State v. Bennett
2015 Ohio 3246
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Undercover Cincinnati vice officer posed as prostitute on McMicken Ave.; Bennett approached in his car and asked if she was "working," said he wanted a "regular," and asked what she charged.
- The officer mentioned $40; Bennett agreed "We can do that," arranged to meet later, then left and was arrested.
- Bennett was charged with solicitation (R.C. 2907.24(A)(1)) and loitering to engage in solicitation (R.C. 2907.241(A)).
- At bench trial Bennett was convicted of both offenses; sentence on solicitation included community control, suspended 10 days, and an order for STD testing; loitering entry assessed $110 costs which were then remitted.
- The court of appeals dismissed the appeal as to the loitering entry for lack of a final appealable order and affirmed the solicitation conviction, rejecting Bennett’s claim that the officer’s stating the price made her the solicitor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the loitering judgment is a final appealable order | State: court costs were entered, so appeal permitted | Bennett: appeal should proceed | Court: assessing and remitting costs is not a "sentence" or sanction; no final appealable order — appeal dismissed |
| Whether evidence was sufficient/against weight for solicitation conviction | State: Bennett solicited officer to engage in sexual activity for hire based on recorded exchange | Bennett: officer first named $40, so she solicited him (he was solicited) | Court: viewing recordings in favor of prosecution, Bennett asked if she was "working," sought a regular, asked price; solicitation proven and conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (Ohio 2011) (defines final appealable order elements for criminal judgments)
- State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277 (Ohio 2006) (court costs are not criminal punishment)
- State v. Swann, 142 Ohio App.3d 88 (1st Dist. 2001) (elements of soliciting to engage in sexual activity for hire; "the crime is in the asking")
- State v. Eskridge, 38 Ohio St.3d 56 (Ohio 1988) (standards for sufficiency review)
- State v. Eley, 56 Ohio St.2d 169 (Ohio 1978) (evidentiary standards in criminal convictions)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (weight-of-the-evidence standard)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (trial court credibility determinations entitled to deference)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1st Dist. 1984) (application of sufficiency standards to solicitation-related facts)