State v. Scurlock
2017 Ohio 1219
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- James Scurlock was tried for theft from an elderly/disabled adult after his mother, Tina Carroll, reported ~ $350,000 in cash and jewelry missing from a Huntington Bank safe-deposit box co-leased with Scurlock. Jury convicted him of theft under R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) and (B)(3).
- Carroll (disabled, Social Security permanent total disability) testified she placed substantial cash and jewelry in the box for grandchildren and denied giving Scurlock permission to remove the items; she acknowledged uncertainty about exact totals and adjusted loss figures at different times.
- Scurlock admitted accessing the box on July 13, 2013, removing envelopes to his home, and later returning a sealed cardboard box containing approximately $21,000 in cash (short of Carroll’s asserted total).
- The prosecution introduced casino reward-card business records showing large "buy-in" amounts and net losses on activity associated with Scurlock’s card; defense witnesses testified family members often used one card for comps.
- Trial judge (retired visiting judge) presided; sentencing was later handled by the regular judge. Scurlock was placed on community control and ordered to pay $126,890.99 restitution. He appealed on four grounds; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of casino records under Evid.R. 403(A) | Casino evidence showed motive/intent to fund gambling; probative. | Casino evidence was misleading, of limited probative value, and prejudicial. | Admitted — probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for theft conviction | State: Carroll’s testimony and admissions by Scurlock establish knowing, nonconsensual control with purpose to deprive. | Scurlock: as co-lessee he had equal ownership/access; no intent to deprive. | Sufficiency upheld — a rational juror could find elements beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | State: testimony and return of only partial funds support verdict. | Scurlock: conflicting testimony and Carroll’s inconsistent loss statements undermine conviction. | Not against manifest weight; credibility determinations for jury. |
| Restitution amount despite jury split on value | State: court may set restitution based on victim’s economic loss by preponderance. | Scurlock: jury’s inability to agree on value mandates zero damages. | Restitution upheld; court properly calculated amount by preponderance and imposed restitution. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bethel, 854 N.E.2d 150 (Ohio 2006) (trial court has broad discretion under Evid.R. 403(A))
- State v. Crotts, 820 N.E.2d 302 (Ohio 2004) (Evid.R. 403 does not bar all prejudicial evidence)
- Oberlin v. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr., 743 N.E.2d 890 (Ohio 2001) (definition of unfairly prejudicial evidence)
- State v. Jenks, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Robinson, 124 N.E.2d 148 (Ohio 1955) (sufficiency is a question of law)
- State v. Lalain, 994 N.E.2d 423 (Ohio 2013) (trial court may order restitution not limited to felony level proven at trial)
- Beatty v. Alston, 330 N.E.2d 921 (Ohio 1975) (trial judge who presided at trial should preside at sentencing unless unable)
- State v. DeHass, 227 N.E.2d 212 (Ohio 1967) (credibility determinations are for the trier of fact)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (Ohio 1984) (trial court best positioned to observe witness demeanor)
- Antill v. State, 197 N.E.2d 548 (Ohio 1964) (factfinder may believe all, part, or none of testimony)