State v. Tolliver

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that R.C. 2901.21(B), which supplies recklessness when an offense statute specifies no culpable mental state, does not apply to Ohio's robbery statute because the statute incorporates the culpable mental states of the predicate theft offense. The court therefore held that the state was not required to prove a separate culpable mental state for the force element of robbery under R.C. 2911.02(A)(3), and reversed the court of appeals.

Holdings

1. R.C. 2901.21(B) applies only when the section defining an offense does not specify any degree of culpability. If the section specifies a culpable mental state for any element in any division or subdivision, R.C. 2901.21(B) does not apply, and the State must prove culpability only as specified in the statute.
2. The State is not required to prove that the defendant acted recklessly with respect to using or threatening the immediate use of force under R.C. 2911.02(A)(3).

Questions Presented

1. Whether R.C. 2901.21(B)'s default recklessness rule applies when the statute defining the offense specifies a culpable mental state for some elements but not others.
2. Whether the State must prove that a defendant acted recklessly with respect to the force or threat-of-force element of robbery under R.C. 2911.02(A)(3).

Disposition

reversed