Centerville v. Knab, 136 N.E.3d 808

Defendant Michael P. Knab called 9‑1‑1 reporting an active shooter and that someone had been shot at his residence; Centerville officers responded and found no gun, no injuries, no gunshot damage.
Witnesses (Knab’s mother, friend David Carter, and multiple officers) testified that Knab was hallucinating and had a history of drug use; some officers found weapons and drug paraphernalia in the house but no firearms or victims.
Knab was charged with making a false report to a law‑enforcement agency (R.C. 2917.32(A)(3), first‑degree misdemeanor) and improper use of a 9‑1‑1 system (R.C. 128.32(E), fourth‑degree misdemeanor). He pled not guilty and was tried in a bench trial.
The trial court convicted Knab on both counts, sentenced him (concurrent terms: 180 days with 90 suspended, $500 fine with $475 suspended, three years probation), and ordered restitution of $1,375.56 to the Centerville Police Department for officers’ wages.
On appeal Knab argued insufficient evidence as to the required knowing mental state, that restitution to the police department was improper, and that the sentence for the 9‑1‑1 misdemeanor exceeded statutory maximums.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence—knowing element for false report and improper 9‑1‑1 use	State: testimony showed Knab knew no shooter or injured person existed despite calling 9‑1‑1	Knab: he was hallucinating and lacked knowledge that the report was false	Court: Evidence sufficient; trier of fact could find Knab acted knowingly
Restitution payable to police department	State: officers’ wages responding to the call are economic harm and restitutionable	Knab: police dept. is not a “victim” under R.C. 2929.28 and wages were not an economic loss	Court: Vacated restitution—governmental agency not entitled absent express statutory authorization, and no demonstrable economic loss (officers were on duty)
Distinction between “economic harm” and “economic loss”	State: statutes defining economic harm support restitution to public entity	Knab: restitution statutes require victim’s economic loss, a different and narrower concept	Court: Agreed with Knab—economic harm (for grading) differs from economic loss (for restitution); restitution improper here
Sentence for fourth‑degree misdemeanor (improper use of 9‑1‑1)	State: (conceded) trial court imposed excessive jail and fine	Knab: sentence exceeded statutory maximums for fourth‑degree misdemeanor	Court: Reversed conviction for the 9‑1‑1 count and remanded for resentencing because imposed jail/fine exceeded statutory limits

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Dennis, 79 Ohio St.3d 421 (1997) (sufficiency—rational trier of fact standard)
State v. Christian, 143 Ohio St.3d 417 (2015) (governmental agencies generally are not "victims" for restitution absent legislative authorization)
State v. Ritchie, 174 Ohio App.3d 582 (2007) (use of definitions in related statutes to interpret "victim")