State v. Pellin, 2012 Ohio 5342

Receiver appointed in 2006 to manage Pellins’ ambulance company (PEMS) after bank judgment; receivership orders required disclosure of assets and all income for the receiver.
Appellant Richard Pellin opened a Greenville Savings Bank account in Pennsylvania in 2006 (as VP) with his mother as alternate signatory; initial deposits exceeded $24,000.
Greenville account was not disclosed to the receiver; transition period allowed use of a Warren credit-union account but not ongoing, undisclosed accounts were not authorized by the receiver.
Post-receivership deposits and withdrawals totaled over $85,000 (deposited by Mrs. Pellin) and over $82,000 (withdrawn/cashed by Mrs. Pellin); several checks were signed or endorsed by Pellin.
In 2009 Pellin and his mother were indicted; trial court found Pellin guilty of complicity to theft (related to Greenville account), and acquitted him on forgery/theft involving employee paychecks; sentenced to five years of community control, 60 days electronic monitoring, $5,000 fine, and restitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict Pellin of complicity to theft	Pellin argues the Greenville-account activity was not beyond the receiver’s authority	Pellin contends limited transition period and lack of knowledge of undisclosed account	Sufficient evidence to support conviction
Whether venue in Mahoning County was proven	State argues proper venue based on Mahoning County operations and receivership orders	Pellin contends venue not established since Greenville activity occurred in Pennsylvania	Venue proven; Mahoning County had nexus and receiver existed there
Whether the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence	State argues mixed direct/circumstantial evidence supports intent and complicity	Pellin asserts credibility of his defense and lack of knowledge	Conviction not against the weight of the evidence; supported by the record

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) ( sufficiency standard; test of adequacy of evidence to sustain a verdict)
State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (Ohio 1997) (legal sufficiency and review of evidence in favor of prosecution)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (circumstantial evidence has same probative value as direct evidence)
State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240 (Ohio 2001) (intent for complicity may be inferred from circumstances)
State v. Headley, 6 Ohio St.3d 475 (Ohio 1983) (venue need not be express; sufficient nexus suffices)
State v. Chintalapalli, 88 Ohio St.3d 43 (Ohio 2000) (venue can be established by the facts and circumstances; receiver as basis for venue)