State v. Elmore, 2017 Ohio 1472

Anthony Elmore, serving a 14-year sentence for a Steubenville shooting, authored letters from Mansfield Correctional Institution proposing a plan to kidnap the prosecutor Jane Hanlin’s son and extort the prosecutor to obtain reduced sentences in related cases.
Prison staff found a handwritten “Chizzle” letter in Elmore’s legal materials and a similar “C‑Hood” letter and a cell phone in another unit; the letters included operational details, contacts, and instructions for the kidnapping/extortion plot.
Evidence included the letters, phone numbers matching a handwriting list, a downloaded photo linking Elmore’s girlfriend (who worked at the student housing complex where the victim lived), inmate witness testimony (Christian Brown), and recorded interviews with Trooper Butler in which Elmore admitted writing the letters and discussed the scheme.
Elmore was indicted on conspiracy to kidnap (dismissed for insufficient overt act), attempted kidnapping (R.C. 2905.01(A)(1)/(5)), attempted extortion (R.C. 2905.11), and falsification; convicted on attempted kidnapping, attempted extortion, and falsification; sentenced to consecutive terms.
On appeal, Elmore argued his convictions were unsupported by sufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of the evidence because there was no proof he caused the letters/phone to be transmitted or that he communicated the plan to others.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove attempted kidnapping (and not mere talk)	Letters, phone data, matching contact list, inmate testimony, and Elmore’s admissions show substantial steps and corroborate intent to kidnap and hold for ransom/hostage to force prosecution action	No direct proof Elmore caused the letters/phone to be moved or directly instructed third parties; letters were mere venting, not steps toward commission	Affirmed: circumstantial evidence and movement/transmission of letters, contacts, and corroborating inmate testimony constituted substantial steps and satisfied sufficiency and weight standards
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove attempted extortion (threat to obtain benefit from prosecutor)	Letters threatened harm to prosecutor’s son unless prosecutorial concessions (drop charges/reduce sentences), which is an extortionate demand and corroborated by surrounding proof	Argument that threats were hyperbole, uncommunicated, or unimplemented and thus insufficient to prove attempt/extortion beyond reasonable doubt	Affirmed: letters directly threatened the victim to induce prosecutorial action; jury reasonably found intent and substantial steps to commit extortion

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standards for sufficiency review in criminal cases)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest-weight review)
State v. Woods, 48 Ohio St.2d 127 (1976) ("substantial step" test for attempt: conduct strongly corroborative of criminal purpose)
State v. Group, 98 Ohio St.3d 248 (2002) (attempt conviction where inmate took all actions available in custody to effectuate an out‑of‑prison crime)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (credibility and weight of evidence are for the trier of fact)

Outcome: Appellate court affirmed convictions and sentences; appellant’s sufficiency and manifest-weight challenges were overruled.