A PERSON THAT A PARTICULAR CONSEQUENCE
MUST FOLLOW FOR SOME SPECIFIED ACTION TAKEN.
{¶13} "II. IT IS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO PERMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF
INFORMATION RELATED TO A PRIOR POLICE INVESTIGATION OF THE
APPELLANT-DEFENDANT, WHEN NO FORMAL CHARGES OR COURT ACTION
WERE BROUGHT AGAINST THE APPELLANT-DEFENDANT RESULTING FROM
THE POLICE INVESTIGATIONS, AND WHEN THE BASIS FOR THE
INVESTIGATIONS INVOLVED SPURIOUS ALLEGATIONS THAT THE APPELLANT-
DEFENDANT WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE HIRED A "HIT MAN" TO KILL HIS
"PROSTITUTE GIRLFRIEND", AS THESE ALLEGATIONS WERE UNPROVEN,
IRRELEVANT AND FAR MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN PROBATIVE, AND THEIR
IMPACT UPON THE PROCEEDINGS TAINTED THE ENTIRE TRIAL, AND
SUBSTANTIALLY PREJUDICED THE APPELLANT-DEFENDANT IN THE EYES OF
THE JURY.
{¶14} "III. WHEN A CITIZEN CRITICIZES OR CHASTISES A POLICE
OFFICER AND USES VITUPERATIVE AND VITRIOLIC WORDS, NO MATTER HOW
DISTASTEFUL THOSE WORDS MAY BE, SUCH METRIC AND/OR CRITICISM IS
PROTECTED SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION AND MAY NEVER BE CENSORED OR SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION.
{¶15} "IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE APPELLANT-
DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR A JURY INSTRUCTION THAT SET FORTH THE
FIRST AMENDMENT LAW RELATED TO PROTECTED SPEECH, INTER ALIA, Richland County, Case No. 2012-CA-50 6
WHEN THE BASIS OF THE CHARGES AGAINST THE APPELLANT-DEFENDANT
WERE BASED UPON WORDS ALONE.
{¶16} "V. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN
SENTENCING THE APPELLANT-DEFENDANT TO THE MAXIMUM INCARCERATION
PERIOD OF THREE (3) YEARS ON BOTH LOW-LEVEL FELONIES OF THE THIRD
DEGREE, WHEN THE APPELLANT-DEFENDANT HAD NEVER BEEN CONVICTED
OF ANY PRIOR FELONY IN HIS LIFE, AND WHERE THE MANDATES OF ORC
§2929.11(A) DICTATE THAT THE OVERRIDING PURPOSES OF FELONY
SENTENCING ARE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER
USING THE MINIMUM SANCTIONS THAT THE COURT DETERMINES
ACCOMPLISH THOSE PURPOSES WITHOUT IMPOSING AN UNNECESSARY
BURDEN ON STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESOURCES .
{¶17} "VI. THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE
STATE OF OHIO RELEVANT TO BOTH THE RETALIATION AND THE INTIMIDATION
CONVICTION TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION, WHEN THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE
PRODUCED THAT A PUBLIC SERVANT WAS, PRIOR TO OR DURING TRIAL,
INVOLVED IN A COURT PROCEEDING WHEN THE ALLEGED RETALIATION
AND/OR INTIMIDATION CHARGED OCCURRED.
{¶18} "VII. WITHOUT PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE
CONDUCT OF THE OFFENDER HAD A FACTUAL NEXUS TO THE UNDERLING
CHARGES THAT RESULTED IN A COURT PROCEEDING, NO CONVICTION ON
CHARGES OF EITHER RETALIATION OR INTIMIDATION MAY BE HAD." Richland County, Case No. 2012-CA-50 7
I, VI & VII
{¶19} In his first, sixth and seventh assignments of error, Yambrisak essentially
challenges the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence.
{¶20} Because we find the issues raised in these assignments of error are
closely related for ease of discussion we shall address the assignments of error
together.
{¶21} Our review of the constitutional sufficiency of evidence to support a
criminal conviction is governed by Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct.
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), which requires a court of appeals to determine whether
"after viewing the evidence in the