State v. Gibert, 2017 Ohio 7676

Gibert rented an Alamo car on March 28, 2016 for three days but did not return it; Alamo charged her credit card and the card later declined.
Alamo repeatedly attempted contact (calls Apr. 3–20) and sent a written demand on Apr. 25 stating Gibert’s authorization ceased on Apr. 15 and warning of conversion/reporting as stolen.
Alamo reported the vehicle stolen; Gibert retained and drove the car until a sheriff’s deputy stopped her on June 3, 2016; the car had sustained damage and repairs exceeded $500.
Business records showed Gibert made some payments but still owed about $360 for the rental period through Apr. 25.
A jury convicted Gibert of receiving stolen property; the trial court sentenced her and ordered restitution. She appealed challenging (1) sufficiency/weight of the evidence and (2) the verdict form/felony designation; a sentencing claim became moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency and weight of the evidence to support receiving stolen property conviction	State: evidence showed Alamo revoked consent and Gibert knowingly retained the vehicle after notice, supporting conviction	Gibert: challenged that evidence was insufficient/against manifest weight	Court: Overruled — evidence was sufficient and conviction not against manifest weight
Verdict form failing to state degree or that property was a motor vehicle (elevating misdemeanor to felony)	State: jury instructions required finding the property was a motor vehicle, so conviction as felony stands	Gibert: verdict form did not state degree nor that property was a motor vehicle, violating R.C. 2945.75(A)(2)	Court: Sustained — verdict form noncompliant; conviction must be reduced to first-degree misdemeanor; remand to enter misdemeanor judgment

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standards for manifest-weight review)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1st Dist. 1983) (sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Gwen, 134 Ohio St.3d 284 (Ohio 2012) (an element that increases degree is an essential element of the offense)
State v. Allen, 29 Ohio St.3d 53 (Ohio 1987) (distinction between elements and penalty enhancements)
State v. Pelfrey, 112 Ohio St.3d 422 (Ohio 2007) (verdict must state degree or presence of additional element when degree is elevated)
State v. McDonald, 137 Ohio St.3d 517 (Ohio 2013) (verdict form, not jury instructions, controls R.C. 2945.75 compliance)
State v. Eafford, 132 Ohio St.3d 159 (Ohio 2012) (verdict/indictment/instructions interplay where the indictment and instructions made identification of the element clear)