State v. Evenson, 2023 Ohio 4196

In 2017 Troy Evenson’s 2011 Harley-Davidson was stolen; it was titled in his name and he filed a claim with Cincinnati Insurance Company (CIC).
Evenson accepted a $16,180.42 insurance payout in 2018 and signed a proof-of-loss, an assignment-of-ownership on the back of the title, and a power-of-attorney form transferring rights to CIC.
The motorcycle was recovered in Indiana in July 2019; Evenson retrieved it and kept it at his home for about a month before CIC (with police) reclaimed it; CIC found it stripped and inoperable.
Evenson was charged with theft (R.C. 2913.02(A)(1)) and unauthorized use of a motorcycle (R.C. 2913.03(A)); the prosecution introduced the signed/notarized insurance documents and related testimony.
Evenson moved for acquittal (Crim.R. 29) arguing he still owned the motorcycle (title remained in his name); trial court denied the motion, the jury convicted, and Evenson appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: Was CIC the “owner” for theft/unauthorized-use purposes?	CIC: Evenson transferred his rights by accepting payment and signing proof-of-loss, assignment, and POA; thus CIC had the ownership/interest the statute protects.	Evenson: Title remained in his name under R.C. 4505.04; you cannot steal your own property.	Court: Affirmed — under R.C. 2913.01(D) ownership for theft focuses on who had possession/control/interest; the signed assignment and related documents supported a finding CIC was the owner.
Admission of notarized power-of-attorney: Should it have been excluded as a Crim.R.16 discovery sanction?	CIC/State: The notarized POA was executed with other documents and did not unfairly surprise or prejudice Evenson; trial court discretion to admit.	Evenson: He received only an unnotarized copy pretrial and the notarized POA was not timely disclosed; exclusion was warranted.	Court: No abuse of discretion — the court inquired, found no willful surprise or prejudice (other notarized documents showed the transfer), and admitted the document.

State v. Shoemaker, 96 Ohio St. 570 (1917) (the gist of a theft offense is the wrongful taking, not formal title ownership)
State v. Rhodes, 2 Ohio St.3d 74 (1982) (for theft, certificate of title is not required to prove another had possession, control, or an interest)
State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 255 (2006) (standard of review for denial of a Crim.R. 29 motion/sufficiency review)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for reviewing sufficiency and manifest-weight challenges)
State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 (2013) (trial court must inquire into discovery violations and apply appropriate sanctions under Crim.R. 16)
Lakewood v. Papadelis, 32 Ohio St.3d 1 (1987) (court should impose the least severe discovery sanction consistent with discovery rules)
Parson v. State, 6 Ohio St.3d 442 (1983) (factors for assessing discovery violations and prejudice)
Brewer v. DeCant, 167 Ohio St. 411 (1958) (certificate-of-title principles regarding change of vehicle ownership)
State v. Howard, 56 Ohio St.2d 328 (1978) (discovery rules aim to prevent gamesmanship and surprise)