State v. Krupa
2010 Ohio 6268
Ohio Ct. App.2010Background
- Defendant-appellant Guy Krupa was convicted by jury of attempted abduction of a 14-year-old girl on April 13, 2009 in Mahoning County, Ohio.
- The State amended the charge from attempted abduction under 2905.02(A)(1)(B) to 2905.02(A)(1)(C) before trial.
- The incident occurred when Krupa allegedly blocked the victim’s path and repeatedly told her to enter his car; a second vehicle witnessed the event.
- Witness Kathryn White observed Krupa’s conduct and wrote down his license plate after Krupa drove away.
- Krupa challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing there was no force or threat and that he did not leave his vehicle; he also raised manifest weight and procedural claims; the trial court denied his motions, and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove attempted abduction | Krupa failed to leave his vehicle or threaten force | No force or intended force; only a demand to enter the car | Sufficient evidence supports conviction |
| Whether the conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence | Credible evidence showed threat/force and intimidation | Discrepancies in witness testimony undermine credibility | Not against the manifest weight; credibility issues for the jury |
| Prosecutorial misconduct/ineffective assistance of counsel | Prosecutor comments were prejudicial and ineffective assistance claim survives | Two isolated improper comments; trial remained fair; no reversible error | No reversible error; trial fair; counsel not shown ineffective |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Woods, 48 Ohio St.2d 127 (1976) (definition of substantial step and force in attempt)
- State v. Downs, 51 Ohio St.2d 47 (1977) (partial overrule; evolving standard for attempt)
- State v. Muniz, 162 Ohio App.3d 198 (2005-Ohio-3580) (implicit threat suffices where conduct shows intent to coerce)
- State v. Dorso, 4 Ohio St.3d 60 (1983) (definition of threat and common meaning)
- State v. Cress, 112 Ohio St.3d 72 (2006-Ohio-6501) (threat defined by common understanding; not limited to force)
- State v. Smith, 97 Ohio St.3d 367 (2002-Ohio-6659) (propensity for statements to inflame; standard for prosecutorial misconduct)
- State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 (2002-Ohio-2128) (fair trial inquiry; requirement to object)
- State v. Clemons, 82 Ohio St.3d 438 (1998) (prosecutorial misconduct review; extreme comments allowed if not reversible)
- State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (1997-Ohio-3891) (sufficiency standard; reviewing court defers to jury)