State v. Moore, 2016 Ohio 3506

Appellant Sammy Moore was indicted for one count of aggravated robbery (R.C. 2911.02(A)(1)) arising from a Family Dollar incident on April 26, 2015; bench trial followed and he was sentenced to eight years.
Store employee Br.J. observed Moore place a can of body spray inside his shirt, confronted him, and ordered it returned; Moore initially denied theft and refused to leave.
Moore walked past points of purchase toward the exit, stopped in the vestibule, and returned the spray only after Br.J. threatened to call police.
After Br.J. re-entered the store and accused Moore of other theft, Moore produced a box cutter, waved it, and said, “Bitch, I’ll be waiting for you when you get off work,” causing Br.J. to call 911 and feel threatened.
The trial court denied a Crim.R. 29 acquittal motion; Moore did not present witnesses, was convicted of aggravated robbery, and appealed arguing insufficiency of the evidence (theft attempt, deadly-weapon possession/brandishing).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence sufficed to prove Moore attempted or committed a theft offense	State: placement of spray in shirt and exiting past points of purchase constituted a substantial step toward theft	Moore: returned the spray voluntarily, so he abandoned the attempt	Court: return occurred after overt act; abandonment not voluntary; evidence supports attempted theft
Whether Moore possessed a deadly weapon under R.C. 2923.11(A)	State: box cutter is similar to a knife and can be a deadly weapon; Moore produced it during the incident	Moore: box cutter was not used/possessed as a weapon	Court: unrefuted testimony that Moore pulled and waved the box cutter while making threats supports deadly-weapon finding
Whether Moore brandished the weapon within meaning of R.C. 2911.02	State: waving the box cutter and threatening constituted brandishing	Moore: disputed that it was used as a weapon or brandished	Court: conduct (waving + threat) supported brandishing and aggravated-robbery elements
Sufficiency of evidence overall for aggravated robbery conviction	State: combined proof of attempted theft plus deadly-weapon use supports conviction	Moore: argued insufficiency on theft and weapon elements	Court: viewing evidence in prosecution's favor, any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (articulates standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Williams, 74 Ohio St.3d 569 (1996) (supports Jenks standard quoted for review of evidence)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sets the "any rational trier of fact" sufficiency test)
State v. Woods, 48 Ohio St.2d 127 (1976) (defines "substantial step" for attempt)
State v. Cooper, 52 Ohio St.2d 163 (1977) (limits abandonment defense once intent plus overt act exist)