Title: State v. Fips

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
v. Fips, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-1449.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2020-OHIO-1449 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. FIPS, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State v. Fips, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-1449.] 
Criminal law—Remedy for conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence 
is a new trial—Court of appeals’ judgment reversed and cause remanded 
for new trial. 
(No. 2018-1778—Submitted January 29, 2020—Decided April 15, 2020.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 105825, 2018-Ohio-2296. 
__________________ 
FISCHER, J. 
{¶ 1} Once a reviewing court determines that a criminal conviction is 
against the manifest weight of the evidence, the remedy is a new trial.  Because the 
Eighth District Court of Appeals ignored this longstanding rule and did otherwise 
here—deciding instead to reduce the conviction to a lesser included offense—we 
reverse its judgment. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
I.  BACKGROUND 
{¶ 2} In 2016, appellee, Sharon D. Fips, was charged with assaulting a 
peace officer in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A) and (C)(5).  Following a bench trial, 
Fips was found guilty. 
{¶ 3} Fips subsequently appealed her conviction to the Eighth District Court 
of Appeals, raising a single assignment of error: that her conviction was against the 
manifest weight of the evidence. 
{¶ 4} The court agreed with Fips, finding that her conviction was against 
the manifest weight of the evidence.  Rather than order a new trial though, the 
Eighth District modified the judgment in her case to reduce the conviction to the 
lesser included offense of disorderly conduct, R.C. 2917.11(A)(1).  The court did 
so even though then Judge Stewart correctly pointed out that “[t]he reversal of a 
conviction as being against the manifest weight of the evidence results in a new 
trial,” id. at ¶ 21 (Stewart, J., dissenting). 
{¶ 5} The state asked for reconsideration, which the original panel declined, 
and for en banc review.  The full court considered what the proper remedy is when 
a court finds that a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence (a 
modified conviction or a new trial), but it was evenly split on the issue. 
{¶ 6} The state then appealed to this court, and we granted jurisdiction over 
its appeal to consider the following proposition of law: “A new trial is the 
appropriate remedy when a reviewing court determines that a criminal conviction 
is not supported by the manifest weight of the evidence.”  See 155 Ohio St.3d 1405, 
2019-Ohio-944, 119 N.E.3d 433. 
II.  ANALYSIS 
{¶ 7} Deciding this case is made easy by the fact that at least 65 years of 
precedent from this court suggests that, contrary to the decision below, a new trial 
is the appropriate remedy when a reviewing court determines that a criminal 
conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence. 
January Term, 2020 
 
3
{¶ 8} In State v. Robinson, 162 Ohio St. 486, 124 N.E.2d 148 (1955), this 
court specifically and succinctly resolved this very issue when it held that “[w]here 
a Court of Appeals has decided that a verdict or finding of guilt[] * * * is against 
the weight of the evidence * * * such Court of Appeals has no power to modify 
such verdict or finding by reducing it * * *.  Its only power is to order a new trial.”  
Id. at 487. 
{¶ 9} This court has time and again adhered to this rule.  See, e.g., State v. 
Geghan, 166 Ohio St. 188, 189, 140 N.E.2d 790 (1957) (“In such a situation [when 
the court determines that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence,] it is the 
sole function of the Court of Appeals to set aside the judgment and remand the 
cause for a new trial”); State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 388, 678 N.E.2d 
541 (1997), quoting Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42-43, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 
L.Ed.2d 652 (1982) (“ ‘A reversal based on the weight of the evidence * * * simply 
affords the defendant a second opportunity to seek a favorable judgment’ ”); and 
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, 972 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 22 
(“When a court of appeals determines that a jury verdict is against the weight of the 
evidence, it should remand the case for a new trial”).  It is still the rule today. 
{¶ 10} Accordingly, we once again hold that a new trial is the appropriate 
remedy when a reviewing court determines that a criminal conviction is against the 
manifest weight of the evidence.  We also take this opportunity to remind the lower 
courts in this state that they are required to follow our precedent.  See Smith v. Klem, 
6 Ohio St.3d 16, 18, 450 N.E.2d 1171 (1983), citing Merrick v. Ditzler, 91 Ohio St. 
256, 264, 110 N.E. 493 (1915). 
III.  CONCLUSION 
{¶ 11} For the reasons stated in this opinion, we reverse the judgment of the 
Eighth District Court of Appeals in this case and remand the matter for a new trial. 
Judgment reversed 
and cause remanded. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
O’CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and SADLER, JJ., 
concur. 
KENNEDY, J., concurs in judgment only. 
LISA L. SADLER, J., of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting for 
STEWART, J. 
_________________ 
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
Katherine E. Mullin, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. 
Mark A. Stanton, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Francis Cavallo, 
Assistant Public Defender, for appellee. 
Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, and Benjamin M. Flowers, State 
Solicitor, and Samuel C. Peterson and Shams H. Hirji, Deputy Solicitors, urging 
reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost. 
_________________