State v. DeRemer
120 N.E.3d 490
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Charles DeRemer was an independent courier for EZ Delivery, which delivered marketing “red bags” for law firm KNR; couriers were paid per bag and submitted biweekly bag-count invoices.
- KNR used software (Argo → Route4Me) to generate address lists and optimized delivery routes; those route files were timestamped and used to verify deliveries.
- KNR and EZ Delivery audited invoices after noticing mismatches; KNR employee Holly Tusko’s audit found thousands of overbilled bags for DeRemer’s Akron and Summit territories.
- Evidence included DeRemer’s texted handwritten count sheets to EZ Delivery, Route4Me route exports/Word copies, EZ Delivery invoices, and Tusko’s audit summaries. The prosecution concluded DeRemer overbilled 6,606 bags, causing overbilling of ~$26,424 to EZ Delivery and ~$43,000 to KNR.
- Jury convicted DeRemer of grand theft by deception (R.C. 2913.02(A)(3), grand theft fourth-degree); trial court sentenced him. On appeal, the Ninth District affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence for Rule Crim.R. 25(B) noncompliance and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | DeRemer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for grand theft by deception | Record (route files, invoices, texts, audit) shows DeRemer knowingly submitted inflated counts producing >$7,500 loss | Discrepancies due to poor record-keeping/system errors by EZ Delivery/KNR; insufficient proof of deception | Affirmed — evidence sufficient for a rational juror to find deception and value element met |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | Witness testimony and documentary evidence supported jury’s credibility determinations | Verdict against weight because employer failures explain discrepancies; no intent to deprive | Affirmed — jury did not lose its way; credibility and weight for factfinder |
| Admissibility of Route4Me exports and Tusko audit summaries (best-evidence/compilation concerns) | Route exports were properly authenticated business records; audit summarized admissible underlying records available in discovery | Documents were recreated later, were compilations, and violated best evidence rule | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion admitting Route4Me copies and audit summaries (original sources in record) |
| Sentencing judge compliance with Crim.R. 25(B) | State: sentencing by another judge common; later visiting judge conducted restitution hearing and entered final judgment | Objected: sentencing should be by the judge who presided at trial unless that judge was unable to perform duties | Reversed in part — Crim.R. 25(B) requirements not satisfied; remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (legal standard for sufficiency and manifest weight analysis)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (standard for manifest-weight review and limited reversal scope)
- Beatty v. Alston, 43 Ohio St.2d 126 (Crim.R. 25(B) requires sentencing judge to be trial judge unless unable to perform duties)
- State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404 (Evid.R. 803(6) business-records admissibility principles)
- State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67 (cumulative-error doctrine requires multiple errors)