State v. Castle
2017 Ohio 942
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Walgreens pharmacist put 10–15 manufacturer pill bottles (Oxycontin/Oxycodone) in the drive-through drawer after a threatening phone demand; the bag was removed and police viewed limited security footage.
- Fourteen empty manufacturer pill bottles were later found; two bottles yielded a partial DNA profile that matched Appellant Nicholas Castle.
- Castle was indicted for robbery (R.C. 2911.02) but at trial the state requested a jury instruction on receiving stolen property (R.C. 2913.51); the court gave the instruction over defense objection.
- Jury acquitted Castle of robbery but convicted him of receiving stolen property; court sentenced him to 18 months and ordered it consecutive to an existing 4-year Franklin County sentence.
- Castle appealed, arguing (1) receiving stolen property is not a lesser-included offense of robbery, (2) prosecutorial improper comments on his silence/failure to present evidence warranted a mistrial, and (3) the court failed to make required R.C. 2929.14(C) findings for consecutive sentencing.
- The court affirmed the conviction (finding receiving stolen property is a lesser-included offense and the comments were harmless error) but vacated the consecutive sentence portion and remanded for limited resentencing because required statutory findings were not made.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether receiving stolen property is a lesser-included offense of robbery | State: Because robbery requires committing a "theft offense," and receiving stolen property is a theft offense, it is a lesser-included offense | Castle: Robbery does not require receiving/retaining/disposing of property, so receiving stolen property is not lesser-included | Held: Yes — applying Deem and Smith, receiving stolen property is a lesser-included offense of robbery |
| Whether prosecutor's comments on defendant's silence violated Fifth Amendment and required mistrial | State: Comments addressed defendant's post-Miranda silence or lack of explanation; even if improper, harmless | Castle: Prosecutor repeatedly highlighted his silence and failure to present evidence, infringing constitutional rights and prejudicing jury | Held: Some comments were improper but, given DNA evidence and context, they were harmless error; no mistrial required |
| Whether prosecutor could comment on failure to present evidence | State: Permissible to note defense did not produce evidence supporting "inside job" theory | Castle: Such comments impermissibly shifted burden or penalized defense | Held: Comments about failure to produce evidence were permissible; prosecutor may highlight absence of defense evidence |
| Whether court made required R.C. 2929.14(C) findings for consecutive sentence | State: Concedes the trial court failed to make/enter required findings and agrees remand is required | Castle: Trial court did not make statutorily required findings at hearing or in entry | Held: Trial court erred — sentence vacated in part and remanded for limited resentencing to make R.C. 2929.14(C) findings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Deem, 40 Ohio St.3d 205 (defines lesser-included offense test)
- State v. Smith, 117 Ohio St.3d 447 (applies Deem to statutes with alternative methods; each alternative must be analyzed)
- State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 (discusses prosecutorial comments on defendant silence and harmless-error review)
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (prohibits commenting on defendant's silence in certain contexts)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (addresses Miranda and use of post-warning silence)
- Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 (permits impeachment by prearrest silence in limited circumstances)