminal attempt” as “‘an act or omission constituting a
-13-
Case No. 13-23-32
substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in [the actor’s]
commission of the crime.’” (Brackets sic.) State v. Dean, 146 Ohio St.3d 106, 2015-
Ohio-4347, ¶ 175, quoting State v. Group,
98 Ohio St.3d 248,
2002-Ohio-7247, ¶
101.
{¶34} As this Court explained in State v. Potter, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-19-
14, 2020-Ohio-431, at ¶ 10:
“To constitute a substantial step, the offender’s conduct need not be
the last proximate act prior to the commission of the offense ….”
State v. Elahee, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-160640, 2017-Ohio-7085, ¶
16. Instead, a “substantial step” requires only “‘conduct that is
“strongly corroborative of the actor’s criminal purpose.”’” Dean[,]
[supra,] at ¶ 175, quoting Group[,] [supra,] at ¶ 101, quoting [State
v.] Woods[,] [48 Ohio St.3d 127,
357 N.E.2d 127 (1976)] at
paragraph one of the syllabus. “‘Precisely what conduct will be held
to be a substantial step must be determined by evaluating the facts and
circumstances of each particular case.’” State v. Miller, 3d Dist.
Seneca No. 13-12-52, 2013-Ohio-3194, ¶ 31, quoting State v. Butler,
5th Dist. Holmes No. 2012-CA7, 2012-Ohio-5030, ¶ 28, citing
Group
at ¶ 100.
{¶35} In the instant case, Williams argues that that his conviction for
Attempted Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor was not supported by sufficient
evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence because he had no
plans to engage in sexual conduct with a minor and did not take a substantial step
toward doing so.
{¶36} As with the first assignment of error, Williams’ argument here is based
upon the testimony he gave at trial and therefore relates largely to the weight of the
evidence rather than sufficiency of the evidence. Nevertheless, upon examining the
-14-
Case No. 13-23-32
evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the state, Officer Reinbolt’s
testimony coupled with State’s Exhibit 1 was more than sufficient evidence to
convince the average mind beyond a reasonable doubt of Williams’ guilt on Count
2. As noted above, the messages sent by Williams, who was 39-years-old, clearly
reflected Williams’ intent to engage in sexual conduct with the recipient of those
messages, whom Williams believed to be 15-years-old. In the texts he sent,
Williams described at length, and in graphic detail, the sexual conduct that he
envisioned participating in with the 15-year-old and his girlfriend, he explained how
those sexual activities would be performed by the three of them, and Williams then
sent multiple messages in order to arrange to meet the 15-year-old for purposes of
that sexual encounter. After the meeting had been arranged, Williams and his
girlfriend then arrived at the designated location at the appointed date and time.
{¶37} In State v. Priest, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2001 CA 108, 2002 WL 628639
(Apr. 19, 2002), the Second District Court of Appeals held that although no real
minor was involved, the defendant “drove to [a] specified location on the date and
time planned and that attempt to meet the imaginary [minor] was clearly a
substantial step in the course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of
the crime [of Attempted Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor]. It is obvious that
his trip … was strongly corroborative of his criminal purpose.” Id. at *4. See,
also, State v. Gann,
154 Ohio App.3d 170,
2003-Ohio-4000; State v. Lobo 12th Dist.
Butler No. CA2004-03-063,
2004-Ohio-5821.
-15-
Case No. 13-23-32
{¶38} In light of the foregoing, we find that there was sufficient evidence
presented at trial to establish that Williams took a substantial step towards engaging
in Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor that was strongly corroborative of his
expressed purpose to commit the offense. Consequently, after viewing the evidence
in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of Attempted Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor
proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
{¶39} As to the manifest weight of the evidence with respect to Count
2, Williams suggests that the greater weight of evidence established that he lacked
the requisite intent to be guilty of Attempted Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor
as charged. This argument is based on Williams’ claim at trial that he knew he was
communicating with an adult and therefore was not really intending to engage in
sexual conduct with a 15-year-old. However, Williams’ trial testimony was
completely contradicted by the detailed content of the numerous messages he sent
to Officer Reinbolt during the course of their multi-day text conversation. “A
verdict is not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the [jury] chose
to believe the State’s witnesses rather than the defendant’s version of the events.”
State v. Hooper, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-21-35, 2022-Ohio-2990, ¶ 29, quoting State
v. Martinez, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 12CA0054,
2013-Ohio-3189, ¶ 16. Again, this is
not the exceptional case where the evidence weighs heavily against conviction.
-16-
Case No. 13-23-32
{¶40} As Williams’ conviction on Count 2 was supported by sufficient
evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, the second
assignment of error is overruled.
Third Assignment of Error
{¶41} In the third assignment of error, Williams asserts that his conviction
for Disseminating Matter Harmful to Juveniles was not supported by sufficient
evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶42} In Count 3 of the indictment, Williams was charged with
Disseminating Matter Harmful to Juveniles in violation of R.C. 2907.31(A)(1),
which provides in relevant part:
(A) No person, with knowledge of its character or content, shall
recklessly do any of the following:
(1) Directly sell, deliver, furnish, disseminate, provide, … or
present to … a law enforcement officer posing as a juvenile …
any material … that is obscene … [.]
{¶43} As used in R.C. 2907.31, “obscene” is defined in R.C. 2907.01(F) in
relevant part as follows:
(F) When considered as a whole, and judged with reference to
ordinary adults or, if it is designed for sexual deviates or other
specially susceptible group, judged with reference to that group, any
material or performance is “obscene” if any of the following apply:
…
(2) Its dominant tendency is to arouse lust by displaying or depicting
sexual activity, masturbation, sexual excitement, or nudity in a way
-17-
Case No. 13-23-32
that tends to represent human beings as mere objects of sexual
appetite[.]
{¶44} At issue here is the photograph that Williams texted to Officer
Reinbolt, allegedly depicting Williams performing oral sex on a female. Williams
argues that his conviction for Disseminating Matter Harmful to Juveniles was not
supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the
evidence because the photograph is not obscene. Specifically, Williams asserts that
the photograph shows a male with his face near what appears to be the left thigh of
another person but that the genitalia of the person under the male cannot be seen in
the photo.
{¶45} We disagree. The photograph, while slightly blurry, is a close-up shot
that clearly enough depicts a male who appears to be Williams with his mouth on
the external genitalia of a female. Further, when texting the photograph to Reinbolt,
Williams described the photo as having been taken from “a video of me pleasing a
lesbian in turning her bisexual … [w]ith my tongue.” As the State of Ohio
accurately points out in its brief, based on the content of the text messages
accompanying the photograph, Williams clearly sent that photo to promote his
sexual prowess in order to illicit excitement from the purported juvenile and to
arouse lust.
{¶46} Accordingly, Williams’ conviction for Disseminating Matter Harmful
to Juveniles was supported by sufficient evidence and the jury’s verdict of guilty on
Count 3 was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
-18-
Case No. 13-23-32
{¶47} The third assignment of error is overruled.
Fourth Assignment of Error
{¶48} In the fourth assignment of error, Williams asserts that his conviction
for Possessing Criminal Tools was not supported by sufficient evidence and was
against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶49} Williams was charged in Count 4 of the indictment with Possessing
Criminal Tools in violation of R.C. 2923.24(A) and (C), which provides in relevant
part:
(A) No person shall possess or have under the person’s control any *
… device, instrument, or article, with purpose to use it criminally.
…
(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of possessing criminal
tools. … If the circumstances indicate that the … device,
instrument, or article involved in the offense was intended for use in
the commission of a felony, possessing criminal tools is a felony of
the fifth degree.
{¶50} In the instant case, the charge of Possessing Criminal Tools in Count 4
related to Williams’ use of his cell phone to commit the crime of Importuning with
which he was charged in Count 1. Williams does not dispute the evidence
establishing that he used his cell phone to communicate with Officer Reinbolt.
Rather, Williams argues that his conviction for Possessing Criminal Tools was not
supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the
evidence because he did not commit the Importuning offense as argued in Count 1,
to wit: Williams claimed at trial that he knew he was texting an adult, not a 15-year-
-19-
Case No. 13-23-32
old, and his purpose was to expose a predator and not to solicit the other person for
sexual activity.
{¶51} The criminal tools statute criminalizes the possession of “any
substance, device, instrument, or article, with purpose to use it criminally.” R.C.
2923.24(A). In order to present adequate evidence to support a conviction under the
criminal tools statute, the state must show possession and “show that [the offender's]
purpose was to violate the law.” State v. Chappell, 127 Ohio St.3d 376, 2010-Ohio-
5991,
939 N.E.2d 1234, ¶ 22.
{¶52} This Court has already determined that there was sufficient evidence
to establish the crime of Importuning as charged in Count 1, and that the guilty
verdict on Count 1 was not against the manifest weight of the
evidence. Accordingly, the evidence was also sufficient to prove Williams used the
cell phone criminally in committing Importuning, and the guilty verdict on Count 4
was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶53} The fourth assignment of error is overruled.
Conclusion
{¶54} Having found no error in the particulars assigned and argued by the
defendant-appellant, James D. Williams, the judgment of the Seneca County Court
of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J. and ZIMMERMAN, J. concur.
-20-
