State v. Elahee
2017 Ohio 7085
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Robert Elahee approached Annette McFarland downtown and offered her money to open a bank account and obtain starter checks so he could cash checks elsewhere; he promised $100 each to McFarland and the driver after cashing the checks.
- Elahee hired a driver, directed McFarland from the bar to Fifth Third Bank in Hyde Park, and repeatedly instructed her on opening an account and obtaining starter checks.
- At the bank McFarland had difficulty answering employee questions, left and returned multiple times, and eventually told the banker about the plan out of fear; the banker called police.
- Officer Wysel found several Wells Fargo starter checks in Elahee’s pocket; the banker explained starter checks are issued only when opening a new account and raise red flags for banks.
- Elahee presented no evidence at trial; the municipal court convicted him of attempted theft and sentenced him to 90 days in jail, a $100 fine, and costs. He appealed arguing insufficient evidence of purpose and of a substantial step.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state proved Elahee had purpose to commit theft | McFarland's testimony shows Elahee intended to obtain starter checks and cash checks knowing account lacked funds | Elahee argues state failed to prove he had the requisite purpose to deprive the owner | Court: Evidence (McFarland’s account of the scheme) supports a purpose to commit theft |
| Whether the state proved a "substantial step" toward theft under attempt statute | Soliciting McFarland, hiring a driver, transporting them to bank, and repeated instructions were overt acts strongly corroborative of criminal purpose | Elahee contends these actions were insufficient to constitute a substantial step | Court: The overt acts were strongly corroborative and thus a substantial step; conviction upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review following Jackson v. Virginia)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (criminal-conviction evidence sufficiency standard)
- State v. Woods, 48 Ohio St.2d 127, 357 N.E.2d 1059 (1976) (definition of criminal attempt and requirement that substantial step be strongly corroborative of criminal purpose)
- State v. Group, 98 Ohio St.3d 248, 781 N.E.2d 980 (2002) (focus on overt acts that convincingly demonstrate a firm purpose to commit a crime)