[Cite as State v. Thomas, 2026-Ohio-3392.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PORTAGE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2025-P-0088
CITY OF KENT,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the
Municipal Court, Kent Division
- vs -ISIAH LEIGH THOMAS, Trial Court No. 2025 CRB 00859 K
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: August 31, 2026
Judgment: Affirmed
Connie J. Lewandowski, Portage County Prosecutor, and Heaven DiMartino, Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Isiah Leigh Thomas, pro se, 119 West Williams Street, Kent, OH 44240 (DefendantAppellant).
SCOTT LYNCH, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Isiah Thomas, appeals his conviction for Assault
based on surveillance video rather than direct, eyewitness testimony. For the following
reasons, Thomas’s conviction for Assault is affirmed.
Procedural and Factual History
{¶2} On July 28, 2025, Thomas was charged with Assault, a misdemeanor of the
first degree in violation of R.C 2903.13(A), and Obstructing Official Business, a
misdemeanor of the second degree in violation of R.C. 2921.31(A), in the Kent Branch of
the Portage County Municipal Court.
{¶3} On September 29, 2025, a bench trial was held. Sergeant James Fuller of
the Kent Police Department testified on behalf of the State as follows:
{¶4} On the evening of July 26, 2025, Sergeant Fuller responded to the call of a
fight in the municipal parking lot behind Barrio in Kent, Ohio. Fuller found the victim, “on
the ground, knocked out cold.” Fuller was taken to Barrio where he “was shown some
clear precise video of what actually happened.” Several videos were played for the court.
The final video depicted Gregory Boggs (the victim) “having a conversation of some sort
to someone … and out of nowhere, the defendant, Mr. Thomas, comes in and knocks
him out.” Fuller identified Thomas in court.
{¶5} Sergeant Fuller did not observe Thomas on the scene. Fuller sent the video
to his other officers to search for Thomas. He was recognized at a place called the Barfly.
When approached by the police, Thomas fled through the back parking lot (also shared
by Barrio) and was apprehended.
{¶6} The court found Thomas guilty of both charges and imposed a five hundred
dollar fine and one hundred eighty days in jail with three hundred and fifty dollars of the
fine and one hundred sixty days of jail time suspended upon certain conditions.
Assignments of Error
{¶7} On December 4, 2025, Thomas filed a Notice of Appeal. On appeal, he
raises the following assignments of error:
[1.] The trial court erred in convicting the Appellant where evidence
was legally insufficient to establish identity beyond a reasonable
doubt.
[2.] The conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
[3.] The trial court violated Appellant’s procedural and substantive
due process rights by entering a conviction without reliable
PAGE 2 OF 7
Case No. 2025-P-0088
identification or testimony from the alleged victim.
Standards of Review
{¶8} “Every criminal prosecution requires proof that the person accused of the
crime is the person who committed the crime.” State v. Tate, 2014-Ohio-3667, ¶ 15. “This
truism is reflected in the state’s constitutional burden to prove the guilt of ‘the accused’
beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., citing In re Winship 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970) (“we
explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction
except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the
crime with which he is charged”).
{¶9} “Like any fact, the state can prove the identity of the accused by
‘circumstantial or direct’ evidence.” Id., citing State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 272-272
(1991). “A witness need not physically point out the defendant in the courtroom so long
as there is sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence proving that the defendant was the
perpetrator.” Id. at ¶ 19.
{¶10} A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises the issue of “whether
the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law.” State v.
Clinton, 2017-Ohio-9423, ¶ 165. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “[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.” Jenks at paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶11} In contrast to sufficiency, “weight of the evidence addresses the evidence’s
effect of inducing belief.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Wilson, 2007-Ohio-2202, ¶ 25. An
appellate court must consider all the evidence in the record, the reasonable inferences,
PAGE 3 OF 7
Case No. 2025-P-0088
the credibility of the witnesses, and whether, “in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the
jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the
conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” (Citation omitted.) State v.
Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997).
First Assignment of Error: Sufficiency of the Evidence
{¶12} Thomas argues the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to establish his
identity as Boggs’s assailant. He notes that Boggs was unable to identify his assailant
and did not testify at trial. Moreover, Thomas contends that the surveillance video did not
clearly depict his face or otherwise establish his identity as the individual in the video by
distinctive clothing, appearance, or physical characteristics.
{¶13} We disagree that the State failed to identify Thomas as the assailant. The
assault on Boggs was captured by surveillance video. Based on this video, Thomas was
identified as a suspect that same night at a nearby bar and fled when approached by
police into the same parking lot where the assault occurred. Sergeant Fuller, the police
officer who obtained the video and was present at Thomas’s arrest (handcuffing him),
identified Thomas in court as the assailant in the video. This is sufficient evidence, i.e.,
evidence from which it could be reasonably inferred that the person accused of the crime
is the person who committed the crime.
{¶14} “Many courts have condoned proof of identity by a jury’s [or a factfinder’s]
comparison of surveillance images with the appearance of the defendant in the
courtroom.” State v. Crawley, 2023-Ohio-1492, ¶ 47 (10th Dist.) (cases cited); Tate,
2014-Ohio-3667, at ¶ 19 (“[a] witness need not physically point out the defendant in the
courtroom as long as there is sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence proving the
PAGE 4 OF 7
Case No. 2025-P-0088
defendant was the perpetrator”); compare State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-3618, ¶ 22 (5th
Dist.) (“a rational basis exists in the record for the jury’s decision,” despite there being no
eyewitness to the crime of theft and the property owner being unable to identify the
suspect in the surveillance video, based on the testimony of the officer who apprehended
the suspect the day after the theft based on the video).
{¶15} The first assignment of error is without merit.
Second Assignment of Error: Weight of the Evidence
{¶16} Thomas next argues that his Assault conviction is against the weight of the
evidence on the grounds that “[t]he footage failed to depict the alleged assailant’s face or
any distinctive characteristics conclusively linking the individual shown to the appellant.”
{¶17} Again, we disagree that the videos submitted into evidence weigh heavily
against Thomas’s conviction. It has often been recognized that deference is owed to the
trier of fact, “be it a jury or a trial judge,” inasmuch as the trier of fact is “best able to view
the witnesses,” or, in the present case, the defendant himself. (Citations omitted.) State
v. Weaver, 2022-Ohio-4371, ¶ 29. Thus, it has been “held that a ‘jury was able to compare
[a] photograph admitted into evidence with the physical appearance of appellant whom
they had seen in the courtroom’ to judge the credibility of a witness that the photograph
depicted the appellant.” (Citation omitted.) Crawley, 2023-Ohio-1492, at ¶ 47 (10th Dist.).
The identification of Thomas in the present case as the assailant depicted in the video is
not against the weight of the evidence.
{¶18} The second assignment of error is without merit.
Third Assignment of Error: Due Process
{¶19} In the third assignment of error, Thomas argues he was denied due process
PAGE 5 OF 7
Case No. 2025-P-0088
as “the State proceeded to trial without the testimony of the alleged victim and without the
testimony from any eyewitness identifying Appellant as the individual who committed the
alleged offense.”
{¶20} Contrary to Thomas’s position, the foregoing authorities demonstrate that
“[a] witness need not physically point out the defendant in the courtroom so long as there
is sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence proving that the defendant was the
perpetrator.” Tate, 2014-Ohio-3667, at ¶ 19. Moreover, Thomas was identified as the
person who committed the assault, based on the surveillance video, by the officers
involved in the investigation of the incident. Sergeant Fuller was subject to crossexamination by Thomas. The video was admitted into evidence. The credibility of the
identification was duly considered by the municipal court judge acting as the trier of fact.
We find no denial of due process.
{¶21} The third assignment of error is without merit.
{¶22} For the foregoing reasons, Thomas’s conviction for Assault (as well as
Obstructing Official Business) are affirmed. Costs to be taxed against the appellant.
MATT LYNCH, P.J.,
EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,
concur.
PAGE 6 OF 7
Case No. 2025-P-0088
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the Opinion of this court, the assignments of error are
without merit. The order of this court is that the judgment of the Portage County Municipal
Court, Kent Division, is affirmed.
Costs to be taxed against appellant.
JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH
PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH,
Concurs
JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI,
Concurs
THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.
PAGE 7 OF 7
Case No. 2025-P-0088