State v. Stall
2011 Ohio 5733
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Stall appeals the trial court’s denial of merger of aggravated robbery and kidnapping as allied offenses of similar import.
- This case arises on remand after the Ohio Supreme Court vacated our Lee I judgment to apply Johnson; Johnson changed allied-offense analysis.
- Defendants committed a home invasion at the Siclair residence; Stall dragged the victim, applied duct tape, and assaulted her while others searched for money.
- Stall faced counts for aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and kidnapping; sentencing occurred with all counts run consecutively.
- The court on remand originally denied merger; this appeal requires applying Johnson and Logan to determine if the two offenses were allied and must merge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are aggravated robbery and kidnapping allied offenses under Johnson? | Stall | Stall | Yes; they are not separate offenses under Johnson |
| Do Johnson and Logan require merger where conduct constitutes one act with no separate animus? | Stall | Stall | Yes; merger required since no separate animus for kidnapping |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010-Ohio-6314) (redefines when offenses are allied under R.C. 2941.25)
- State v. Logan, 60 Ohio St.2d 126 (1979) (kidnapping must have separate animus to support separate convictions)
- State v. Brown, 3d Dist. No. 1-10-31, 2011-Ohio-1461 (2011-Ohio-1461) (de novo review of allied-offense question; single conduct analysis)
- State v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d 164 (1983) (kidnapping incidental to robbery)
- State v. Foust, 105 Ohio St.3d 137 (2004-Ohio-7006) (separate animus considerations for kidnapping)
- State v. Hartman, 93 Ohio St.3d 274 (2001) (examples of when separate animus exists for kidnapping)