State v. Hammond, 2013 Ohio 2466

Hammond was convicted after a bench trial of aggravated robbery and disrupting public services; the court sentenced him to three years for aggravated robbery and six months for disrupting public services, consecutive.
The essential evidence involved Hammond allegedly robbing Patrick at Patrick’s CMHA apartment with a toy gun and ripping a telephone jack.
Patrick testified Hammond pulled a gun, demandedPatrick’s money, and fled after the robbery; investigators recovered eyeglasses, an eye patch, and a toy pistol.
Hammond claimed Patrick was like a father and denied robbing him; he also testified the toy gun belonged to Patrick and that he used Patrick’s money for other purchases.
The state introduced a toy gun as evidence and argued it could be a deadly weapon, while the defense argued there was insufficient evidence the toy gun was capable of inflicting death.
On appeal, the court reduced the aggravated robbery conviction to robbery and remanded for resentencing; the disrupting public services conviction was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there is sufficient evidence the toy gun was a deadly weapon	Hammond	Hammond	Robbery affirmed; aggravated robbery not proven as deadly weapon absent evidence
Whether the conviction should be reduced to robbery given deadly-weapon element	State	Hammond	Conviction reduced to robbery; remanded for resentencing
Whether the weight of the evidence supports robbery and disruption convictions	State	Hammond	Convictions not against weight; sufficient weight supports robbery and disruption
Whether consecutive-sentencing findings were proper on remand	State	Hammond	Consecutive-sentencing findings require on remand; issue moot after remand for resentencing

State v. Hicks, 14 Ohio App.3d 25 (8th Dist.1984) (deadly-weapon analysis for toy gun)
State v. Brown, 101 Ohio App.3d 784 (1st Dist.1995) (BB gun deadly-weapon inquiry depends on capabilities)
State v. White, 8th Dist. No. 92972, 2010-Ohio-2342 (8th Dist.2010) (BB gun deadly-weapon evidence depends on gun attributes)
State v. Gray, No. C-081257, 2009-Ohio-5844 (1st Dist.2009) (lack of evidence on device’s capacity to inflict death)
State v. Deboe, 62 Ohio App.2d 192, 406 N.E.2d 536 (6th Dist.1977) (to define deadly weapon)
State v. Smith, 142 Ohio App.3d 16, 753 N.E.2d 930 (8th Dist.2001) (fear alone not dispositive for deadly weapon)
State v. Brooks, 2007-Ohio-1029 (2d Dist.2007) (robbery with perceived threat doctrine)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997) (sufficiency review framework)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1983) (sufficiency review and element analysis)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967) (credibility and weight of evidence)
State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120, 489 N.E.2d 277 (1986) (credibility determinations are for finder of fact)
State v. Ellis, 2013-Ohio-1184 (8th Dist.2013) (weight of evidence and credibility)