State v. Chessman, 2012 Ohio 1427

Defendant Stephanie Chessman was convicted by bench trial on December 9, 2010 of petty theft under R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) and sentenced to 30 days (suspended), a $200 fine (partial suspension), costs, and five years of community control.
Defense timely appealed, challenging sufficiency of the evidence and the Crim.R. 29 motion to dismiss (acquittal).
On July 19, 2010, Stephanie Chessman, her brother Scott Chessman, and others allegedly entered the unlocked basement of 1925 West Main Street, New Lebanon, and removed bags/boxes of property.
Witness Brandy Miller saw the group in the basement; items removed included possessions of Cody Ridenauer and Miller’s fiancé; Huffman denied giving permission to enter the basement.
Owner Jerry Huffman testified he did not authorize entry; Ridenauer later reported items stolen and contacted police; no direct testimony established lack of consent from Ridenauer, but evidence allowed inference of lack of consent.
Appellate court reversed and vacated the conviction, holding the State failed to prove Stephanie Chessman acted with purpose to deprive the owner of the property, or that she had the requisite intent beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence is legally sufficient for petty theft	State: evidence shows removal of property; lack of consent inferred.	Chessman: insufficient proof of lack of consent and intent to deprive.	Crim.R. 29 sufficient evidence standard; conviction reversed
Whether the Crim.R. 29 motion to acquit was properly overruled	State: evidence viewed in state’s favor could prove elements beyond reasonable doubt.	Chessman: no direct evidence of lack of consent or intent to deprive.	Motion to dismiss/ acquittal improperly denied; conviction reversed

State v. Haggerty, 2011-Ohio-6705 (2d Dist. Montgomery (2011)) (Crim.R. 29 sufficiency and inference of lack of consent)
State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1978) (standard for jury possibly differing conclusions on elements)
State v. Miles, 114 Ohio App.3d 738 (Ohio App.3d 1996) (sufficiency review requires viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the state)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (sufficiency of evidence standard)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (Jenks standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240 (Ohio 2001) (intent may be inferred from circumstances)
State v. Hill, Ohio St.3d 25 (Ohio 1994) (defendant’s knowledge can infer purpose to deprive)
State v. Chessman, 2011-Ohio-4283 (2d Dist. Montgomery (2011)) (affirmed co-defendant's conviction; impact on companion case)