State v. Beverly (Slip Opinion)
143 Ohio St. 3d 258
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Beverly was convicted in 2011 of receiving stolen property, burglary, and related felonies, and was additionally found guilty of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity under R.C. 2923.32(A)(1).
- The pattern of corrupt activity involved Beverly and Imber stealing or receiving stolen vehicles outside Clark County, then returning to Clark County to approach homes and either make up excuses to gain entry or commit burglaries.
- The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed Beverly’s pattern-of-corrupt-activity conviction; the state sought discretionary review, which this court granted over the dissent.
- The core issue is how the Ohio RICO-like statute’s elements—enterprise and pattern of corrupt activity—are proven and whether evidence of one can establish the other.
- The court analyzes the relationship between an enterprise and the pattern of activity, and ultimately rejects the notion that the enterprise must be a separate structural entity distinct from the pattern.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an enterprise must be a separate structure from the pattern | State need not prove a separate entity | Enterprise must be distinct from the pattern | Yes; enterprise may be proven without a separate structure |
| Whether the evidence suffices to prove both enterprise and pattern | Record shows Beverly and Imber formed an association-in-fact | No independent enterprise shown despite pattern | Evidence supports both enterprise and pattern |
| Whether jury instructions properly defined enterprise and pattern | Instructions were adequate and aligned with Griffin | Instructions were deficient under prior standards | Instructions were substantially similar to Griffin and not error |
| Whether the verdict should be reversed for manifest weight | Weight would not change the result | Manifest weight merits reversal | No miscarriage of justice; weight affirmed against reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Miranda, 138 Ohio St.3d 184 (2014-Ohio-451) (RICO pattern may be proven without separate enterprise proof)
- Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009) (enterprise definition and association-in-fact proof guidance)
- United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981) (enterprise requires ongoing organization and continuing unit)
- State v. Welch, 2006-Ohio-6684 (3d Dist. Wyandot No. 16-06-02) (enterprise/evidence sufficiency considerations in Ohio)