State v. Carradine
38 N.E.3d 936
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- In April 2014 a corner-store robbery/shooting occurred; defendant Robert Carradine was charged in a seven-count indictment including aggravated robbery, robbery, aggravated burglary, burglary, felonious assault (with firearm specifications), carrying a concealed weapon (CCW), and having a weapon while under disability (HWWUD). Trial to jury on most counts; two weapons counts tried to bench.
- Store owner Latimore testified a gunman pointed a firearm at him; Latimore struck the gunman, fired his .38, and both suspects fled. Witnesses saw two Black males running; one wore green hoodie.
- Carradine was observed shortly after nearby, arrested with a silver handgun in his sweatshirt pocket; store patrons identified him as the first male who entered the store before the gunman.
- Carradine initially denied involvement, later admitted knowing the gunman (“Little Bro”) but claimed he did not know of any robbery plan; he testified he carried the gun for protection and went into the store first at the gunman’s urging.
- Jury convicted Carradine on all counts and specifications; trial court merged Counts 1–5 for sentencing, imposed consecutive three-year firearm specification and four-year aggravated robbery sentence (total seven years), and concurrent sentences on CCW and HWWUD; defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict on Counts 1–5 under aiding-and-abetting | State: evidence (accompanying the gunman, prior conversation about gun, entry pattern, flight, possession of loaded gun) supports inference Carradine aided and abetted | Carradine: at most mere presence/association; no proof he shared criminal intent | Court: Sufficient evidence to support aiding-and-abetting convictions; convictions affirmed |
| Trespass/"occupied structure" elements for burglary/aggravated burglary | State: store was an occupied structure and privilege to remain was revoked when the gunman committed a violent felony inside | Carradine: store was open to public—no trespass or revoked privilege under Barksdale | Court: Store was an occupied structure; privilege revoked when gunman brandished weapon, revocation extends to aider/abettor; element satisfied |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | State: testimony, identifications, recorded statements support verdict | Carradine: jury should have credited his account; evidence only shows association | Court: Verdict not against manifest weight; jury properly credited prosecution evidence and instructions on mere presence were given |
| Jury instruction on revocation of privilege (residential wording) — plain error | State: instruction properly explained revocation concept applicable to violent felony in premises | Carradine: instruction misstated law (referenced residential premises while facts involved public business) and was plain error | Court: No plain error; instruction's substance applied and jury was properly instructed on elements; outcome unaffected |
| Allied offenses/merger of CCW and HWWUD | State: CCW and HWWUD arise from separate conduct/animus so may be separately punished | Carradine: offenses are allied; same conduct (possessing the gun) and same animus should merge | Court: Offenses did not merge — separate conduct (acquiring/possessing while under disability vs. concealing/carrying) and separate animus analysis support separate convictions; Rice and subsequent precedent applied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240 (2001) (aiding-and-abetting and intent may be inferred from circumstances)
- State v. Barksdale, 2 Ohio St.3d 126 (1982) (limits on applying breaking-and-entering to conduct on premises open to public)
- State v. Steffen, 31 Ohio St.3d 111 (1987) (permission to be on premises can be revoked when a violent felony is committed inside)
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (2015) (framework for allied-offenses analysis: dissimilar import, separate conduct, or separate animus)
- State v. Rice, 69 Ohio St.2d 422 (1982) (holding CCW and HWWUD are not allied offenses)