[Cite as State v. Lowry,
2025-Ohio-5017.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
State of Ohio, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 24AP-668
v. : (C.P.C. No. 22CR-3399)
Jack D. Lowry, : (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Defendant-Appellant. :
D E C I S I O N
Rendered on November 4, 2025
On brief: Shayla D. Favor, Prosecuting Attorney, and
Mark R. Wilson, for appellee. Argued: Mark R. Wilson.
On brief: Mitchell Williams, Public Defender, and
George M. Schumann, for appellant. Argued: George M.
Schumann.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
BOGGS, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Jack D. Lowry, appeals the judgment of the Franklin
County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of one count of burglary in violation of R.C.
2911.12, a felony of the second degree, and one count of theft from a person in a protected
class in violation of R.C. 2913.02, a felony of the fourth degree. For the following reasons,
we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
{¶ 2} On August 1, 2022, Lowry was indicted on one count of aggravated robbery
in violation of R.C. 2911.01 with a repeat violent offender specification, one count of
burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.12, and one count of theft from a person in a protected
class in violation of R.C. 2913.02.
No. 24AP-668 2
{¶ 3} The incidents surrounding Lowry’s conviction occurred on June 30, 2022. At
trial, the court heard testimony from William Farol who lived on East Cooke Road in the
Clintonville neighborhood, just south of Worthington. Farol testified that on June 30,
2022, shortly after 12:00 p.m., while he was not at home, Farol received two cell phone
notifications from his motion-activated home security cameras. The notifications indicated
that the home security camera at the front door was activated at 12:15 p.m., and then at
12:22 p.m. the back door camera was activated. Farol testified that the back door
notification was unusual, so he immediately checked the video from the back door security
camera on his phone. Farol stated that on the video he saw “[a] man coming to my back
door looking up at the camera and then immediately turning around.” (Sept. 17, 2024 Tr.
at 54.) Farol testified that he had never seen the man before and that he was unfamiliar
with the Saturn sedan that was parked in his driveway. Farol took a few screenshots of the
camera footage and then asked his wife to make posts on Nextdoor, a neighborhood social
networking website, while Farol called the Columbus Police Department.
{¶ 4} The trial court also heard testimony from Jennifer Reed. Reed testified that
on June 30, 2022, around 1:15 p.m, Reed had returned to her home on West Dublin
Granville Road in Worthington to find an unfamiliar maroon Saturn with numerous
bumper stickers in her driveway. Reed stated that, while she was trying to “make sense” of
the car and why it was in her driveway, “this man comes bounding out of my front door. He
had a yellow bag of some sort over his right shoulder holding it with his right hand, and he
was yelling as soon as he came out of the door. ‘I want my money.’ ” (Sept. 17, 2024 Tr. at
80.) Reed said the man was very angry and approached her until they were face-to-face
and continued yelling, “I want my money.” Id. The man then attempted to grab Reed’s cell
phone from her hand. Reed stated that she saw the shadow of a knife blade against the
man’s t-shirt and therefore “pushed my hand as hard as I could open because I felt like if
he had got my cell phone, he might leave. I am really concerned about that knife and what
he is doing with that knife.” (Sept. 17, 2024 Tr. at 87-88.) After the man took Reed’s cell
phone, he got into the maroon Saturn, backed out of Reed’s driveway, and drove away.
Reed then proceeded to a neighbor’s home to call 911. When Reed spoke to the 911
dispatcher, she saw blood on her elbow and realized she had been cut by the man’s knife at
No. 24AP-668 3
some point. Reed testified that some of her property was missing, including her
medications and the contents of several jewelry boxes.
{¶ 5} Reed described the man as around 25 to 35 years old, with very short hair,
and not clean shaven, with visible stubble on his face. She described his clothing as “baggy”
and stated that he wore a light t-shirt and shorts and had wrap-around sunglasses. At the
time of the incident, Reed told the police that the assailant did not have any tattoos.
{¶ 6} Reed also testified that, after the incident, she spoke with her neighbor, Carrie
Sparks. Sparks had found a post on the Nextdoor website regarding an apparent attempted
break-in that had a picture of a man and a maroon car. Sparks showed Reed the photo of
the man from the Nextdoor post, and Reed confirmed it looked like the same man that
broke into her home. While Reed identified Lowry in court as the man who broke into her
home, she did not correctly identify Lowry from a police photo array.
{¶ 7} Sparks, Reed’s neighbor on West Dublin Granville Road, also provided
testimony at trial. Sparks stated that on June 30, 2022 she was at CVS getting tested for
COVID-19 when she received a doorbell notification on her phone from Reed. Sparks
attempted to text Reed that she was not at home. When Sparks arrived home, she noticed
Worthington Police cars on her street and learned that Reed had been robbed. Sparks was
able to obtain video from one of her neighbors that showed the Saturn sedan in Reed’s
driveway. She also looked on the Nextdoor website and found a post of suspicious activity
at a home on East Cooke Road that also involved a maroon Saturn sedan. Sparks testified
that the Saturn and the man in the Nextdoor post were similar to the description Reed had
provided to her. Sparks shared the photo with Reed, who immediately identified the man
in the post as the assailant.
{¶ 8} The trial court also heard testimony from Detective Steven Luoma with the
Worthington Police Department. Detective Luoma had responded to the scene at Reed’s
home and attempted to gather fingerprints and DNA evidence from her home. Detective
Luoma stated that the police were unable to match that evidence to any known suspects.
Detective Luoma also testified that Sparks had forwarded information from the Nextdoor
post to him. Detective Luoma testified that Reed confirmed that the man in the Nextdoor
post was the man who broke into her home. Detective Luoma was then able to use facial
recognition software on the photo from the Nextdoor post which identified Lowry as a
No. 24AP-668 4
possible suspect. Detective Luoma was also able to determine from a database that Lowry
had pawned several pieces of jewelry on the day of the burglary. Detective Luoma testified
that Reed confirmed that some of the jewelry that Lowry sold to the pawn shop was hers.
From the facial recognition and the information obtained from the pawn shop, Detective
Luoma determined that Lowry was the primary suspect.
{¶ 9} Detective Luoma stated that he, along with the Franklin County Sheriff’s
Office SWAT team, arrested Lowry and confiscated his cell phone. Detective Luoma then
interviewed Lowry. Lowry, upon seeing the Nextdoor posting, claimed that he went to the
house on East Cooke Road because that was his “weed man,” which Detective Luoma
interpreted to imply that was where Lowry obtained weed. Lowry also told Detective
Luoma that he obtained the jewelry that he pawned from “Sasha” and “Polly” off
Richardson Avenue but did not provide their last names. Detective Luoma testified that “at
that point I felt I was being led astray by Mr. Lowry. This interview was going nowhere,
and he was not giving me anything, so at that point the interview was concluded.” (Sept. 17,
2024 Tr. at 211.) Detective Luoma also testified that the cellebrite analysis of Lowry’s cell
phone records corroborated Lowry as the suspect.
{¶ 10} Finally, the jury heard testimony from Seth Dodson, a Public Safety
Intelligence Analyst with the Ohio State Highway Patrol, who performed cell phone
mapping and location tracking on Lowry’s phone. Dodson testified that Lowry’s phone was
traveling along East Cooke Road shortly after 12:00 p.m. and was also in the general vicinity
of West Dublin Granville Road between noon and 1:00 p.m. on June 30, 2022. Dodson
testified from his report that
[b]eginning at approximately 12:06, the device begins to move
west and then at approximately 12:15 the device begins to move
northbound possibly via Interstate 71 or Indianola Avenue
between the hours of 12:16 and 12:20. The device is likely in the
general vicinity of 720 East Cooke Road where it eventually
travels north. At approximately 12:43, the device in the general
area of Morse Road and Indianola Avenue and Interstate 71. At
approximately 12:56, the device is in the general vicinity of
Interstate 71 and State Route 161, also known as East DublinGranville Road.
(Sept. 18, 2024 Tr. at 78.)
No. 24AP-668 5
{¶ 11} On September 19, 2024, the jury reached a verdict finding Lowry not guilty
of aggravated robbery in Count 1, guilty of burglary in Count 2, and guilty of theft in Count
3. The trial court sentenced Lowry to an indefinite term of seven to ten years and six
months to be served at the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
{¶ 12} Lowry now appeals.
II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 13} Lowry argues the following assignment of error:
The verdicts of guilt as to burglary and theft are against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
III. ANALYSIS
{¶ 14} In his assignment of error, Lowry argues that his conviction was against the
manifest weight of the evidence because Reed’s identification of Lowry was inconsistent
and because there was no physical evidence at the scene, such as fingerprints or DNA, that
identifies him as the perpetrator.
{¶ 15} When presented with a manifest weight argument, an appellate court
engages in a limited weighing of the evidence to determine whether sufficient competent,
credible evidence supports the jury’s verdict. State v. Salinas, 2010-Ohio-4738, ¶ 32 (10th
Dist.), citing State v. Thompkins,
1997-Ohio-52,
78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387. We note that an
appellate court reviewing a manifest weight challenge to a criminal conviction “may not
merely substitute its view for that of the trier of fact, but 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 trier of fact clearly lost its way
and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and
a new trial ordered.” State v. Harris,
2014-Ohio-2501, ¶ 22 (10th Dist.), citing Thompkins
at 387. An appellate court should reserve reversal of a conviction as being against the
manifest weight of the evidence for the most “exceptional case in which the evidence weighs
heavily against the conviction.” (Internal quotations omitted.) State v. Cervantes, 2019-
Ohio-1373, ¶ 27 (10th Dist.).
{¶ 16} We do not find this to be such an exceptional case where the trier of fact
clearly lost its way, nor does the evidence weigh heavily against Lowry’s conviction. Lowry
argues that Reed’s identification of him was not credible. We note that a reviewing court
No. 24AP-668 6
may consider witness credibility in addressing a manifest weight of the evidence argument.
State v. Cattledge, 2010-Ohio-4953, ¶ 6 (10th Dist.). However, in conducting such review,
we are guided by the presumption that the jury “ ‘is best able to view the witnesses and
observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in
weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony.’ ”
Id., quoting Seasons Coal Co. v.
Cleveland,
10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80 (1984). Therefore, we must defer to the factual findings of
the jury regarding the credibility of the witnesses.
Id., citing State v. DeHass,
10 Ohio St.2d
230 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. Lowry argues that Reed was not credible, as she
did not identify Lowry from a photo array, she incorrectly estimated his age as much
younger than he actually is, and she said to the police her assailant did not have tattoos
despite Lowry having visible tattoos in court and in the Nextdoor post. However, Reed did
identify Lowry in court and in the Nextdoor post, shortly after the incident on June 30,
2022.
{¶ 17} Lowry also takes issue with the lack of physical evidence, namely DNA or
fingerprints, that would tie him to Reed’s home. This court has noted that “ ‘[a] lack of
physical evidence, standing alone, does not render [a defendant’s] conviction against the
manifest weight of the evidence.’ ” State v. Connally, 2016-Ohio-7573, ¶ 43 (10th Dist.),
quoting State v. Peeples,
2014-Ohio-4064, ¶ 21 (10th Dist.), citing State v. Conner, 2013-
Ohio-2773, ¶ 12 (10th Dist.). “ ‘If [witness] testimony is believed then the lack of
fingerprints, DNA, footprints or any other physical evidence does not render the conviction
against the manifest weight of the evidence.’ ” (Internal quotations omitted.)
Connally at
¶ 43, quoting
Peeples at ¶ 21. Further, “ ‘[t]he testimony of a single witness, if believed by
the finder of fact, is sufficient to support a criminal conviction.’ ” State v. Barrie, 2016-
Ohio-5640, ¶ 21 (10th Dist.), quoting State v. Booker,
2015-Ohio-5118, ¶ 18.
{¶ 18} Even given Reed’s inconsistent identification of Lowry, a defendant will not
be entitled to reversal on manifest weight or insufficient evidence grounds merely because
inconsistent testimony was heard at trial. “While the jury may take note of the
inconsistencies and resolve or discount them accordingly, see [State v.] DeHass, 10 Ohio
St.2d 230 (1967), such inconsistencies do not render defendant’s conviction against the
manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Nivens, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS
No. 24AP-668 7
2245, *7 (10th Dist. May 28, 1996). A jury, as finder of fact, may believe all, part, or none
of a witness’s testimony. State v. Antill,
176 Ohio St. 61, 67 (1964).
{¶ 19} While Lowry points us to inconsistencies from Reed’s identifications of
Lowry and her failure to identify him from the police photo array, we are not persuaded
that the jury lost its way. Besides Reed’s testimony, the jury also had evidence in the record
that showed Lowry’s cell phone location around West Dublin Granville Road and East
Cooke Road at the time of the incidents. The state also presented evidence that Lowry had
sold Reed’s jewelry to a pawn shop within hours of it being stolen. While Reed did not
identify Lowry from the photo array, she did identify him from the Nextdoor post. The jury
was able to weigh all of this evidence, and this court has noted that “[a] conviction is not
against the manifest weight of the evidence because the jury chose to believe the state’s
version of events over the defendant’s version.” State v. Hawk, 2013-Ohio-5794, ¶ 59 (10th
Dist.).
{¶ 20} For these reasons, we overrule Lowry’s assignment of error.
IV. CONCLUSION
{¶ 21} Having overruled Lowry’s assignment of error, we affirm the judgment of the
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment affirmed.
JAMISON, P.J., and DINGUS, J., concur.
