State v. Rodriguez
2016 Ohio 7436
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Victim: a 13‑year‑old boy told police two older teens chased him, one (Rodriguez) brandished a knife and demanded his pants; the other claimed to have a gun and removed the pants. Both then fled in a car.
- Police later found Rodriguez’s vehicle and, with consent, searched it; the victim’s pants were inside but no weapon was found.
- Rodriguez denied involvement and testified he had no weapon. The victim at trial had previously testified that Rodriguez did not have a weapon.
- Rodriguez was indicted for aggravated robbery (R.C. 2911.01(A)(1)) — theft plus having/brandishing a deadly weapon. He requested a jury instruction on the lesser‑included offense of robbery (R.C. 2911.02).
- Trial court refused the lesser‑included instruction because Rodriguez maintained he was not involved; jury convicted Rodriguez of aggravated robbery and he was sentenced to three years.
- Rodriguez appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by refusing the lesser‑included instruction; the appellate court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing a robbery lesser‑included instruction | State: No instruction required because defendant asserted complete noninvolvement (an all‑or‑nothing defense) | Rodriguez: Evidence could reasonably permit conviction of robbery but not aggravated robbery (dispute whether weapon was brandished) | Reversed — instruction should have been given because evidence could reasonably create doubt on the weapon/brandishing element |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wine, 140 Ohio St.3d 409 (2014) (lesser‑included instruction required if jury could acquit on greater offense while convicting on lesser)
- State v. Kilby, 50 Ohio St.2d 21 (1977) (test for when a lesser‑included offense instruction is required)
- State v. Thomas, 40 Ohio St.3d 213 (1988) (instruction required only where evidence would reasonably support acquittal on charged offense and conviction on lesser)
- State v. Monroe, 105 Ohio St.3d 384 (2005) (trial court must view evidence in light most favorable to defendant when deciding lesser‑included instruction)
- State v. Solomon, 66 Ohio St.2d 214 (1981) (jury can reject a complete defense yet still find the state failed to prove a specific element)