State v. McDonald, 137 Ohio St. 3d 517

McDonald led police on a high-speed chase at 112 mph; pursuit included running through Ironton with traffic hazards and multiple signals; he was arrested after a breath test showed intoxication above legal limit.
Indictment charged a single third-degree-felony count for failure to comply with an officer’s signal, alleging willful elusion and the substantial-risk enhancement under R.C. 2921.331(C)(5)(a)(ii).
Statutes at issue create a range from misdemeanor to felony depending on whether the substantial-risk element is found in connection with a willful elusion under R.C. 2921.331(B).
Two verdict forms were given to the jury: one included the substantial-risk element; the other did not. The jury returned the form alleging substantial risk, and McDonald was sentenced to four years.
The appellate court conflict: one court held the substantial-risk language suffices for a felony given 2945.75, the other disagreed. The Supreme Court resolved that the verdict was deficient and remanded for conviction as a first-degree misdemeanor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the verdict need to state degree or aggravating element under 2945.75(A)(2)?	McDonald argues the verdict failed to specify the degree or reference the aggravating element.	State contends the substantial-risk element suffices to elevate to a felony.	Yes; verdict must state degree or the aggravating element.
Is Pelfrey controlling to require explicit degree or aggravating element in the verdict form?	McDonald relies on Pelfrey to require explicit language elevating the offense.	State asserts that the substantial-risk element alone can justify a felony conviction.	Yes; Pelfrey requires explicit degree or aggravating element to elevate.
Can R.C. 2921.331(B) serve as the predicate for a third-degree felony when the jury did not explicitly find the B element?	McDonald argues the B element was implicit in the verdict.	State maintains the substantial-risk element attached to B suffices.	No; the verdict did not indicate the B element and thus fails to elevate.
Does the verdict form’s reference to 'substantial risk' alone suffice to convert a B violation to a third-degree felony under 2945.75(A)(2)?	McDonald contends it does not; the form must show the elevated degree.	State argues language from the statute was present and adequate.	No; without stating the degree or the qualifying element, the verdict yields a misdemeanor.

Pelfrey, 112 Ohio St.3d 422 (2007-Ohio-256) (verdict must state degree or aggravating element under 2945.75(A)(2))
State v. Schwable, 2009-Ohio-6523 (2012 WL 4756435) (conflicts on whether substantial-risk element suffices to sustain a felony verdict)