State v. Rich

Citations

• 2018 Ohio 1225

Syllabus

The appellant's convictions for receiving stolen property are based on legally sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The State also presented legally sufficient evidence to support the appellant's convictions for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity and money laundering. The trial court did not err in overruling the appellant's objection to purported \other acts\ evidence on the basis that it was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. Ohio's receiving-stolen-property statute, R.C. 2913.51(A), does not unlawfully criminalize civil negligence. The trial court did not err in denying the appellant's pre-trial suppression motion, which challenged a search-warrant affidavit. The trial court did not err in denying the appellant's Crim.R. 29 motion. The trial court adequately instructed the jury with regard to receiving stolen property being \corrupt activity\ and with regard to the definition of \reasonable cause to believe.\ No cumulative error deprived the appellant of a fair trial. Judgment affirmed.