2020 Ohio 6731
Ohio2020Background
- Between spring 2016 and May 2017, Andrew Fazenbaker broke into a winterized recreational travel trailer stored at a storage facility and stole a built‑in television and stereo.
- The trailer was manufactured and configured for overnight accommodation (bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, living area) but had been winterized, covered, and uninhabited since 2015.
- The state charged Fazenbaker with breaking and entering under R.C. 2911.13(A), which prohibits trespass by force, stealth, or deception into an “unoccupied structure” to commit theft or a felony.
- At trial the court denied Fazenbaker’s Crim.R. 29 motion; a jury convicted him and he was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.
- The Ninth District reversed, holding the winterized, stored trailer was not an unoccupied structure because it was not being maintained for residential use and thus could not qualify as an occupied (or inverse: unoccupied) structure.
- The Ohio Supreme Court accepted review, held that a trailer designed for overnight accommodation remains a structure capable of being occupied even if winterized and uninhabited, reversed the court of appeals, and remanded for consideration of other assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a winterized, stored recreational travel trailer qualifies as an "unoccupied structure" under R.C. 2911.13(A) | The trailer is a structure designed for temporary/overnight habitation; when uninhabited it is an "unoccupied structure" under the inverse of R.C. 2909.01(C). | The trailer was winterized, covered, and not maintained for residence, so it was not an occupied structure and therefore not an "unoccupied structure" under R.C. 2911.13(A). | A trailer manufactured for overnight accommodation remains a structure capable of occupation; when uninhabited it qualifies as an "unoccupied structure." |
| Whether Carroll (Volkswagen bus), and the statute’s occupancy factors, make the trailer a nonstructure | State: Carroll is distinguishable; the trailer is not a motor vehicle that collapses and is physically enterable as a dwelling. | Fazenbaker: Carroll supports treating certain vehicles/rigs as nonstructures when not set up for habitation. | Court distinguished Carroll and held physical capability and design for overnight accommodation control; winterizing does not convert such a trailer into a nonstructure. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Carroll, 62 Ohio St.2d 313, 405 N.E.2d 305 (Ohio 1980) (discusses limits between vehicles and “structures” for R.C. 2911.13)
- State v. Pariag, 137 Ohio St.3d 81, 998 N.E.2d 401 (Ohio 2013) (statutory‑construction review is de novo)
- Boley v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 510, 929 N.E.2d 448 (Ohio 2010) (clear statutory language is applied as written)
- Henry v. Central Natl. Bank, 16 Ohio St.2d 16, 242 N.E.2d 342 (Ohio 1968) (court’s duty to ascertain legislative intent)
- Summerville v. Forest Park, 128 Ohio St.3d 221, 943 N.E.2d 522 (Ohio 2010) (legislative intent is determined largely from plain statutory language)