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

  • April 26, 2017
    MIA
    Like Mark Twain, rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. Except I am pretty sure he's actually dead, while I am not, and for that matter, nobody's spreading rumors that I am. Great lead, huh? The nice thing about...
  • April 20, 2017
    The Supreme Court takes a look at the trial tax
    And you thought this was the week you only had to worry about income taxes
  • April 18, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Remembering Warren Zevon, and the Fourth Amendment lives
  • April 17, 2017
    Case Update
    Structural error, prejudice, and police run amok.
  • April 13, 2017
    Some arguments on sentencing
    Why oral arguments can be fun, even when they're not yours
  • April 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Oh fun: declarations against interest v. non-hearsay. Also, the difference between not guilty and innocent, and Ohio's statute penalizing the refusal to take chemical test in a DUI case goes bye-bye
  • April 11, 2017
    Case Update
    Filibusters, and appellate cases on all the ways lawyers can screw up.
  • April 7, 2017
    Change of course
    A new approach in my client-attorney relationships
  • April 4, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A true rocket docket, and Anthony Sowell pops up again
  • April 3, 2017
    Case Update
    Free merchant speech, an argument on Brady, another look at Creech