State v. Turic
2011 Ohio 6713
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Turic, a Home Depot cashier, was accused of theft based on store video and computer records in three transactions with the same customer.
- Police were summoned after store staff confronted Turic; Officer Molnar questioned her and sought identifying information she refused to provide.
- Turic produced a student ID lacking required information; Molnar decided to arrest her due to noncooperation and lack of trust she would appear in court.
- Turic was handcuffed; during preparation for transport, she objected to a pat-down for weapons and resisted when Molnar proceeded.
- Turic was charged with obstructing official business and resisting arrest; a bench trial found her guilty of resisting arrest and not guilty of obstructing.
- In a separate proceeding, Turic was convicted of theft from Home Depot; that conviction was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Turic of resisting arrest. | Turic argues arrest completed when handcuffed; post-arrest resistance cannot support offense. | Turic contends subsequent conduct after handcuffing is not part of resisting arrest. | Sufficient evidence supports resisting arrest; resistance occurred during processing toward formal charging. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Darrah, 64 Ohio St.2d 22 (Ohio 1980) (defines four-factor arrest completion test)
- State v. Bay, 130 Ohio App.3d 772 (Ohio App. Dist. 1998) (arrest as process beginning with seizure; completion during charging)
- State v. Cole, 2010-Ohio-1608 (Ohio App. Dist. 2010) (resistance during booking procedures can support conviction)
- Cleveland v. Ellsworth, 2004-Ohio-4092 (Ohio App. Dist. 2004) (booking-related resistance may constitute resisting arrest)