State v. Smith
2017 Ohio 5853
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- George Smith was charged with one count of complicity to theft (misdemeanor) for an April 22, 2015 Verizon store cellphone theft; bench trial held in Mason Municipal Court.
- Store employees Samantha Aguilar and Paul Huston testified two men entered shortly before a $750 Galaxy S6A was taken; Huston overheard Smith say, "You got it, go," and one man (in a black hoodie) fled the store.
- Aguilar blocked Smith momentarily, then Smith pushed past her, ran to a silver Jaguar and entered the vehicle driven by the hoodie-wearing man; Aguilar obtained the Jaguar license plate number.
- Deputies ran the plate, the computer returned a photo of Smith (the registered owner of the Jaguar), and employees identified Smith from that photo; a store security video showing the entry and the hoodie-wearer’s exit (but cutting off before Smith’s exit) was admitted into evidence.
- Smith testified he was merely giving two men rides that day, denied knowledge of the theft, and admitted prior theft-related convictions; the magistrate convicted Smith of complicity, the trial court overruled his objection, and Smith was sentenced.
- Smith appealed solely arguing his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the security video lacked probative value for identification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith's conviction for complicity to theft is against the manifest weight of the evidence (identification and video probative value) | State: witness testimony, overheard statement, Aguilar’s license-plate identification, ownership of the Jaguar, and video corroboration support conviction | Smith: witnesses misidentified him; video had limited probative value (malfunctioned) and did not reliably identify him | Court: Affirmed — testimony, the overheard statement, Aguilar’s plate/identification, and the video (even incomplete) provided sufficient probative evidence; conviction not against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240 (2001) (defining aiding-and-abetting: must show the defendant supported or shared the principal’s criminal intent)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for reversing based on manifest weight of the evidence)
- State v. Lett, 160 Ohio App.3d 46 (2005) (criminal intent and participation may be inferred from presence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense)