State v. Kraus
2016 Ohio 8003
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Owner Helen Stines listed a dilapidated farmhouse and its contents for sale in April 2014; she authorized appraisal of a 1932 Chevy but did not authorize sale of house contents.
- Realtor Jenine Porter contacted appellant Steven Kraus (an auctioneer/realtor) to look at the car; the parties dispute whether Porter authorized Kraus to inspect or appraise house contents.
- Kraus entered the unlocked house on April 3–4, 2014, boxed several personal items, loaded them into his van, and later returned some items after complaints; neighbor photos linked Kraus to removal of items.
- Stines reported missing numerous items; Kraus was indicted for burglary, breaking-and-entering, and theft from an elderly person; burglary count dismissed, jury acquitted on breaking-and-entering and convicted on theft from an elderly person.
- Trial court sentenced Kraus to community control and a fine; Kraus appealed raising four assignments of error (jury instruction naming victim, mens rea for “elderly” enhancement, sufficiency/manifest weight, and ineffective assistance of counsel).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Kraus's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by naming Stines as victim in jury instruction | Bill of particulars identified Stines as owner; naming her did not add an element | Naming victim usurped jury factfinding and indictment omission mattered | No error — instruction matched bill of particulars and victim identity is not an element |
| Whether prosecution had to prove defendant knew victim was elderly (mens rea for enhancement) | Theft statute requires “knowingly” for the offense; R.C.2901.21(B) on recklessness doesn’t apply when statute already specifies culpability | Court should have instructed jury that defendant must have known or been reckless about victim’s age | No error — mens rea for age not required because statute already requires a culpable mental state for theft |
| Sufficiency and manifest weight of evidence for theft conviction | Testimony and photos show Kraus boxed and removed Stines’ items without consent; returned some items only after complaint | Evidence insufficient to show items belonged to Stines or that Kraus unlawfully took them; verdict against weight | Conviction supported: evidence sufficient; credibility resolved by jury; not a manifest miscarriage of justice |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to object to jury instruction and other-acts testimony) | Even if some testimony arguably improper, any error was not prejudicial; instruction was proper | Counsel should have objected; prejudice resulted | No ineffective assistance — appellant failed to show prejudice under Strickland |
Key Cases Cited
- Underwood v. State, 3 Ohio St.3d 12 (Ohio 1983) (failure to object to jury instruction waives error absent plain error)
- Barnes v. State, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (definition of plain error under Crim.R. 52(B))
- Long v. State, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (plain-error notice must be taken with utmost caution)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (structural error defined as defect in trial framework)
- Tolliver v. State, 140 Ohio St.3d 420 (Ohio 2014) (R.C. 2901.21(B) applies only when offense-defining section specifies no culpability)
- Thompkins v. State, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)
- Jenks v. State, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (legal sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Bradley v. State, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (presumption that counsel’s performance falls within reasonable professional assistance)