State v. Stevens, 2014 Ohio 1932

Background

Bondurant and Stevens participated in a Highland County drug operation (late 2010–early 2011) and were convicted of multiple drug offenses and a single count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity under Ohio’s RICO statutes.
The state presented evidence the enterprise collectively generated over $35,000; evidence attributable to Stevens totaled about $250 and to Bondurant about $460—both below the statutory $500 threshold then in force.
Trial court denied Crim.R. 29 motions arguing the $500 threshold applied to the enterprise as a whole; jury convicted both defendants of RICO and drug offenses.
The Fourth District affirmed; this court granted discretionary review to decide whether the monetary threshold in R.C. 2923.31(I)(2)(c) applies to an individual’s conduct or to the enterprise’s total proceeds.
The lead opinion holds the statute is ambiguous and, under Ohio’s rule of lenity (R.C. 2901.04(A)), construes ambiguity for the defendant: the monetary threshold must be met as to each individual’s conduct, reversing the RICO convictions and remanding for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bondurant/Stevens)	Held
Whether the $500 threshold in R.C. 2923.31(I)(2)(c) applies to the enterprise or to each individual’s conduct	The threshold applies to the enterprise’s combined proceeds; collective profit > $500 suffices	Threshold applies to each individual; prosecution must prove an individual’s combination of violations produced > $500	The statute is ambiguous and must be construed for the defendant: threshold applies to each individual, not merely the enterprise (reversed)
Application of rule of lenity when statutory language is ambiguous	Rule of lenity should not override legislative purpose to reach enterprises	Ambiguity triggers lenity; interpret criminal statute in favor of accused	Court applies rule of lenity once ambiguity exists and construes statute for defendants
Whether evidence that enterprise-wide proceeds exceeded threshold satisfies proof for individual incidents of corrupt activity	Enterprise totals may be attributed to each member where defendant participated in the combination of violations	Evidence must tie > $500 in proceeds to the particular defendant’s combination of violations	Court requires proof tying threshold to the individual’s conduct; enterprise-only proof insufficient
Proper degree of felony for RICO sentence when predicate felonies are low-level	(State) Enhancements may be based on enterprise context	(Stevens) If defendant’s predicate acts are only fourth/fifth-degree felonies, sentencing must reflect that individual level	Concurrence (Kennedy, J.): even if RICO conviction stands, Stevens’s first-degree RICO sentence unlawful where his predicate acts were only fifth/fourth-degree; remand for appropriate degree determination

Key Cases Cited

Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808 (1971) (rule of lenity requires construing ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of defendants)
United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008) (ambiguity in criminal statutes resolved for defendant under lenity)
State v. Jordan, 89 Ohio St.3d 488 (2000) (statutory ambiguity may admit multiple reasonable constructions)
State v. Elmore, 122 Ohio St.3d 472 (2009) (rule of lenity bars interpreting ambiguous criminal statutes to increase penalty)
State v. Schlosser, 79 Ohio St.3d 329 (1997) (Ohio RICO imposes cumulative liability for criminal enterprises)
State v. Miranda, 138 Ohio St.3d 184 (2014) (Ohio RICO focuses on the enterprise but individual conduct remains relevant)
United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981) (rule of lenity is a last resort after statutory construction)
Callanan v. United States, 364 U.S. 587 (1961) (rule of lenity applies at the end of the interpretive process)