State v. Mays
2013 Ohio 1952
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Indicted July 28, 2011 for aggravated robbery with a firearm specification; charge arose from alleged plan and provision of a gun for a Thorntons gas-station robbery (Nov 6, 2009) by associates Rider and Carpenter, with Hyden owning the gun.
- Rider testified under a plea deal, stating appellant and Carpenter planned the robbery and that appellant encouraged not to back down and controlled the gun.
- Carpenter and Rider used a gun from appellant’s apartment during the robbery; appellant counted and divided the proceeds afterward and told them to keep quiet.
- Detective Bradford testified the gun recovered from Hyden’s property was found in appellant’s apartment and appeared to have been wiped; there was no definitive forensic link to surveillance video.
- Jury found appellant guilty of complicity to aggravated robbery; Crim.R. 29(C) motion to acquit denied; appellant sentenced to five years in prison.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for complicity | State argues evidence proves appellant aided and abetted | Mays contends Rider’s testimony is not credible | Conviction supported by sufficient evidence |
| Weight of the evidence | State contends weight supports guilt | Mays argues the evidence is weak and unlikely | Conviction not against the manifest weight of the evidence |
| Crim.R. 29 acquittal | State seeks affirmance on sufficiency/weight; no acquittal required | Mays claims Crim.R. 29 was misapplied to override credibility issues | Crim.R. 29(C) motion properly overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Grinstead, 194 Ohio App.3d 755 (2011-Ohio-3018) (standard for reviewing Crim.R. 29(C) motions)
- State v. Hart, 2012-Ohio-1896 (2012) (weight-of-evidence review requires weighing entire record)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency standard; standard-of-proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240 (2001) (intent may be inferred from circumstances in complicity analysis)
- State v. Salyer, 12th Dist. No. CA2006-03-039, 2007-Ohio-1659 (2007) (proof may be direct or circumstantial for aiding and abetting)
- State v. Mota, 2008-Ohio-4163 (2008) (aiding and abetting may be proven by presence and conduct before/after crime)
- State v. Paul, 12th Dist. No. CA2011-10-026, 2012-Ohio-3205 (2012) (sufficiency review articulated in Jenks standard)