State v. Juhasz
Court of Appeals No. L-14-1208
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
Decided: September 18, 2015
2015-Ohio-3801
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-14-1208
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0201402168
v.
Robert Juhasz DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: September 18, 2015
* * * * *
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Mark T. Herr, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Patricia Horner, for appellant.
* * * * *
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} Aрpellant, Robert Juhasz, appeals the September 17, 2014 judgment of the
Lucas County Court of Common Pleas which, following a jury trial cоnvicting him of
robbery, sentenced him to 18 months of imprisonment. Because we find that the verdict
affirm.
{¶ 2} On July 24, 2014, appellant was indicted on one count of robbery,
July 7, 2014. Appellant entered a not guilty plea and on September 11, 2014, the matter
proceeded to trial.
{¶ 3} Viсtim, L.I., testified that on July 7, 2014, she was at her boyfriend’s house,
a duplex, in Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio, and remained there from 4:00 p.m. until 2:00
a.m. At some point she went down to the lower unit of the duplex where her friend,
Lauren, lived with her father, husband and child, and visited while her boyfriend slept.
Lauren cooked some food on the grill while L.I. was visiting. It was after midnight and
the two were sitting at a table outside when appellant approached them. L.I. testified that
she had met appellant before and that he was a friend of Lauren’s husband.
{¶ 4} At the time of appellant’s arrival, L.I. stated that she had her purse which
contained her identification and other important documents including her sociаl security
card and she and her son’s birth certificates. L.I. testified that she had $6,000 in cash in
her purse from selling her late father’s guitars. L.I. claimеd that she had not told anyone
about the sales or the large sum of cash she was carrying.
{¶ 5} L.I. stated that appellant walked up to them and asked for a cigarette; neither
she nor Lаuren smoked so they responded negatively. L.I. stated that appellant then
reached for her purse and she grabbed her shоulder. She stated that “[h]e grabbed back at
pursued him but could not сatch him. She then called 9-1-1. L.I. stated that she did not
speak to police that night; she did not hear them knocking on the door. L.I. went to
Toledo police headquarters in the morning.
{¶ 6} A rеsource officer with the Lucas County Sheriff’s Department, testified that
she monitors Lucas County Corrections Center inmate teleрhone conversations. The
officer testified that she reviewed the July 19, 2014 telephone conversation involving
appellant. During the 15-minute call that was played for the jury, appellant admits to
stealing the purse.
{¶ 7} A Toledo police detective investigated the pursе snatching. After speaking
with L.I. and Lauren, the detective issued a warrant for appellant’s arrest.
{¶ 8} Defense witness, Lauren, testified thаt around 4:00 p.m., prior to the purse
snatching, she learned that L.I.’s mobile phone had been stolen. Lauren stated that at
approximately 12:30 a.m., appellant was present and she was cooking on the grill.
Lauren testified that L.I.’s purse was on the table. Lauren stated that her back was turned
when she heard L.I. state “Where’s my purse?” and “Where did Rob go?” Lauren stated
that she turned around and then sаw appellant running down Front Street. She did not
hear a struggle between appellant and L.I.
{¶ 9} Lauren was then questioned about her statement to police that she witnessed
L.I. and аppellant struggle over control of the purse. Lauren stated that she felt sorry for
L.I. and went along with her story.
and appellant friends and that she did not want to testify at the trial. Lauren admitted that
after appellant contacted her husband (his childhood friend), her story changed. She
clarified that no one pressured her to change her story.
{¶ 11} Following the presentation of the evidence and jury deliberations, the jury
found appellant guilty of robbery. This appeal followed with appellant raising the
following assignment of error for our review:
Appellant’s conviction was nоt supported by sufficient evidence
thereby violating his due process constitutional rights as set forth in the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to thе United States Constitution and
Sections 10 and 16 of the Ohio State Constitution.
{¶ 12} Although appellant’s sole assignment of error asserts that appellant’s
robbery conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence, appellant also argues that
his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We will address both
standards.
{¶ 13} The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that “the legal concepts of sufficiency
of the evidence and weight of the evidence are both quantitatively and qualitatively
different.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). At its
core, sufficiency of the evidence is a determination of аdequacy and a court must
consider whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction as a matter of law.
Id. The proper analysis is “‘whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable
crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Williams, 74 Ohio St.3d 569, 576,
660 N.E.2d 724 (1996), quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492
(1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶ 14} In contrast, a manifest weight challenge questions whether the state has met
its burden of persuasion. Thompkins at 387. In making this determination, the court of
appeals sits as a “thirteenth juror” and, after:
“reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable
inferences, considers the credibility of witnеsses and determines whether in
resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created
such a manifest miscarriаge of justice that the conviction must be reversed
and a new trial ordered. The discretionary power to grant a new trial should
be exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs
heavily against the conviction.” Id., quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio
App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983).
{¶ 15} Appellant’s argument is not that he did not steal the victim’s purse; rather,
appellant contends that the state failed to provide sufficient evidence of the elemеnt of
force. Appellant was convicted of robbery,
that appellant used or threatened to use force when he stole L.I.’s purse.
{¶ 16} Ohio courts have held that a struggle ovеr control of an individual’s purse
has been sufficient to establish the element of force. See State v. Foster, 8th Dist.
No. 2004CA00079, 2004-Ohio-6821, ¶ 20. Further, the struggle need not be prolonged
or active; the act of forcibly removing a purse from an individual’s shoulder is sufficient.
State v. Carter, 29 Ohio App.3d 148, 150, 504 N.E.2d 469 (9th Dist.1985).
{¶ 17} In the present case, when viewing the evidence in the prosecution’s favor,
we find that the element of force was sufficiently established. L.I. testified that she and
appellant struggled over control of her purse. We further conclude that appellant’s
robbery conviсtion was not against the weight of the evidence. Although there was
conflicting testimony regarding whether the purse was forcibly removed from L.I.’s
shoulder or simply swiped from a table, the jury did not create a manifest injustice when
it found L.I.’s testimony to be credible.
{¶ 18} Based on the foregoing, we find that appellant’s robbery conviction was
supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Appellant’s assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 19} On сonsideration whereof, we find that appellant was not prejudiced or
prevented from having a fair trial and the judgment of thе Lucas County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed. Pursuant to
of this appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
C.A. No. L-14-1208
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Stephen A. Yarbrough, P.J.
_______________________________
James D. Jensen, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.