State v. Moore
2017 Ohio 4378
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In July–August 2015, Vincent K. Moore (appellant) negotiated purchase of a 2005 Ford F-350 from Bryan Blow; sale agreed at $12,500. Closing occurred at Cardinal Community Credit Union in Mentor on August 6, 2015.
- Two loan applications were submitted to the credit union: one in Moore’s name (denied) and one in his brother Jameel Moore’s name (approved). Documents attached to the approved application falsely represented Jameel’s employment and income.
- At closing, paperwork was executed in Jameel’s name and Jameel’s driver’s license was produced, but Bryan identified appellant as the person who met him at the branch. Cardinal issued a $14,000 check; Bryan kept $12,500 and gave $1,500 and the truck to appellant.
- No loan payments were ever made; the credit union later discovered the employment documents were fabricated and reported the matter to police. Photo lineups identified appellant (not Jameel) as the person who executed the loan documents at the Mentor branch.
- Appellant was indicted for grand theft, forgery (two counts), and identity fraud; identity fraud was dismissed pretrial and the forgery counts were merged into the grand theft count for sentencing. After a jury trial appellant was convicted of grand theft and sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to convict Moore of grand theft by deception under R.C. 2913.02(A)(3) | State: Evidence shows Moore participated in closing, used deception to obtain $14,000, and intended to deprive the credit union. | Moore: State failed to prove he submitted the false loan application or had intent to deceive absent direct proof Jameel did not submit it. | Court: Sufficient evidence existed; identification at closing and other facts support finding Moore employed deception and intended to deprive the credit union. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (establishes the standard for sufficiency review in Ohio criminal cases)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (explains distinction between sufficiency and manifest-weight review and confirms de novo sufficiency review)