State v. Piskac
2022 Ohio 1209
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- In September 2020 a Portage County grand jury indicted Alex D. Piskac for one count of Grand Theft (R.C. 2913.02) for taking a 2004 Jeep Liberty owned by co-resident Edward Powers.
- Powers testified he did not give permission to use the Jeep; the vehicle and keys were missing the morning after they had been left at home.
- Deputies located the Jeep at an Econo Lodge where Piskac’s brother was staying; Piskac was present and told police he had been given permission to borrow the vehicle but was late returning it.
- The Jeep was returned within about 12 hours; Powers’s tools remained in the vehicle and the back window was down (he testified the regulator was bad).
- A jury convicted Piskac of fourth-degree felony Grand Theft; he was sentenced and appealed, claiming insufficient evidence of intent to permanently deprive, manifest weight error, failure to instruct on the lesser included offense (Unauthorized Use), and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The court reversed the Grand Theft conviction, held the evidence insufficient to prove intent to deprive, and remanded with directions to enter a conviction for Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle (R.C. 2913.03) and resentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove intent to deprive (grand theft) | State: circumstantial facts (secret taking, unknown destination, etc.) support an inference of intent to deprive. | Piskac: no evidence he intended permanent deprivation — he did not conceal taking, arranged return, and returned within hours. | Reversed: evidence insufficient to prove purpose to deprive; conviction cannot stand. |
| Manifest-weight challenge | State: jury verdict should be sustained. | Piskac: verdict against weight of evidence given lack of intent proof. | Sustained as corollary to insufficiency; conviction against manifest weight. |
| Failure to instruct on lesser-included offense (Unauthorized Use) | State: not persuasive on appeal (jury considered elements). | Piskac: trial court should have instructed jury sua sponte on Unauthorized Use. | Moot on direct error grounds; appellate court nonetheless directed judgment be modified to Unauthorized Use. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (for not requesting instruction) | State: not argued to salvage conviction. | Piskac: counsel ineffective for failing to request Unauthorized Use instruction. | Moot after reversal; no ruling on prejudice because remedy was modification to lesser offense. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clinton, 108 N.E.3d 1 (Ohio 2017) (explains sufficiency/due-process standard in criminal cases)
- State v. Jenks, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (adopts Jackson v. Virginia sufficiency standard for Ohio review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (Supreme Court standard: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Beasley, 108 N.E.3d 1028 (Ohio 2018) (credibility not considered in sufficiency review)
- State v. Boyce, 515 N.E.2d 982 (Ohio App. 1987) (insufficient evidence of intent to permanently deprive where defendant had history of borrowing and did not conceal use)