Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) imposes strict liability for the element of displaying, brandishing, indicating possession of, or using a deadly weapon during an aggravated robbery. Accordingly, the indictment was not defective for omitting a mens rea allegation as to that element, and the court reversed the appellate judgment and reinstated Lester’s conviction. A concurrence argued that recklessness should apply but agreed with the judgment on other grounds.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) requires the State to prove a mens rea of recklessness for the element of displaying, brandishing, indicating possession of, or using a deadly weapon during an aggravated robbery.
- Whether the omission of that mens rea from Lester's indictment and the jury instructions required reversal of his aggravated-robbery conviction.
- Whether the First District properly applied structural-error analysis under State v. Colon I and Colon II.
Holdings
- R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) imposes strict liability for the element requiring that the offender display, brandish, indicate possession of, or use a deadly weapon during an aggravated robbery; the State is not required to charge or prove a mens rea for that element.
- Because R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) imposes strict liability for the relevant weapon-display element, the indictment's failure to allege a mens rea for that element and the trial court's failure to instruct on one did not establish reversible error.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio's prior summary reversal and remand in State v. Davis did not decide whether R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) requires a mens rea for displaying, brandishing, using, or indicating possession of a deadly weapon.
Key quotations
“We hold that the state is not required to charge a mens rea for this element of the crime of aggravated robbery under R.C. 2911.01(A)(1).” (2009-Ohio-4225, ¶ 33; 123 Ohio St. 3d at 403)
“We are persuaded that the General Assembly, by not specifying a mens rea in R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), plainly indicated its purpose to impose strict liability as to the element of displaying, brandishing, indicating possession of, or using a deadly weapon.” (2009-Ohio-4225, ¶ 32; 123 Ohio St. 3d at 403)
Factual background
James Lester and an accomplice used a three-card-monte scheme to steal money from multiple victims. After victim two discovered that $1,800 had been taken, he chased Lester. Lester pulled out a knife, displayed it, threatened to cut the victim, and took the victim's cell phone before escaping. Police later apprehended Lester after the victim identified the vehicle.
Procedural history
Lester was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery, robbery, and two counts of theft from the elderly. The trial court merged the robbery conviction into the aggravated-robbery conviction for sentencing. The First District reversed the aggravated-robbery conviction, holding that the indictment's failure to allege a mens rea for the aggravated-robbery charge constituted structural error under State v. Colon I. The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the State's appeal and reversed.
Remand instructions
The court reversed the First District's judgment and reinstated Lester's aggravated-robbery conviction. No further remand instructions were provided.