In re K.E.W.
2016 Ohio 7844
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Juvenile appellant K.E.W. was charged with robbery (R.C. 2911.02(A)(2)), assault, and criminal trespass after she exited an SUV during a drug purchase, struck buyer Kendra Renko in the head, chased her into an apartment building, and then returned to the vehicle as it drove away.
- Renko had handed $25 to a vehicle occupant; the seller began weighing marijuana on the vehicle armrest but had not yet handed product to Renko when the assault occurred.
- A maintenance worker witnessed K.E.W. strike Renko multiple times and saw K.E.W. re-enter the vehicle as it left.
- At trial the juvenile court found all counts "true"; K.E.W. appealed arguing insufficiency of evidence as to robbery because the state failed to show she acted with the purpose to deprive Renko of property or to aid a theft.
- The appellate majority reversed and vacated the robbery finding, concluding the state relied on impermissible stacked inferences and presented no evidence that K.E.W. intended to commit or facilitate a theft when she assaulted Renko.
- A dissent would have upheld the robbery finding, reasoning intent to facilitate the theft could be reasonably inferred from the timing and circumstances of the assault.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to sustain a robbery finding under R.C. 2911.02(A)(2) | State: assault occurred during a theft attempt; intent to facilitate theft may be inferred from timing/circumstances | K.E.W.: no evidence she intended to deprive Renko or aid a theft; assault was unrelated to the transaction | Reversed — insufficient evidence to support robbery finding (vacated) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (circumstantial and direct evidence have equal probative value)
- State v. Tolliver, 140 Ohio St.3d 420 (2014) (robbery mens rea satisfied by mens rea for underlying theft)
- State v. Nevius, 147 Ohio St. 263 (1947) (definition of an inference from proven facts)
- State v. Nicely, 39 Ohio St.3d 147 (1988) (definition of circumstantial evidence)
- In re Washington, 81 Ohio St.3d 337 (1998) (intent may be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances)
- State v. Johnson, 56 Ohio St.2d 35 (1978) (intent inference principles)