State v. Thompson, 2016 Ohio 7343

On Jan. 6, 2015, Anthony Williams left his running 2000 Mercedes (owned by his mother) briefly outside his auto business; the engine was left running.
Williams returned, heard the engine racing, opened the driver door, and a man (later identified as Jerome Thompson) jumped out and lunged at him; Williams fired a shot; Thompson fled and was later found by police wounded.
Williams observed the car rolling backward after the man exited; he climbed in, found the transmission in neutral, and put it in park; Williams testified the intruder had "obviously" put it in gear.
Thompson was indicted for aggravated robbery but the jury convicted him of the lesser-included offense of grand theft of a motor vehicle (R.C. 2913.02).
Thompson appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence he knowingly obtained or exerted control over the vehicle, and (2) the trial court should have instructed the jury on attempted grand theft.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for grand theft of a motor vehicle	State: evidence showed Thompson was in the driver’s seat of a running car, caused engine to race, and shifted gear — thus knowingly exerted control	Thompson: no proof he rendered the car immediately capable of movement; at most an attempt (citing State v. Hope)	Affirmed: viewing evidence favorably to prosecution, a rational juror could find Thompson knowingly exerted control when he occupied the running car and altered gear
Jury instruction on attempted grand theft (lesser offense)	State: not required because evidence supports conviction for completed theft, not merely attempt	Thompson: trial court erred by refusing to instruct on attempted theft since there was no proof he rendered car capable of movement	Affirmed: instruction not required where evidence, viewed favorably to defendant, did not reasonably support acquittal on greater offense and conviction of the lesser; jury could find completed theft

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (establishes sufficiency standard of review)
State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (describes the "viewing evidence in light most favorable to the prosecution" test)
State v. Walker, 55 Ohio St.2d 208 (appellate court should not weigh evidence or assess witness credibility)
State v. Hope, 9 Ohio App.3d 65 (theft of a motor vehicle is not complete until the vehicle is rendered immediately capable of movement)
State v. Robb, 88 Ohio St.3d 59 (lesser-offense instruction required only when evidence would reasonably support acquittal of greater offense and conviction of lesser)
State v. Wilkins, 64 Ohio St.2d 382 (evidence on lesser-included offense must be considered in the light most favorable to the accused)