State v. Bennett
2011 Ohio 6679
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Bennett attacked Wing at Tipton's home, demanding money, and Wing paid $20.
- Wing was later robbed again and reported both incidents to police; time frame tied to August 7, 2007.
- Officer Folley interviewed Wing; Wing placed the offense in the week of August 7, 2007 based on paydays.
- November 14, 2007 Bennett was indicted for robbery; a supplemental indictment followed in 2008; trial was conducted by court on count two in 2010 after a waiver of jury trial.
- Court permitted an amendment to the indictment to state the offense occurred ‘in the week of August 7, 2007.’
- On July 14, 2010 Bennett was found guilty; January–October 2010 sentencing imposed 30 days, 3 years’ community control, and $50 restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amendment changed the crime’s identity | Bennett argues Crim.R. 7(D) amendment altered the offense’s identity. | State contends amendment to the time frame is permissible and non-substantive. | Amendment allowed; did not change offense identity. |
| Whether conviction is against the manifest weight | Bennett claims victim credibility flaws warrant reversal. | State asserts trial court properly weighed credibility; no miscarriage of justice. | Conviction not against the manifest weight; credibility for the trier of fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sellards, 17 Ohio St.3d 169 (1985) (time/place not always essential element; amendments permissible)
- State v. Vitale, 96 Ohio App.3d 695 (1994) (amendment increasing time frame no new offense; risk if it did)
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (1986) (appellate review of manifest weight standard)
- State v. Shue, 97 Ohio App.3d 459 (1994) (credibility determinations reside with the trier of fact)