State v. Carter
2010 Ohio 6316
Ohio Ct. App.2010Background
- Carter was convicted in Chillicothe Municipal Court of theft for taking $460.72 of merchandise from Walmart without paying.
- On May 12, 2010, Carter loaded a shopping cart with merchandise and exited through the store doors without attempting to pay.
- Walmart asset protection, Wright, observed the conduct, confronted Carter, and followed him as he fled the scene.
- Carter abandoned the cart and fled; Wright identified Carter and alerted police; Carter was apprehended and charged under City Ordinance 545.05, analogous to RC 2913.02, as a first-degree misdemeanor.
- On the morning of trial, Carter requested new court-appointed counsel; the court denied the request after a hearing.
- During trial, Carter rested without presenting evidence or witnesses and later requested jury instructions on attempted theft and abandonment, which the court denied; the jury found Carter guilty of theft and he received the maximum sentence for a first-degree misdemeanor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion denying new counsel | Carter sought substitute counsel for good cause | Carter contends there was a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship | No abuse; no good cause shown; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether abandonment is a warranted jury instruction | Abandonment is a valid defense to theft under the circumstances | Abandonment is not warranted where insufficient evidence of complete renunciation | Abandonment instruction not required; evidence insufficient and defense not applicable |
| Whether an instruction on attempted theft was required | Evidence supports attempted theft due to thwarted effort | Evidence does not support a separate attempted theft theory | No instruction on attempted theft warranted; evidence adequate to support theft conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Flesher, 2007-Ohio-4982 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for substitute counsel)
- State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516 (2001-Ohio-112) (necessity of inquiry on counsel-appointment requests)
- State v. Erwin, 2010-Ohio-3022 (Franklin App. 2010) (inquiry required for counsel-change requests)
- Randazzo, 2002-Ohio-2250 (Cuyahoga App. 2002) (no attempted theft instruction where defendant completed theft})
- Cadle, 2008-Ohio-3639 (Summit App. 2008) (abandonment not required where applicable)
- McGhee, 2007-Ohio-6527 (Lucas App. 2007) (renunciation not complete where fear of detection motivated abandonment)