State v. Lockhart
2017 Ohio 914
Ohio Ct. App. 9th2017Background
- On Jan 13, 2015, a Summit County Fiscal Office supervisor found her cubicle covered in glitter, silly string, toilet paper, and a white powder; computer, printer, and scanner required cleaning and the office chair needed replacement.
- Security footage identified Samantha Lockhart as the person who entered after hours and created the mess.
- Grand jury indicted Lockhart for breaking and entering, criminal damaging, and vandalism; jury acquitted on breaking-and-entering and criminal damaging, convicted on vandalism.
- Trial court sentenced Lockhart to nine months (suspended) and community control; Lockhart appealed, raising three assignments of error.
- The central legal question concerned whether the supervisor’s work-related property suffered "physical harm" under R.C. 2909.05(B)(1)(b) and R.C. 2901.01(A)(4) and related jury-instruction issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: whether State proved physical harm to property necessary for owner’s occupation | Lockhart: No physical harm because equipment worked after cleaning | State: Temporary impairment and chair replacement constitute physical harm | Conviction supported; temporary interference and chair replacement satisfy physical-harm definition |
| Manifest weight: whether verdict was against manifest weight of evidence | Lockhart: Damage was only temporary and routine maintenance; equipment function restored | State: Interference with use for days and chair replacement support guilt | No manifest-weight error; jury did not lose its way |
| Jury instruction: whether trial court erred by failing to instruct on lesser-included offense (criminal mischief) | Lockhart: Failure deprived her of opportunity for misdemeanor conviction | State: Defense waived instruction; failure to request is presumed trial strategy | No plain error; defendant’s counsel’s failure to request presumed tactical |
| Applicability of Levingston precedent | Lockhart: Relies on Levingston to argue more stringent "serious physical harm" standard applies | State: Levingston involved a different statutory subdivision requiring "serious physical harm" | Court: Levingston inapplicable here because different statutory standard |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (Jenkins/Jenks sufficiency standard for appellate review)
- State v. Levingston, 106 Ohio App.3d 433 (2d Dist. 1995) (interpreting a different vandalism subdivision requiring serious physical harm)
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist. 1986) (standard for manifest-weight review)
- State v. Carter, 89 Ohio St.3d 593 (Ohio 2000) (test for when a trial court must instruct on lesser-included offenses)
- State v. Skatzes, 104 Ohio St.3d 195 (Ohio 2004) (plain-error review for failure to give jury instructions)
- State v. Underwood, 3 Ohio St.3d 12 (Ohio 1983) (plain-error rule should be applied with utmost caution)