State v. Gochenouer

2024 Ohio 2768

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 22, 2024
• Docket: 9-23-77
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Gochenouer, 2024-Ohio-2768.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 9-23-77 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

MICA GOCHENOUER, OPINION

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Marion County Municipal Court Trial Court No. CRB2300349

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: July 22, 2024

APPEARANCES:

William T. Cramer for Appellant

Jeff Ratliff for Appellee Case No. 9-23-77

ZIMMERMAN, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Mica Gochenouer (“Gochenouer”), appeals the

November 3, 2023 judgment entry of sentence of the Marion Municipal Court. For

the reasons that follow, we affirm.

{¶2} This case concerns the theft of a cat (“Smudge”) that went “missing” in

May or June of 2021. Smudge had a habit of escaping the home of its owner to

roam in an old school building located across the street. Gochenouer and her mother

reside in a portion of the old school building. Over a period of several months,

Gochenouer informed the owner of when Smudge was in the old school building.

The owner would then retrieve Smudge, or Gochenouer would deliver Smudge to

the owner.

{¶3} As recent as April 9, 2021, Gochenouer messaged the owner, “Are you

missing a Smudge? LOL. She is hiding from the puppy in the gym somewhere.”

(Nov. 1, 2023 Tr. at 182). (See also State’s Ex. 8). The owner responded, “Yeah,

she ran out the door the other day and I haven’t seen her since. I figured she was

over there. LOL.” (Nov. 1, 2023 Tr. at 182). Gochenouer replied, “I got her. I’m

going to bring her over.” (Id.) Thereafter, Gochenouer returned Smudge to the

owner’s home.

{¶4} In May or June of 2021, Gochenouer stopped messaging the owner

about the cat being in the old school building. According to the owner, on June 24th

or 28th, she walked over to the old school building “and asked if [Gochenouer and

-2- Case No. 9-23-77

her mother] had seen her. They said they hadn’t seen her, or if they had seen her

they were unable to catch her.” (Id. at 185). The owner also posted a notice on the

town’s Facebook page about her missing cat.

{¶5} On June 28, 2021, Gochenouer messaged the owner, “Mom said last

night she heard some cats fighting and went to check it out. Smudge was outside,

she let her in. I haven’t seen her today, but she was in here last night. I think she

just shows up to eat and then hides out during the day.” (Id. at 188). (See also

State’s Ex. 10). The owner responded, “Ok well if you do see her again just let me

know[.]” (State’s Ex. 10).

{¶6} Over the next several months, the owner continued to check in with

Gochenouer and her mother “[e]very couple months, maybe every couple weeks”

to see if they had seen Smudge. (Nov. 1, 2023 Tr. at 187). Gochenouer and her

mother responded that they “haven’t seen her, or she - - [they] saw her outside in a

fight with another cat, or something along that line. But [they] couldn’t catch her.”

(Id.).

{¶7} On or about February 8, 2023, the owner’s young daughter saw Smudge

in the old school building. The owner went to the old school building and asked for

the return of Smudge. Gochenouer and her mother refused to return Smudge to the

owner. According to the owner, Gochenouer stated that “she had been vetting the

cat for five years, and whether or not they had her technically, it makes the cat hers.”

(Id. at 195).

-3- Case No. 9-23-77

{¶8} In response to Gochenouer and her mother’s refusal to return the cat,

the owner contacted the Marion County Sheriff’s Office and a deputy sheriff arrived

to investigate the matter. After speaking with the owner, the deputy sheriff went to

the old school building to speak with Gochenouer and her mother. The deputy

sheriff’s body camera was on during his interactions with Gochenouer and her

mother and the footage was played for the jury. (See State’s Ex. 13). Gochenouer

and her mother confirmed that Smudge was inside the 45,000 square foot building,

but refused to return Smudge to its owner. They told the deputy sheriff that the

owner gave them the cat because she did not want it. They further stated that they

had veterinary bills to prove that the cat belonged to Gochenouer’s mother. The

deputy sheriff informed Gochenouer and her mother that, if they did not return the

cat to its owner, they would be charged with theft.

{¶9} Consequently, on February 14, 2023, a complaint was filed in the

Marion Municipal Court charging Gochenouer with theft in violation of R.C.

2913.02, a first-degree misdemeanor.

{¶10} A one-day jury trial was held on November 1, 2023 and concluded in

a guilty verdict.1 On that same day, the trial court sentenced Gochenouer to 180

days in jail, with 170 days suspended.2

1 Gochenouer’s mother was also found guilty of theft. However, Gochenouer’s mother did not appeal her theft conviction or sentence. 2 The trial court filed its judgment entry of sentence on November 3, 2023.

-4- Case No. 9-23-77

{¶11} On November 27, 2023, Gochenouer filed a notice of appeal. She

raises one assignment of error for our review.

Assignment of Error

The trial court abused its discretion in refusing to provide a jury instruction on abandonment of property as a defense to theft.

{¶12} In her sole assignment of error, Gochenouer argues that the trial court

abused its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury on abandonment. Gochenouer

asserts that “[t]he evidence was clear that [the owner] exercised very little control

over the cat, allowing it to roam the neighborhood for extended periods of time” and

failed “to make any real effort to locate the cat.” (Appellant’s Brief at 10-11).

Gochenouer contends that, in light of the owner’s “apparent lack of concern” for

Smudge, “it would be reasonable for Gochenouer to believe that [the owner] had

effectively abandoned the cat.” (Id. at 11).

Standard of Review

{¶13} “[T]he trial judge is in the best position to gauge the evidence before

the jury and is provided the discretion to determine whether the evidence adduced

at trial was sufficient to require an instruction.” State v. Fulmer, 117 Ohio St.3d

319, 2008-Ohio-936, ¶ 72. We review a trial court’s refusal to give a requested jury

instruction under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Houle, 3d Dist. Marion

No. 9-23-31, 2023-Ohio-4609, ¶ 18. An abuse of discretion suggests that a decision

-5- Case No. 9-23-77

is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151,

157 (1980).

Analysis

{¶14} Gochenouer was convicted of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02, which

prohibits anyone, with purpose to deprive the owner of property, from knowingly

obtaining or exerting control over the property without the consent of the owner.

See R.C. 2913.02(A)(1). “A person acts purposely when it is the person’s specific

intention to cause a certain result” or “to engage in conduct of that nature.” R.C.

2901.22(A). “A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person is

aware that the person’s conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably

be of a certain nature.” R.C. 2901.22(B).

{¶15} “A defendant cannot be convicted of theft if he or she can show that

(1) the owner of the property actually abandoned the property, or (2) the accused

reasonably believed that the property had been abandoned.” State v. Reeves, 12th

Dist. Clermont No. CA2020-01-001, 2020-Ohio-5565, ¶ 15 (concluding that the

trial court did not err by refusing to give the requested jury instruction on

abandonment when the evidence presented at trial showed that the owner had no

intent to abandon bedding left unattended at laundromat because owner used a dryer

sheet and paid to have the bedding dried).

{¶16} In this case, Gochenouer argues that the trial court abused its

discretion by refusing to instruct the jury on abandonment. According to

-6- Case No. 9-23-77

Gochenouer, the owner’s failure to contain Smudge, the minimal efforts to find

Smudge, and “repeatedly leaving Gochenouer and her mother to provide food,

shelter, and critical veterinarian care” for Smudge necessitated a jury instruction on

abandonment as a defense to theft. (Appellant’s Reply Brief at 2). In response, the

State argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to instruct the

jury on abandonment because Gochenouer failed to establish that the owner

abandoned Smudge, or that Gochenouer reasonably believed that Smudge had been

abandoned.

{¶17} “‘Abandoned property’ is property ‘over which the owner has

relinquished all right, title, claim, and possession with the intention of not

reclaiming it or resuming its ownership, possession or enjoyment.’” State v. Noe,

12th Dist. Butler No. CA2008-08-182, 2009-Ohio-2802, ¶ 9, quoting Doughman v.

Long, 42 Ohio App.3d 17, 21 (12th Dist.1987). “Abandonment requires affirmative

proof of the intent to abandon coupled with acts or omissions implementing the

intent.” Reeves at ¶ 15. “Mere non-use is not sufficient to establish the fact of

abandonment, absent other evidence tending to prove the intent to abandon.” State

v. Strait, 5th Dist. Ashland No. 15-COA-43, 2016-Ohio-7200, ¶ 22 (concluding that

the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury on

abandonment of property when the evidence was not sufficient to justify a

reasonable finder of fact to find that the property was abandoned or that the

defendant had a reasonable belief that the property was abandoned).

-7- Case No. 9-23-77

{¶18} In this case, at the close of all the evidence, Gochenouer requested the

trial court to instruct the jury on abandonment of property as a defense to theft. In

support of the requested jury instruction, Gochenouer argued that the evidence

adduced at trial was sufficient to support such instruction because the owner allowed

Smudge to roam the neighborhood and, when Smudge went missing, she made little

to no effort to find it. The trial court refused to give the requested jury instruction.

The trial court reasoned, “[T]here’s no abandonment without intention to yield

possession, without purpose to relinquish the property or the right to the property.

And I do not see that here.” (Nov. 1, 2023 Tr. at 250-251). “And therefore, I’m not

going to put that in the jury instructions. Mere non[-]use is not sufficient.” (Id. at

251).

{¶19} After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court did not

abuse its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury on abandonment. The trial court

considered all of the evidence presented at trial and determined that it was not

sufficient to support an instruction on abandonment. See Fulmer, 117 Ohio St.3d

319, 2008-Ohio-936, at ¶ 72 (“[T]he trial judge is in the best position to gauge the

evidence before the jury and is provided the discretion to determine whether the

evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to require an instruction.”).

{¶20} Furthermore, Gochenouer has not shown that an abandonment

instruction was required in light of the evidence presented at trial. Gochenouer did

not testify at trial. The only evidence of Gochenouer’s belief that Smudge had been

-8- Case No. 9-23-77

abandoned must be implied from her statements to the deputy sheriff that the owner

gave them Smudge because she did not want it and they had veterinary bills to show

that Smudge belonged to Gochenouer’s mother. In contrast, the owner testified at

trial that she did not abandon Smudge. The owner further testified that she did not

give Smudge to Gochenouer and her mother. Instead, after Smudge went missing,

the owner continually checked in with Gochenouer and her mother “[e]very couple

months, maybe every couple weeks” to see if they had seen the cat. (Nov. 1, 2023

Tr. at 187). The foregoing actions are not indicative of “affirmative proof of the

intent to abandon.” Reeves, 2020-Ohio-5565, at ¶ 15. See State v. Beyers, 2d Dist.

Greene No. 95-CA-32, 1996 WL 200582, *3 (Apr. 26, 1996) (concluding that the

trial court correctly declined to give a requested jury instruction on abandonment

when the owner unequivocally testified that he did not abandon the door frames

stolen by the defendant, even though circumstantial evidence showed that the door

frames were stacked within ten feet of the owner’s trash cans).

{¶21} Based on the foregoing, we conclude that, since there was not

sufficient evidence of abandonment presented at trial, the trial court’s decision not

to instruct the jury on abandonment was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or

unconscionable. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its

discretion by refusing to instruct the jury on abandonment of property as a defense

to theft.

-9- Case No. 9-23-77

{¶22} Gochenouer’s assignment of error is overruled.

{¶23} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the

particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

WALDICK and MILLER, J.J., concur.

/hls

-10-