State v. Smith, 121 Ohio St. 3d 409, 2009-Ohio-787

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court denied reconsideration of its prior decision affirming Danielle Smith’s conviction for fifth-degree felony theft. The court held that value is not an essential element of theft under R.C. 2913.02(A), but is a special finding that enhances the offense’s penalty and degree. Because Smith had been indicted for robbery, the indictment necessarily included the lesser-included offense of theft and provided sufficient notice for the conviction.

Holdings

1. The value of stolen property is not an essential element of the offense of theft under R.C. 2913.02(A); it is a special finding that enhances the penalty and determines the degree of the offense.
2. An indictment charging robbery necessarily and simultaneously charges the lesser included offense of theft, so the state was not required to obtain a separate indictment for theft.
3. The trial court properly convicted Smith of fifth-degree felony theft because the evidence showed that the stolen property was worth between $500 and $5,000.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the value of stolen property is an essential element of theft that must be alleged in an indictment.
2. Whether a robbery indictment sufficiently charges the lesser included offense of theft and permits a felony-theft conviction based on a special finding concerning property value.
3. Whether the trial court properly convicted Smith of fifth-degree felony theft after acquitting her of robbery.

Disposition

other