[Cite as State v. Campbell, 2016-Ohio-598.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO : : Appellate Case No. 26575 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial Court Case No. 14-CR-3261 v. : : (Criminal Appeal from GWENDOLYN D. CAMPBELL : Common Pleas Court) : Defendant-Appellant : :
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 19th day of February, 2016.
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by CHRISTINA E. MAHY, Atty. Reg. No. 0092671, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building, P.O. Box 972, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
JEFFREY T. GRAMZA, Atty. Reg. No. 0053392, Talbott Tower, Suite 1210, 131 North Ludlow Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
FAIN, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Gwendolyn Campbell appeals from her conviction and
sentence for Robbery. Campbell contends that her conviction is against the manifest -2-
weight of the evidence, and that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction.
{¶ 2} We conclude that the conviction is not against the manifest weight of the
evidence, and that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. Therefore, the
judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.
I. Shoplifting Leads to Robbery Indictment
{¶ 3} The robbery occurred at the Shell Gas Station located at 1224 South Main
Street, Dayton, Ohio. The store manager, Swaran Sidhu, testified that he observed
Campbell place items in her purse, and suspected her of shoplifting. Sidhu confronted
her, and an argument ensued over the items in her purse and her obligation to purchase
them. Sidhu testified that Campbell said that she was not going to pay him, so he tried to
grab a beer out of her purse. Sidhu’s arm was scratched in the struggle. A store
surveillance video shows that after Sidhu had retrieved the beer out of Campbell’s purse,
she pulled a box cutter out of her purse. Sidhu testified that he did not see the box cutter,
but he heard Campbell threaten to kill him. Sidhu testified that Campbell then grabbed
another item and left the store, without paying for the items she took. The video depicts
Campbell taking items after she entered the store and as she was exiting the store. At no
time was Campbell given permission to take any items out of the store without payment.
{¶ 4} Sidhu contacted the police, who quickly found Campbell in an alley near the
store and arrested her. At the time of her arrest, the police found a box cutter on the
ground near Campbell, and she admitted that the box cutter was used to threaten Sidhu.
Campbell claimed that she had purchased the items in her purse from another store, and
that she pulled the box cutter on him because she believed he was going to hurt her. -3-
The arresting officers testified that they found in close proximity to Campbell a nearly
empty Margarita bottle, and an open beer can with a straw in it. The straw had lipstick on
it matching the lipstick Campbell was wearing at that time. They also found several candy
bars in Campbell’s purse, which Sidhu identified as the items Campbell had taken from
the store.
II. The Course of Proceedings
{¶ 5} Campbell was indicted on one count of Robbery (physical harm), a felony
of the second degree, in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2). The case was presented to a
jury, which returned a verdict of guilty. Campbell was sentenced to serve five years of
imprisonment. From her conviction and sentence, Campbell appeals.
III. Standard of Review
{¶ 6} “An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine
whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v.
Jenks, 61 Ohio St. 3d 259, 574 N.E. 2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. The
issue of whether a conviction is supported by sufficient evidence is a question of law,
which we review de novo. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541
(1997). -4-
{¶ 7} In State v. Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22581, 2009-Ohio-525, we
observed that, “a weight of the evidence argument challenges the believability of the
evidence and asks which of the competing inferences suggested by the evidence is more
believable or persuasive.” Id. at ¶ 12. The proper test to apply to that inquiry is the one
set forth in State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983), as
follows:
[T]he court, reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all
reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and
determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury lost its
way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction
must be reversed and a new trial ordered.
{¶ 8} “In order to find that a manifest miscarriage of justice occurred, an appellate
court must conclude that a guilty verdict is ‘against,’ that is, contrary to, the manifest
weight of the evidence presented. The fact that the evidence is subject to different
interpretations on the matter of guilt or innocence does not rise to that level.” Wilson at
¶14.
IV. The Conviction Is Supported by Sufficient Evidence and Is Not Against the
Manifest Weight of the Evidence
{¶ 9} For her sole assignment of error, Campbell asserts:
THE JURY VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF
THE EVIDENCE, AND THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED WAS
INSUFFICIENT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, TO PROVE APPELLANT’S -5-
GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
{¶ 10} To prove that Campbell committed the offense of Robbery as charged
under R.C. 2911.02(A)(2), the State was required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt,
that Campbell committed a theft offense and that in committing the theft offense she
inflicted, attempted to inflict, or threatened to inflict physical harm to another. The mens
rea element of this Robbery offense is satisfied if the State proves the culpable mental
state of the theft offense. State v. Tolliver, 140 Ohio St. 3d 420, 2014-Ohio-3744,
19 N.E.3d 870. To prove the offense of Theft, the State was required to prove, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that Campbell knowingly exerted control over the property of another
with the purpose to deprive the owner of that property without the owner’s consent. R.C.
2913.02(A)(1). The State was required to prove that Campbell acted purposely by acting
with a specific intent to deprive the owner of property. R.C. 2901.22(A). The State could
prove Campbell’s intent to deprive the owner of property by establishing that Campbell
took property without giving proper consideration or payment, or without reasonable
justification or excuse for not giving proper consideration or payment. R.C. 2913.01(C).
The Ohio Revised Code does not define what constitutes “reasonable justification or
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Campbell, 2016-Ohio-598.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO : : Appellate Case No. 26575 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial Court Case No. 14-CR-3261 v. : : (Criminal Appeal from GWENDOLYN D. CAMPBELL : Common Pleas Court) : Defendant-Appellant : :
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 19th day of February, 2016.
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by CHRISTINA E. MAHY, Atty. Reg. No. 0092671, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building, P.O. Box 972, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
JEFFREY T. GRAMZA, Atty. Reg. No. 0053392, Talbott Tower, Suite 1210, 131 North Ludlow Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
FAIN, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Gwendolyn Campbell appeals from her conviction and
sentence for Robbery. Campbell contends that her conviction is against the manifest -2-
weight of the evidence, and that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction.
{¶ 2} We conclude that the conviction is not against the manifest weight of the
evidence, and that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. Therefore, the
judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.
I. Shoplifting Leads to Robbery Indictment
{¶ 3} The robbery occurred at the Shell Gas Station located at 1224 South Main
Street, Dayton, Ohio. The store manager, Swaran Sidhu, testified that he observed
Campbell place items in her purse, and suspected her of shoplifting. Sidhu confronted
her, and an argument ensued over the items in her purse and her obligation to purchase
them. Sidhu testified that Campbell said that she was not going to pay him, so he tried to
grab a beer out of her purse. Sidhu’s arm was scratched in the struggle. A store
surveillance video shows that after Sidhu had retrieved the beer out of Campbell’s purse,
she pulled a box cutter out of her purse. Sidhu testified that he did not see the box cutter,
but he heard Campbell threaten to kill him. Sidhu testified that Campbell then grabbed
another item and left the store, without paying for the items she took. The video depicts
Campbell taking items after she entered the store and as she was exiting the store. At no
time was Campbell given permission to take any items out of the store without payment.
{¶ 4} Sidhu contacted the police, who quickly found Campbell in an alley near the
store and arrested her. At the time of her arrest, the police found a box cutter on the
ground near Campbell, and she admitted that the box cutter was used to threaten Sidhu.
Campbell claimed that she had purchased the items in her purse from another store, and
that she pulled the box cutter on him because she believed he was going to hurt her. -3-
The arresting officers testified that they found in close proximity to Campbell a nearly
empty Margarita bottle, and an open beer can with a straw in it. The straw had lipstick on
it matching the lipstick Campbell was wearing at that time. They also found several candy
bars in Campbell’s purse, which Sidhu identified as the items Campbell had taken from
the store.
II. The Course of Proceedings
{¶ 5} Campbell was indicted on one count of Robbery (physical harm), a felony
of the second degree, in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2). The case was presented to a
jury, which returned a verdict of guilty. Campbell was sentenced to serve five years of
imprisonment. From her conviction and sentence, Campbell appeals.
III. Standard of Review
{¶ 6} “An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine
whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v.
Jenks, 61 Ohio St. 3d 259, 574 N.E. 2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. The
issue of whether a conviction is supported by sufficient evidence is a question of law,
which we review de novo. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541
(1997). -4-
{¶ 7} In State v. Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22581, 2009-Ohio-525, we
observed that, “a weight of the evidence argument challenges the believability of the
evidence and asks which of the competing inferences suggested by the evidence is more
believable or persuasive.” Id. at ¶ 12. The proper test to apply to that inquiry is the one
set forth in State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983), as
follows:
[T]he court, reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all
reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and
determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury lost its
way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction
must be reversed and a new trial ordered.
{¶ 8} “In order to find that a manifest miscarriage of justice occurred, an appellate
court must conclude that a guilty verdict is ‘against,’ that is, contrary to, the manifest
weight of the evidence presented. The fact that the evidence is subject to different
interpretations on the matter of guilt or innocence does not rise to that level.” Wilson at
¶14.
IV. The Conviction Is Supported by Sufficient Evidence and Is Not Against the
Manifest Weight of the Evidence
{¶ 9} For her sole assignment of error, Campbell asserts:
THE JURY VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF
THE EVIDENCE, AND THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED WAS
INSUFFICIENT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, TO PROVE APPELLANT’S -5-
GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
{¶ 10} To prove that Campbell committed the offense of Robbery as charged
under R.C. 2911.02(A)(2), the State was required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt,
that Campbell committed a theft offense and that in committing the theft offense she
inflicted, attempted to inflict, or threatened to inflict physical harm to another. The mens
rea element of this Robbery offense is satisfied if the State proves the culpable mental
state of the theft offense. State v. Tolliver, 140 Ohio St. 3d 420, 2014-Ohio-3744,
19 N.E.3d 870. To prove the offense of Theft, the State was required to prove, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that Campbell knowingly exerted control over the property of another
with the purpose to deprive the owner of that property without the owner’s consent. R.C.
2913.02(A)(1). The State was required to prove that Campbell acted purposely by acting
with a specific intent to deprive the owner of property. R.C. 2901.22(A). The State could
prove Campbell’s intent to deprive the owner of property by establishing that Campbell
took property without giving proper consideration or payment, or without reasonable
justification or excuse for not giving proper consideration or payment. R.C. 2913.01(C).
The Ohio Revised Code does not define what constitutes “reasonable justification or
excuse” as applied to this element of a theft offense. Therefore, the jury was permitted to
determine from the evidence, based on their collective experience and common sense,
whether Campbell’s failure to pay for the items taken from the store was reasonably
justified or excused.
{¶ 11} Campbell argues that the State failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt,
that she purposely committed a theft offense because her purpose in leaving the store,
without paying for items taken from the store, was not to deprive the owner of property, -6-
but was to defend or protect herself from his aggression toward her. Campbell further
contends that another reasonable inference can be drawn that Campbell was reasonably
justified in leaving without payment, because the store manager blocked her path and did
not afford her the opportunity to go to the checkout and pay for the items.
{¶ 12} Our review of the evidence, including our viewing of the surveillance video,
leads us to conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to allow a jury to find, beyond
reasonable doubt, that Campbell purposely committed a theft offense by taking items from
the store, and leaving the store with the knowledge that she did not have consent of the
owner, or a justifiable excuse for leaving the store without making payment for the items.
There is also sufficient evidence, from the testimony of the victim and from the officers
who heard admissions from Campbell, that during the theft offense Campbell threatened
to harm the victim, to prove the additional elements of Robbery.
{¶ 13} Reviewing the record as a whole, we also conclude that the evidence does
not weigh heavily against a conviction, and that the jury did not lose its way in choosing
to believe the State's witnesses and making reasonable inferences supporting their guilty
verdict from their view of the surveillance video and consideration of all the evidence. We
conclude that a manifest miscarriage of justice has not occurred, and that Campbell's
conviction for Robbery is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 14} Campbell’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
V. Conclusion
{¶ 15} Campbell’s sole assignment of error having been overruled, the judgment
of the trial court is Affirmed. -7-
FROELICH and HALL, JJ., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Mathias H. Heck Christina E. Mahy Jeffrey T. Gramza Hon. Mary L. Wiseman