State v. Baker, 2013 Ohio 2507

Baker leased wheel rims from Rent-N-Roll and fell severely delinquent on payments.
Rent-N-Roll employees (Armacost and Holbrook) went to Baker’s workplace to repossess the rims and parked their van diagonally behind Baker’s car to block him.
Baker was leaving to go to the hospital for his wife’s difficult pregnancy; an interaction occurred between him and the employees at the vehicle.
State witnesses said Baker backed into the van door and then drove forward, striking Armacost and injuring him; Baker denied hitting anyone or the van.
Baker was charged with assault (R.C. 2903.13(A)) and criminal damaging or endangering (R.C. 2909.06(A)); the trial court acquitted on assault but convicted of negligent assault (lesser) and convicted of criminal damaging.
On appeal the court reversed the negligent-assault conviction (holding negligent assault is not a lesser-included offense of the charged assault) and affirmed the criminal-damaging conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether negligent assault (R.C. 2903.14) is a lesser-included offense of assault (R.C. 2903.13(A))	Trial court treated negligent assault as a lesser included and convicted Baker of it	Baker argued negligent assault contains an element (use of deadly weapon/dangerous ordnance) not in assault, so it cannot be a lesser-included offense	Court held negligent assault is not a lesser-included offense of R.C. 2903.13(A); reversed negligent-assault conviction and discharged Baker on that count
Sufficiency/manifest weight of evidence for criminal damaging or endangering (R.C. 2909.06(A))	State argued evidence supported knowing creation of substantial risk to property and thus conviction was proper	Baker argued the court found only negligence on assault and thus conviction requiring knowing conduct was unsupported	Court held evidence was sufficient and conviction not against manifest weight; affirmed criminal-damaging conviction

State v. Deem, 40 Ohio St.3d 205, 533 N.E.2d 294 (Ohio 1988) (three-part test for lesser-included offenses)
State v. Evans, 122 Ohio St.3d 381, 911 N.E.2d 889 (Ohio 2009) (clarifying lesser-included-offense analysis)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Lovejoy, 79 Ohio St.3d 440, 683 N.E.2d 1112 (Ohio 1997) (inconsistent verdicts are not grounds for reversal)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (manifest-weight standard)
State v. Bryan, 101 Ohio St.3d 272, 804 N.E.2d 433 (Ohio 2004) (credibility determinations are for the trier of fact)