State v. Evenson
Citations
- 229 N.E.3d 813
- 2023 Ohio 4196
Syllabus
THEFT – R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) – UNAUTHORIZED USE – R.C. 2913.04(A) – OWNER – VEHICLE TITLE – CRIM.R. 29(A) – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – DISCOVERY VIOLATION – CRIM.R. 16 – SANCTION: Defendant's convictions for theft and unauthorized use of a motorcycle were based on sufficient evidence where the state established that, following the theft of his motorcycle, defendant transferred ownership of the motorcycle to his insurance company in exchange for $16,180.42 and, after the motorcycle was recovered, defendant subsequently stripped the motorcycle of parts. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted a notarized power of attorney because defendant received an unnotarized power of attorney in discovery and both notarized and unnotarized copies of other documents signed on the same day, which all established defendant's transfer of ownership of the motorcycle to his insurance company.
Judges: Bock
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. ThompkinsOhio Supreme Court· 1997-05-14· cited 16,183×
- State v. TenaceOhio Supreme Court· 2006-05-31· cited 413×
- State v. DarmondOhio Supreme Court· 2013-03-21· cited 392×
- State v. ParsonOhio Supreme Court· 1983-09-07· cited 351×
- City of Lakewood v. PapadelisOhio Supreme Court· 1987-08-05· cited 330×
- State v. HowardOhio Supreme Court· 1978-12-07· cited 87×
- State v. RhodesOhio Supreme Court· 1982-12-22· cited 45×
- State v. PopeOhio Court of Appeals· 2019-09-06· cited 10×
- State v. PittmanOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-06-16· cited 6×
- State v. WilliamsOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-12-14· cited 4×
- In re C.EOhio Court of Appeals· 2010-09-20· cited 2×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.