State v. Beck, 2016 Ohio 8122

Background

Peter Beck, a CPA who served as CTech’s CFO in practice, was indicted on multiple counts arising from raising investments for Christopher Technologies (CTech); following a ten-week bench trial he was convicted of three thefts, three securities violations, and seven counts of perjury and sentenced to four years.
Three Wells Fargo financial advisors invested $50,000 each after a December 2007 meeting with Beck; they discovered materially different 2007 year-end financial statements at an April 2008 board meeting.
Tom and Tina Walter invested $150,000 after meetings with Beck in July 2008; they later suspected fraud and triggered a securities-division investigation in which Beck testified under oath at a Rule 23 hearing in 2010.
Beck was initially indicted July 19, 2013 (charges tied to July 2008), and later indicted again February 13, 2014 (charges covering Dec 2007–Aug 2008); the indictments were consolidated for trial.
On appeal Beck argued (inter alia) that theft and securities convictions were time‑barred, several third‑party subpoenas were improperly quashed, certain business‑record emails were inadmissible hearsay, and his perjury convictions rested on false or ambiguous testimony.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Beck)	Held
Whether theft-by-deception convictions based on Dec 2007 conduct were time‑barred	Statute of limitations tolled until corpus delicti was discovered in Apr 2008, so prosecution within six years was timely	Dec 2007 conduct was outside limitations and should be dismissed	Held: Not time‑barred — corpus delicti discovered Apr 2008; theft convictions affirmed
Whether securities convictions (July 2008) were time‑barred under R.C. 1707.28	Five‑year limit does not defeat state prosecutions; convictions are timely as charged	Five‑year statutory limit applies to securities violations and barred prosecution more than five years after acts	Held: Vacated — five‑year limitations for securities violations bars these convictions
Whether trial court abused discretion by quashing Beck’s third‑party subpoenas duces tecum	Subpoenas were relevant and necessary for defense	Subpoenas were overbroad but legitimate defense discovery	Held: No abuse — subpoenas were unreasonable/oppressive and quashed properly
Whether perjury convictions based on Rule 23 testimony were supported by proof of falsity and materiality	Testimony was false and material to the investigation	Answers were ambiguous, literally true, nonresponsive, or unsupported as false; statute bars conviction based solely on another’s testimony	Held: Vacated — all seven perjury convictions reversed because answers were not shown clearly false or were responsive to ambiguous questions

Key Cases Cited

State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (takes plain‑error review with utmost caution)
State v. Moreland, 50 Ohio St.3d 58 (plain‑error standard requires different outcome absent error)
State v. Climaco, 85 Ohio St.3d 582 (explains corpus delicti elements)
State v. Hensley, 59 Ohio St.3d 136 (discovery of corpus delicti defined)
State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49 (trial court broad discretion in admitting evidence)
State v. White, 15 Ohio St.2d 146 (presumption that judge in bench trial considered only competent evidence)
United States v. Bronston, 409 U.S. 352 (literally true but nonresponsive answers cannot support perjury conviction)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (manifest‑weight review standard)
State v. Detillio, 90 Ohio App.3d 241 (no discovery tolling for R.C. 1707.28 statute of limitations)