## Facts

- In the early morning hours of June 8, 2009, a window at the Goodrich and Gannett Neighborhood Center in Cleveland was broken.
- The neighborhood center operated a licensed childcare center and also provided programs for senior citizens.
- Police responded around 2:00 a.m. to a report of an attempted break-in at the center.
- An officer found Vincent Sullivan standing near the broken window.
- Sullivan had a bag containing a hammer, a chisel, and gloves.
- The broken window was about three feet by three feet.
- Replacement glass had to be ordered, and the opening was covered with wood until the glass arrived and the window was repaired about two weeks later.
- The repair cost for the window was $571.
- Sullivan was convicted of vandalism and appealed, arguing the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sullivan committed vandalism by knowingly causing the required level of physical harm to the neighborhood center’s property.
2. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence of the extent of harm, including proof of the amount of economic harm (shown by repair cost) and the nature and use of the facility.

## Decision

- The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational juror could find the essential elements of vandalism proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court concluded that the testimony about the broken window, the need to order replacement glass, the temporary wood covering for about two weeks, and the $571 repair cost supported the degree of property harm required for the offense.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the offense proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The amount of property damage may be proven through evidence of repair costs and the surrounding circumstances showing the nature and extent of the harm.
- A jury may infer a defendant’s identity and mental state from circumstantial evidence, including presence at the scene immediately after the damage and possession of tools consistent with causing that damage.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed Sullivan’s vandalism conviction because the State presented evidence that a neighborhood center window was freshly broken, Sullivan was found next to it during a police response to a reported break-in attempt while carrying a hammer, chisel, and gloves, and the window damage required ordered replacement glass, temporary boarding for about two weeks, and $571 in repairs—evidence from which a rational jury could find the vandalism elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt.


State v. Sullivan, 2010-Ohio-5357 (2010)