State v. Nye
2021 Ohio 2557
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Richard Nye was indicted for one count of fourth-degree grand theft for withdrawing $12,000 from a joint savings account after his 2017 dissolution; jury trial June 15, 2020 resulted in conviction.
- Wife (Gretchen) testified the parties’ Separation Agreement and decree divided accounts, she believed Nye’s name had been removed, and she alone deposited money after the dissolution; she traced the $12,000 to a 403(b) loan she took and deposited into the joint savings.
- Bank employee testified either joint owner could withdraw funds and that Nye withdrew $12,000 purportedly to buy a vehicle; paper statements showed account mail to Nye’s address.
- After the withdrawal Nye told Gretchen she could “come get” what was left and he would pay the rest later; Gretchen had not been repaid at trial.
- At sentencing the court imposed 17 months’ imprisonment and ordered $12,000 restitution plus monthly interest payments on Gretchen’s retirement-loan interest; Nye requested a restitution hearing which the court denied.
- On appeal the Sixth District affirmed the conviction and sentence except it reversed and remanded for a restitution hearing under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury instruction that “names on a joint bank account is not conclusive proof to the issue of ownership of funds” was proper | State: instruction correctly explained that the presumption of joint ownership is rebuttable and was warranted by evidence | Nye: instruction conflicts with statutory definition of “owner” and unfairly shifts burden | Instruction lawful and warranted; no error |
| Whether conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence | State: evidence showed Gretchen owned funds, Nye withdrew them without consent and intended to deprive her | Nye: joint-account presumption and bank treated him as owner, negating intent/ownership issue | Not against manifest weight; conviction affirmed |
| Whether denial of Crim.R. 29 motion (sufficiency) was proper | State: viewed favorably to prosecution, evidence sufficed to prove lack of consent | Nye: as named joint owner, prosecution failed to prove lack of consent | Evidence sufficient; Crim.R. 29 denial proper |
| Whether trial court erred by ordering interest restitution without a hearing | State: conceded hearing required when amount disputed | Nye: requested a restitution hearing because he lacked notice of claims beyond $12,000 | Error; remand for restitution hearing under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) |
| Whether sentencing court improperly considered juvenile adjudications | State: juvenile history may be considered to assess recidivism under R.C. 2929.12 | Nye: Hand prohibits treating juvenile adjudications as prior convictions to enhance sentence | Court may consider juvenile adjudications for recidivism; consideration here was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Cromer v. Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr., 29 N.E.3d 921 (trial court must give legally correct and factually warranted jury instructions)
- Vetter v. Hampton, 375 N.E.2d 804 (rebuttable presumption that joint-account coowners share funds; examine "realities of ownership")
- Estate of Cowling v. Estate of Cowling, 847 N.E.2d 405 (joint account ownership during parties' lifetimes allocated by net contributions absent clear different intent)
- State v. Thompkins, 678 N.E.2d 541 (manifest-weight-of-evidence standard)
- State v. Tenace, 847 N.E.2d 386 (sufficiency standard: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Hand, 73 N.E.3d 448 (juvenile adjudications cannot be treated as prior convictions to mandate enhanced adult sentences but may be considered for recidivism assessment)