{¶ 65} The Fourth District recently affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress when, after the defendant waived his Miranda rights, the investigating officers told the defendant that they were not gathering evidence or recording the interview when, in fact, they were. State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-5316, 162 N.E.3d 898 (4th Dist.). The appellate court concluded that the investigators did not use coercive police tactics during the interview.

'[I]n the absence of an affirmative demonstration by the defendant to the contrary, we may presume that the trial court considered [these statutes].'" State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-5316, 162 N.E.3d 898, ¶ 52 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Chandler, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190153, 2020-Ohio-164, ¶ 8."

'[I]n the absence of an affirmative demonstration by the defendant to the contrary, we may presume that the trial court considered [these statutes].'" State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-5316, 162 N.E.3d 898, ¶ 52 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Chandler, 2020-Ohio-164, ¶ 8 (1st Dist.). See Stewart, supra.

'[I]n the absence of an affirmative demonstration by the defendant to the contrary, we may presume that the trial court considered [these statutes].'" State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-5316, 162 N.E.3d 898, ¶ 52 (4th Dist), quoting State v. Chandler, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190153, 2020-Ohio-164, ¶ 8.

. State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-5316, 162 N.E.3d 898 (4th Dist.), citing State v. Eskridge, 38 Ohio St.3d 56, 526 N.E.2d 304, syllabus (1988). Once again, witness credibility is a matter entrusted to the trier of fact.

(Citations omitted.) State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-5316, 162 N.E.3d 898, ¶ 36 (4th Dist.)." 'A defendant's mere presence in an area where drugs are located is insufficient to demonstrate that the defendant constructively possessed the drugs.'

{¶38} In determining whether a criminal conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of 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 reversal of the conviction is necessary. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 at 387; State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, 960 N.E.2d 955, ¶ 119; State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-5316, 162 N.E.3d 898, ¶ 31 (4th Dist.). To satisfy this test, the state must introduce substantial evidence on all the elements of an offense so the jury can find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Lombardi, 9th Dist. Summit No. 22435, 2005-Ohio-4942, ¶ 9, quoting State v. Roberts, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 96CA006462, 1997 WL 600669 (Sept. 17, 1997); Gibson, supra, 2008-Ohio-410, at ¶ 15; State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-5316, 162 N.E.3d 898, ¶ 30-32 (4th Dist.);

{¶42} In State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-5316, 162 N.E.3d 898, (4th Dist.) ¶ 30, this court wrote that to determine whether a criminal conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, "we must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of 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 reversal of the conviction is necessary." Smith at ¶ 31, citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997); State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, 960 N.E.2d 955, ¶ 119; State v. Brown, 4th Dist. Athens No. 09CA3, 2009-Ohio-5390.

Thus, a determination that [a] conviction is supported by the weight of the evidence will also be dispositive of the issue of sufficiency.'" State v. Lombardi, 9th Dist. Summit No. 22435, 2005-Ohio-4942, ¶ 9, quoting State v. Roberts, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 96CA006462, 1997 WL 600669 (Sept. 17, 1997); State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-5316, 162 N.E.3d 898, ¶ 30-32 (4th Dist.). 2. Conviction for Violating Protection Order