[Cite as State v. Breeden, 2023-Ohio-1872.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 vs.

MANDEL BREEDEN,

 Defendant-Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

APPEAL NO. C-220325 

 TRIAL NO. 22CRB-2482

 

O P I N I O N.

 

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court

 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: June 7, 2023

Emily Smart Woerner, City Solicitor, William T. Horsley, Chief Prosecuting Attorney, 

and Susan M. Zurface, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee City of 

Cincinnati,

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Sarah E. Nelson, Assistant 

Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2

ZAYAS, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} Mandel Breeden appeals his conviction, after a bench trial, for public 

indecency. In one assignment of error, Breeden argues that his conviction is not 

supported by sufficient evidence and is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. 

For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

Background

{¶2} Mandel Breeden was charged with public indecency for engaging in 

sexual conduct in Mt. Airy Forest. After Breeden pled not guilty, the case proceeded 

to a bench trial. Nathaniel Young, a police specialist in the Cincinnati Police 

Department’s Vice Squad, testified that he was working undercover and investigating 

complaints of sexually deviant behavior in Mt. Airy Park. 

{¶3} On December 3, 2021, Young was observing the area around Oak Ridge 

Lodge at 9:30 a.m. He observed a man, later identified as Douglas Witt, masturbating 

and exposing himself near the lodge. Young watched as Witt walked down a set of 

stairs behind the lodge next to a veranda and enter the woods. Witt went past a sign 

that said, “Do Not Enter This Area. This is a [sic] Open Area for Hunting.”

{¶4} Young began walking toward the parking lot to update the surveillance 

team. As he was returning to the team, Mandel Breeden walked past him. Young 

noted that Breeden appeared to be “walk[ing] with a purpose” past the veranda, down 

the steps, and onto the same trail that Witt had taken. Young began to follow him. 

When he got to the rock wall where the veranda starts, he could see Witt standing at a 

picnic table without his pants and with an erect penis. Although the picnic table was 

approximately ten yards inside the wood-line, Young could see him clearly because the 

trees had no leaves. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3

{¶5} Young followed Breeden down the path toward the picnic table and

observed Breeden approach Witt. Breeden removed his erect penis from his pants and 

engaged in anal intercourse with Witt. At this time, Young was approximately two feet 

from them. Young recorded the incident on his cell phone, and the state admitted the 

recording into evidence. The recording did not reflect all of his observations as he was 

walking around the park because his cell phone was in his pocket.

{¶6} Young testified that the area where the conduct occurred was used by 

hunters, hikers, people walking around the lodge, people in the immediate parking lot, 

and park employees. At the time, there were multiple cars in the parking lot and 

several people walking in the area. Young further testified that anyone on the veranda 

would be able to see the men because the veranda was elevated and overlooked the 

picnic table. 

{¶7} Young informed Mary Warner, a second officer on the Vice Squad, of 

his observations. Warner testified that she ran the license plate number of the car that 

Breeden had driven to the park. When she identified his name, she obtained his photo 

through Facebook, and Young identified him. Later, Warner contacted Breeden by 

phone and asked him to come to the police station. When he arrived, Warner served 

him a citation. 

{¶8} After Warner’s testimony, the trial court found Breeden guilty.

{¶9} Breeden now appeals, and in one assignment of error, he contends that 

his conviction for public indecency was not supported by sufficient evidence and ran 

contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. In particular, Breeden argues that his 

conduct was not likely to be viewed by others.

Law and Analysis
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

4

{¶10} In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing 

court must 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 had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 

259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.

{¶11} When considering a weight-of-the-evidence claim, we review “ ‘the 

entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the 

credibility of the 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. 

Bailey, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-140129, 2015-Ohio-2997, ¶ 59, quoting State v. 

Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). We afford substantial 

deference to credibility determinations because the factfinder sees and hears the 

witnesses. See State v. Glover, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180572, 2019-Ohio-5211, ¶

30. This court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact on the issue 

of witness credibility unless it is patently apparent that the trier of fact lost its way in 

arriving at its verdict. Bailey at ¶ 63.

{¶12} R.C. 2907.09(A)(2) provides that no person shall recklessly engage in 

sexual conduct “under circumstances in which the person’s conduct is likely to be 

viewed by and affront others who are in the person’s physical proximity and who are 

not members of the person’s household.” Thus, the state was required to prove that 

Breeden “(1) acted recklessly; (2) exposed his private parts; (3) under circumstances 

likely to be viewed by others; (4) likely to affront others; and (5) in his physical 

proximity.” State v. Imboden, 4th Dist. Ross No. 21CA3752, 2022-Ohio-4580, ¶ 26. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

5

The relevant inquiry is whether an offender’s conduct would likely have been viewed 

by others. See State v. Fornshell, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180267, 2021-Ohio-674, ¶ 

26. It is immaterial whether others actually viewed the conduct. See id.

{¶13} Breeden argues that his conduct was not committed under 

circumstances likely to be viewed by others because the area was secluded and 

restricted to hunters.

{¶14} Reviewing the evidence adduced at trial, the testimony reveals that 

Young had an unobstructed view from the veranda of Witt standing at a picnic table 

without his pants on and with an erect penis. Later, Breeden engaged in sexual 

conduct at the same picnic table. Additionally, Young testified that the conduct could 

be viewed by hikers or hunters near the wooded area and anyone on the veranda. 

Therefore, construing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, any rational 

trier of fact could have found that Breeden’s conduct was likely to be viewed by others.

{¶15} Breeden further argues that Young’s testimony that the picnic table was 

visible from the veranda should be discounted because the video showed a significant 

amount of foliage blocking the view. Young’s recording shows the rock wall at the start 

of the veranda. However, the recording does not depict his visual observations due to 

the location of the camera in his pocket. The factfinder was free to conclude that 

Young’s testimony was credible. Based on this record, the factfinder did not clearly 

lose its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice.

{¶16} Accordingly, we overrule the assignment of error.

Conclusion

{¶17} Having overruled the sole assignment of error, we affirm the trial court’s 

judgment.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

6

Judgment affirmed.

WINKLER and BOCK, JJ., concur.

Please note:

The court has recorded its own entry this date.