Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

Three from the Second, Part II

I mentioned last week that there were three recent decisions out of the 2nd District that are worth looking at, and discussed one of them.  I'll hit another one today.

That case is State v. Gardner, in which the defendant had been convicted of aggravated burglary.  The events leading up to the crime started out innocently enough:

The events giving rise to this matter began on Monday, April 25, 2005, when Ebony Lee phoned Gardner and asked to buy some marijuana from him.

Things went to hell in a hurry after that, though, with the defendant forcing his way into the house and beating the victim, then returning a little while later, breaking the door down, and firing several shots at the victim.

The defendant asserted various and sundry claims of error, all of which were dismissed out of hand, except one.  The aggravated burglary statute essentially prohibits breaking into a premises with the "purpose to commit any criminal offense."  That criminal offense could be anything, of course, from theft to domestic violence to murder.  The trial judge hadn't given the jury any instructions on what the lesser offense might be, and the appeals court held that was plain error. 

Why?  The state has to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.  Proving the underlying criminal offense is an element of aggravated burglary.  If the underlying offense isn't specified, there's a possibility that the jurors might agree that one was committed, but disagree as to which one it was.  If the jurors don't unanimously agree on which underlying offense was committed, that means they haven't unanimously found an element of the offense, and that's a denial of due process.

I'm not sure I agree with the court's reasoning, especially under the facts in this case, although it should be noted that the Ohio Jury Instructions mandates that "the court must instruct the jury on the elements of the underlying criminal offense together with the meaning of pertinent words and phrases."  There's a case to the contrary out of the 8th District, but the instruction by the judge was more complete than in Gardner.  There's only one other case on the subject, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the issue go to the Supreme Court.  But if you've got an aggravated burglary case, it's a must read.

Search

Recent Entries

  • October 16, 2017
    En banc on sentencing
    The 8th District takes a look at what State v. Marcum means
  • October 13, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Musings about the death penalty and indigent defense
  • October 11, 2017
    Case Update
    SCOTUS starts its new term, and the Ohio Supreme Court hands down two decisions
  • October 10, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Collaboration by inmates, fun in Juvenile Court, the limits of Creech, and more
  • October 5, 2017
    State v. Thomas
    The Ohio Supreme Court reverses a death penalty conviction
  • October 4, 2017
    Russ' Excellent Adventure
    A juror doesn't like me. Boo-hoo.
  • October 3, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    What not to argue on appeal, waiving counsel, the perils of being a juvenile, and expert witnesses
  • September 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Prior consistent statements, whether State v. Hand is applied retroactively, and a big Coming Attraction
  • September 11, 2017
    Case Update
    Looking back at Melendez-Diaz, and the 8th goes 0 for 2 in the Supreme Court
  • September 8, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Pro bono work, screwed-up appeals, and is Subway shorting their customers?