2018 Ohio 2221
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On October 30, 2016, police found Miller in a reported-stolen 1995 Oldsmobile in Montgomery County; the same vehicle had been reported stolen in Darke County earlier that morning.
- Miller and a companion were arrested at the scene; vehicle showed signs of forced entry.
- Miller was indicted in Darke County for grand theft (motor vehicle), vandalism, and theft from an elderly person; he pled guilty and was sentenced to community control.
- Months later, Montgomery County indicted Miller for receiving stolen property (motor vehicle) based on the same incident.
- Miller moved to dismiss the Montgomery County indictment on double jeopardy grounds; the trial court denied the motion, found him guilty after a bench trial, and imposed community control.
- This appeal challenges the denial of the motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether double jeopardy bars successive prosecution for receiving stolen property after conviction for grand theft of the same vehicle | Successive prosecution permissible because theft and receiving stolen property have different elements under Blockburger | Blockburger is not exclusive; Grady/same-conduct or other tests should bar the prosecution because the offenses arose from the same conduct | Court affirmed: Blockburger controls; theft and receiving stolen property are distinct offenses and receiving is not a lesser-included offense, so double jeopardy does not bar the successive prosecution |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (test comparing statutory elements to determine same offense)
- Dixon v. United States, 509 U.S. 688 (Grady same-conduct test overruled)
- Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (announced same-conduct test later rejected in Dixon)
- Mutter v. Ohio, 150 Ohio St.3d 429 (Ohio Supreme Court reaffirming Blockburger for successive prosecutions)
- State v. Yarbrough, 104 Ohio St.3d 1 (receiving stolen property is not a lesser-included offense of theft)
- Maumee v. Geiger, 45 Ohio St.2d 238 (discussion that theft and receiving generally constitute one transaction for contemporaneous conduct)