State v. Wright
74 N.E.3d 695
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Tina Wright was indicted on two counts of interference with custody for removing her two youngest children from Ohio to Texas in August 2014 and keeping them from their father, Phillip.
- Athens County had issued two orders in the parties’ pending divorce: an August 6, 2014 temporary order naming Wright custodian of the two younger children (with specified visitation for Phillip) and a September 23, 2014 order naming Phillip custodian of all three children and directing law enforcement to assist in returning the younger children.
- Wright left Ohio with the children the same day she voluntarily dismissed her Athens divorce complaint; Phillip’s counterclaim kept the case pending. Wright admitted she knew of and violated the orders and refused to comply after an Athens deputy informed her of the September 23 order.
- Wright was arrested in Texas after a nationwide warrant; the younger children were returned to Phillip. At trial the jury convicted Wright of both counts; the trial court sentenced her to community control.
- On appeal Wright argued (1) insufficient evidence of venue in Athens County and (2) insufficient evidence to support the interference-with-custody convictions (including that the September order was not served on her).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wright) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue was proven for crimes charged in Athens County | Venue satisfied because an element (that Wright acted “without privilege” due to Athens County divorce orders) occurred in Athens County; Wright initiated the Athens case so nexus exists | Venue insufficient because Wright, Phillip, and children did not reside in Athens when she left; no evidence she committed acts in Athens or passed through it | Affirmed: venue proper — sufficient nexus via Athens orders and Wright’s initiation of the divorce case |
| Whether taking/harboring by a custodial parent can constitute interference with custody | R.C. 2919.23 applies where a person knowingly or recklessly, without privilege, takes/keeps a child; custodial parent may be convicted for interfering with noncustodial parent’s visitation | Wright argued violation of August order only affected visitation and thus could not be interference; also argued September order wasn’t properly served | Affirmed: custodial parent can be guilty; Wright admitted knowledge and violation of the orders, so elements satisfied |
| Whether state had to serve the defendant with the September 23 order to convict under R.C. 2919.23 | Service not required for interference with custody; statute requires knowledge or recklessness that defendant lacked privilege | Wright relied on Smith (protection-order context) to argue service required | Affirmed: Smith distinguished — that case involved a statute requiring service; R.C. 2919.23 requires only knowledge or recklessness, and officer informed Wright of the order |
| Sufficiency of evidence overall to sustain convictions beyond reasonable doubt | Evidence (orders, admissions, officer testimony, return of children) proved elements and venue under the Jackson/Jenks sufficiency standard | Wright asserted insufficiency as to venue and elements | Affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, rational juror could convict |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Chintalapalli, 88 Ohio St.3d 43 (2000) (venue satisfied where sufficient nexus between defendant and county that issued order creating legal obligation)
- State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 255 (2006) (standard for sufficiency review of Crim.R. 29 motions parallels Jackson/Jenks)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (Ohio standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (constitutional sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
- State v. Smith, 136 Ohio St.3d 1 (2013) (concerning requirement of service for protection-order violation; distinguished here)