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.’ ” Davis, 49 Ohio App.3d at 113, 550 N.E.2d at 969, quoting Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d at 175, 20 OBR at 218-219, 485 N.E.2d at 720-721. In other words, when reviewing a manifest weight challenge, the appellate court sits as a “thirteenth juror.” We also find that the jury’s verdict, finding appellant guilty of felonious assault, was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. His argument is also based on the mens rea element of the crime. The evidence clearly supports the jury’s conclusion that appellant acted knowingly in firing fourteen shots in the direction of residential homes. See Gregory, 90 Ohio App.3d at 131, 628 N.E.2d at 91 (<HOLDING>). Appellant’s fourth assignment of error is
holding that the trial courts damages award was against the manifest weight of the evidence because it was based upon inadmissible evidence holding that evidence of recklessness by one officer in events leading up to shooting was immaterial in evaluating objective reasonableness of shooting officers decision to use deadly force in the situation he faced at time of shooting holding that the trial court can and should grant a new trial if the manifest weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict holding that the shooting of a gun in a place where there is a risk of injury to one or more persons supports the inference that appellant acted knowingly and upholding appellants conviction as being supported by the manifest weight of the evidence holding that evidence of appellants prior gun possession was admissible in a homicide prosecution to show malice and intent possession of a gun without more is not wrongful conduct