State v. Ihinger ( 2019 )

[Cite as State v. Ihinger, 2019-Ohio-1881.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
: Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
-vs- :
:
TIMOTHY J. IHINGER : Case No. CT2018-0040
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. CR2017-0267
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT: May 13, 2019
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
TAYLOR P. BENNINGTON MARLEY C. NELSON
27 North Fifth Street 250 East Broad Street
P.O. Box 189 Suite 1400
Zanesville, OH 43702 Columbus, OH 43215
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2018-0040 2
Wise, Earle, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Timothy J. Ihinger, appeals his December 5, 2017
convictions in the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio, for theft of a
firearm. Plaintiff-Appellee is the state of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} On August 2, 2017, the Muskingum County Grand Jury indicted appellant
on one count of burglary with a firearm specification in violation of R.C. 2911.12 and
2941.141, and four counts of theft of a firearm in violation of R.C. 2913.02. Said charges
arose from the theft of firearms from the home of Gregory Smith.
{¶ 3} A jury trial commenced on October 30, 2017. At the close of the state's
case, appellant made a motion for acquittal under Crim.R. 29. The trial court denied the
motion. The jury found appellant guilty as charged. However, the jury's finding on the
firearm specification did not conform to the verdict form instructions; therefore, the trial
court was unable to find appellant guilty of the specification. By entry filed December 5,
2017, the trial court sentenced appellant to two years on the burglary conviction and nine
months on each of the four theft convictions, to be served consecutively for an aggregate
term of five years in prison.
{¶ 4} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignment of error is as follows:
I
{¶ 5} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING TIMOTHY IHINGER'S CRIM.R.
29 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND VIOLATED HIS RIGHTS TO DUE
PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL WHEN IN THE ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE,
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2018-0040 3
IT ALLOWED THE JURY TO DELIBERATE ON THE THEFT OF FIREARMS
CHARGES."
I
{¶ 6} In his sole assignment of error, appellant claims the trial court erred in
denying his Crim.R. 29 motion for judgment of acquittal because sufficient evidence was
not presented to prove the stolen firearms were "firearms" as defined in R.C.
2923.1(B)(1). We disagree that the trial court erred in denying the motion, but find
insufficient evidence to elevate the theft offenses to felonies of the third degree.
{¶ 7} Appellant is not contesting the fact that thefts of firearms occurred and he
was involved in said thefts. What he is contesting is the fact that appellee "produced
absolutely no evidence that the stolen items were firearms as defined in R.C.
2923.11(B)(1)." Appellant's Brief at 9. Because the substance of appellant's argument
has to do with insufficient evidence to prove the statutory definition of "firearms," we will
review this assignment of error under a sufficiency of the evidence standard.
{¶ 8} On review for sufficiency, a reviewing court is to examine the evidence at
trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would support a conviction. State
v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St. 3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991). "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." Jenks at paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.
307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979).
{¶ 9} Appellant was convicted of four counts of theft of a firearm in violation of
R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) which states: "No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2018-0040 4
property or services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property or
services in any of the following ways: Without the consent of the owner or person
authorized to give consent." A violation of this section is petty theft, a misdemeanor of
the first degree. R.C. 2913.02(B)(2). However, subsection (B)(4) elevates the crime of
theft to a felony of the third degree when the stolen property is a firearm:
If the property stolen is a firearm or dangerous ordnance, a violation
of this section is grand theft. Except as otherwise provided in this division,
grand theft when the property stolen is a firearm or dangerous ordnance is
a felony of the third degree, and there is a presumption in favor of the court
imposing a prison term for the offense. * * * The offender shall serve a prison
term imposed for grand theft when the property stolen is a firearm or
dangerous ordnance consecutively to any other prison term or mandatory
prison term previously or subsequently imposed upon the offender.
{¶ 10} Pursuant to R.C. 2913.01(EE), the definition of a "firearm" for R.C. Chapter
2913. offenses has the same meaning as in R.C. 2923.11. R.C. 2923.11(B) defines a
firearm as follows:
(B)(1) "Firearm" means any deadly weapon capable of expelling or
propelling one or more projectiles by the action of an explosive or
combustible propellant. "Firearm" includes an unloaded firearm, and any
firearm that is inoperable but that can readily be rendered operable.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2018-0040 5
(2) When determining whether a firearm is capable of expelling or
propelling one or more projectiles by the action of an explosive or
combustible propellant, the trier of fact may rely upon circumstantial
evidence, including, but not limited to, the representations and actions of
the individual exercising control over the firearm.
{¶ 11} During the trial, Gene Smith, the victim's brother, testified to witnessing an
individual exit the victim's home "with an armload of guns and a case - - in cases and put
them in the vehicle." T. at 162. Waylon Smith, the victim's nephew, testified to observing
an individual "running out of the house, jumped into the car, had four guns, gun cases in
their arms." T. at 180. The victim, Gregory Smith, testified he was missing four guns
from underneath his bed, a muzzleloader (Thompson/Center Pro Hunter, 50-caliber
stainless steel), a 12-gauge (an over-under Ducks Unlimited Smith & Wesson), a 12-
gauge automatic (1952 High Back A-5 Browning), and a 12-gauge pump (Benelli Nova,
synthetic stock, brand new, never shot). T. at 196-198. Three of the firearms were in soft
cases, and one was in a hard case which was left behind. T. at 209. The firearms were
underneath his bed because his gun safe "is in the basement and has a tendency to
condensate down there, and these ones I did not want to have surface rust put on them,
so I put them in cases and put them underneath the bed." T. at 198. These firearms
were special to him and were valuable to him. Id. This was essentially the extent of the
testimony related to the firearms.
{¶ 12} The guns in question were never recovered; therefore, they were not
admitted into evidence. T. at 206. There was no testimony as to whether the firearms
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2018-0040 6
were loaded or unloaded, or what the guns were used for or whether they had ever been
fired (except for the Benelli which the victim stated had never been fired). The victim
could have possessed the firearms as "collector's item[s] or some other nonfunctional
purpose." State v. Cosma, 4th Dist. Washington No. 06CA21, 2007-Ohio-5561, ¶ 19.
"Further, while the names of the weapons were mentioned at trial, merely naming the
weapons has been held to be insufficient to demonstrate operability." State v. Johnson,
9th Dist. Lorain No. 14CA010688, 2016-Ohio-872, ¶ 13, citing State v. Henry, 4th Dist.
Gallia No. 10CA20, 2012-Ohio-371, ¶ 18. There was no evidence that appellant or
anyone made any implicit or explicit threats with the firearms. There was no
circumstantial evidence to suggest the stolen firearms were operable or capable of readily
being rendered operable.
{¶ 13} Even in viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution,
we find appellee failed to present sufficient evidence that the stolen firearms met the
definition of "firearms" under R.C. 2923.11(B)(1). As noted by appellant in his appellate
brief at 8-9, citing Henry, supra, the appropriate remedy is to reduce the degree of the
offense and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing.
{¶ 14} Upon review, we find sufficient evidence was not presented to find appellant
guilty of third-degree felony theft of a firearm. Therefore, for Counts 2, 3, 4, and 5, the
trial court is to enter convictions for misdemeanor petty theft under R.C. 2913.02(B)(2),
and resentence appellant accordingly.
{¶ 15} The sole assignment of error is granted as to elevating the theft offenses to
felonies of the third degree.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2018-0040 7
{¶ 16} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio
is hereby reversed as to Counts 2, 3, 4, and 5, and the matter is remanded to said court
for further proceedings as directed.
By Wise, Earle, J.
Hoffman, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur.
EEW/db 426