State v. Sess
2016 Ohio 5560
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- John Sess was arrested after loss-prevention and police observed him at Home Depot taking merchandise; he fled, was chased into the parking lot, entered his vehicle, and reversed while officers attempted to remove him, injuring both officers; he then fled in a high-speed pursuit.
- Sess was indicted and tried by jury on two counts of felonious assault (on police officers), robbery, and two counts of failure to comply with a police order; the jury convicted on all counts.
- At trial Sess admitted intent to steal items and that he placed his vehicle in reverse while officers were extracting him, but claimed he did not intend to injure anyone and disputed the extent of officers’ injuries.
- The trial court sentenced Sess to an aggregate 13-year prison term, running consecutive sentences for the felonious-assault counts and consecutive to another county sentence; Sess appealed.
- The appeals court reviewed three assignments of error: sufficiency/manifest weight of felonious-assault convictions; requested jury instructions (deadly-weapon vehicle instruction and lesser-included theft); and imposition of consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / Manifest weight of evidence for felonious assault (vehicle as deadly weapon) | State: evidence (officers’ testimony and injuries) supports that Sess used his car as a deadly weapon and caused/attempted to cause physical harm. | Sess: lacked intent to injure; acted to flee, so evidence insufficient/against manifest weight. | Convictions affirmed: jury could find vehicle used as deadly weapon and verdicts not against manifest weight. |
| Jury instruction on vehicle-as-deadly-weapon | State: court’s provided deadly-weapon instruction adequately conveyed law and factual questions. | Sess: requested specific jury instruction emphasizing vehicle-use factors (intent, manner, actions). | No abuse of discretion; trial court’s instruction sufficient in substance. |
| Jury instruction on lesser-included offense (theft vs robbery) | State: evidence supported robbery (inflicted/attempted harm during flight); no reasonable basis to acquit robbery and convict theft. | Sess: theft is a lesser-included offense and instruction should have been given. | No error; lesser-included instruction not required because evidence did not reasonably support acquittal on robbery. |
| Consecutive sentences | State: trial court made required findings at sentencing and in the entry, reflecting R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) considerations. | Sess: sentencing entry included a finding not pronounced at hearing (that offenses occurred while under sanction), so consecutive sentences invalid. | Affirmed: record shows required findings (necessity, proportionality, offender history) were made; any extra ground was superfluous and not reversible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Comen v. Ohio, 50 Ohio St.3d 206 (1990) (trial court must fully and completely give jury instructions that are relevant and necessary)
- Guster v. Ohio, 66 Ohio St.2d 266 (1981) (requested correct and pertinent jury instructions must be given in substance)
- Sneed v. Ohio, 63 Ohio St.3d 3 (1992) (trial court need not give a proposed instruction verbatim and may use its own language)
- Trimble v. Ohio, 122 Ohio St.3d 297 (2009) (lesser-included instruction required only when evidence reasonably supports acquittal of greater offense and conviction of lesser)
- Bonnell v. Ohio, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must engage in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) analysis for consecutive sentences; findings need not be talismanic but must be reflected in the record)