In State v. Stout (Apr. 16, 1997), 9th Dist. No. 96CA0038, 1997 Ohio App, the Court held that a jury could infer an owner's lack of consent from circumstantial evidence in the record. There, Stout and another man broke the windows of two semi tractor-trailers while trespassing in a transportation warehouse's parking lot. When the police arrived, Stout and his companion attempted to flee and to hide the tire iron that they had used to break the windows. At trial, the general manager of the transportation company testified that the parking lot was well-posted with "no trespassing" signs and that Stout did not have permission to be on the property. Stout's companion also testified that when the police arrived Stout "told him to get out of here so we don't get into trouble." Stout, 1997 Ohio App. This Court held on appeal that "the young men's flight from police and attempt to hide the tire iron, coupled with the fact they were trespassing, circumstantially shows they did not have the owners' consent to damage the trucks." 1997 Ohio App. Accordingly, the Court determined that Stout's criminal damaging conviction was based on sufficient evidence.