State v. Artis
2013 Ohio 3198
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- On July 5, 2012, Whetsel was robbed of marijuana by two men ("Crazy" and "Tito"). Whetsel did not report the robbery and recruited Artis and Rogan to recover the marijuana.
- Whetsel (with a baseball bat) and Artis (with a taser) went to an apartment they believed the robbers entered, kicked in the door, and a fight ensued; no serious injuries; marijuana was not recovered.
- Artis was indicted for aggravated burglary (R.C. 2911.11(A)(1)) and misdemeanor assault; jury acquitted him of aggravated burglary and assault but convicted him of the lesser-included offense of burglary (R.C. 2911.12(B)); sentenced to four years.
- Artis appealed, arguing (1) the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on burglary as a fourth-degree felony and (2) the court admitted prejudicial prior-bad-act evidence in violation of Evid.R. 404(B).
- The court analyzed the two-tier lesser-included-offense test (statutory-elements step and evidence-based step) and reviewed admissibility of testimony about prior contacts with police.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2911.12(B) (burglary, 4th deg.) is a statutory lesser included offense of R.C. 2911.11(A)(1) (aggravated burglary, 1st deg.) | State: aggravated burglary and burglary are distinct under the statutes; no lesser-included instruction required. | Artis: burglary is a lesser-included offense and jury should have been instructed on 4th-degree burglary. | Court: Not a statutory lesser included offense (different elements/definitions); no error denying instruction. |
| Whether, under the evidence, the jury should have received a lesser-included instruction anyway | State: facts showed intent to commit a criminal act and use/threaten harm, so no reasonable jury could convict only of simple burglary. | Artis: even if statutory test fails, the apartment was a habitation and evidence could support burglary instruction. | Court: Evidence (kicking door, weapons, stated purpose to take marijuana) precluded instruction; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether testimony about officers' prior contacts and investigatory steps violated Evid.R. 404(B) | State: testimony explained investigative steps and was not offered to show character or conformity. | Artis: statements referenced prior contacts/bad acts and were prejudicial character evidence. | Court: Statements about prior contact/investigation did not show prior crimes; admissible and not a 404(B) violation; curative instruction handled one brief reference. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Evans, 122 Ohio St.3d 381 (2009) (sets two-tier lesser-included-offense analysis and refines statutory-elements test)
- State v. Deem, 40 Ohio St.3d 205 (1988) (three-part statutory-elements test for lesser included offenses)
- State v. Kidder, 32 Ohio St.3d 279 (1987) (explains when jury must be charged on lesser included offense based on evidence)
- State v. Thomas, 40 Ohio St.3d 213 (1988) (lesser-included instruction required only if evidence could support acquittal on greater and conviction on lesser)
- State v. Cooper, 52 Ohio St.2d 163 (1977) (testimony of prior official contact does not necessarily show prior criminal acts)
- State v. Fears, 86 Ohio St.3d 329 (1999) (jurors presumed to follow curative instructions)
- Shaker Heights v. Mosely, 113 Ohio St.3d 329 (2007) (quoted in two-tier analysis regarding evidentiary step)