State v. McKinney

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 1118

Syllabus

Obstructing justice R.C. 2921.32(A)(6) Crim.R. 31(A) jury unanimity alternative means multiple acts maximum sentences consecutive sentences R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Defendant's conviction for obstructing justice affirmed. He was not deprived of jury unanimity under Crim.R. 31(A) because the case involved alternative means rather than multiple acts. The case was an alternative means case because the indictment charging the criminal offense of obstructing justice alleged one single conceptual grouping thus jury, therefore, was not required to agree on the brute underlying facts because each set of facts would satisfy the elements of obstructing justice. The imposition of a maximum sentence for each offense was not contrary to law, but the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences was contrary to law because the trial court did not consider the relevant statutory language.