State v. Taylor, 2014 Ohio 5074

Steven Taylor and Jerimiah Johnson entered Best Buy in Findlay, Ohio, where surveillance later showed them in electronics aisles and discarded packaging from stolen items. They left Findlay and later went to a Best Buy in Perrysburg.
Perrysburg officers stopped the vehicle; Johnson was the driver and had oxycodone, needle-nosed pliers in the driver’s door, a large magnet on the keychain, a pocket knife, and a razor blade visible in the car; tablets and iPods in original packaging were found in the trunk.
Findlay Best Buy asset protection matched recovered merchandise to their inventory (value over $1,000) and provided surveillance video showing the two men in the store and apparent concealment activity.
Perrysburg store employees observed Johnson handling iPods and testified that Taylor (appellant) briefly blocked a sales associate’s view while Johnson manipulated security devices; surveillance corroborated parts of this activity.
Taylor was indicted for receiving stolen property and possession of criminal tools; tried to the court, convicted of both counts, and sentenced to concurrent 11-month terms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant can be convicted as a complicitor when the alleged principal is not charged	State: No requirement to charge or convict the principal; complicity may be prosecuted independently	Taylor: R.C. 2923.03 defense applies because the principal (Johnson) was not indicted for possession of criminal tools	Court: Conviction as complicitor allowed; prosecution need not charge or convict the principal offender
Whether evidence was legally sufficient to support convictions for receiving stolen property and possession of criminal tools	State: Surveillance, recovered merchandise traced to Findlay, tools in vehicle, and appellant’s conduct (blocking) support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt	Taylor: Insufficient evidence of possession or knowing receipt; tools were in driver’s area and principal not charged	Court: Viewing evidence in state’s favor, sufficient circumstantial and constructive-possession evidence supported both convictions

State v. Graven, 52 Ohio St.2d 112 (Ohio 1977) (aider-and-abettor culpability may be treated like that of a principal; absent principal’s prosecution is not a defense)
State v. Hankerson, 70 Ohio St.2d 87 (Ohio 1982) (constructive possession shown by knowingly exercising dominion and control over an object)
State v. Jones, 90 Ohio St.3d 403 (Ohio 2000) (Jackson standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency under Ohio law)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest-weight review)
State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460 (Ohio 2001) (verdict will not be reversed for insufficiency if reasonable minds could reach the factfinder’s conclusion)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (constitutional standard for sufficiency of the evidence)