State v. Sanabria

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Montgomery, J.
• Citation: State v. Sanabria, 2025 Ohio 5747, 25 CAA 06 0041 (Ohio App. Dec 22, 2025)
• Docket Number: 25 CAA 06 0041
• Decision Date: 22 December 2025
• Parties: STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ERIKKA SANABRIA, Defendant-Appellant

1

2025-Ohio-5747

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ERIKKA SANABRIA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 25 CAA 06 0041

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Delaware

December 22, 2025

Appeal from the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 24 CRI 09 0513

Judgment Affirmed

MELISSA A. SCHIFFEL and KATHERYN L. MUNGER, for Plaintiff-Appellee;

CATHERINE MEEHAN, for Defendant-Appellant.

BEFORE: Craig R. Baldwin; Andrew J. King; Robert G. Montgomery, Judges

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Montgomery, J.

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Erikka Sanabria ("Appellant") appeals from the jury verdict finding her guilty of one count of theft and sentencing her to two years of community control. For the reasons below, we AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

{¶2} On September 12, 2024, Appellant was indicted with one count of Theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) and (B)(2), a felony of the fifth degree. Appellant was represented by counsel and entered a plea of not guilty. After multiple continuances, on May 21, 2025, the matter proceeded to trial. The jury returned a guilty verdict against Appellant for one count of theft and found that the value of the property taken totaled more than $1,000.00. On May 22, 2025, Appellant was sentenced to two years of community control. This appeal followed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

{¶3} The State's case in chief consisted of two witnesses, Ryan Boerger -Meijer's loss prevention officer, and Ashley Flack - a police officer with the Westerville Police Department as well as several exhibits including various clips of Meijer surveillance video, Officer Flack's body camera footage, a photograph, and the rear cruiser video. The record reveals the following facts.

{¶4} On or about September 2, 2024, Appellant was at a Meijer store located in Westerville, Ohio (Delaware County) and began what appeared to be shopping. At some point, an employee working out on the floor became suspicious due to the large number of items Appellant was selecting and putting into her cart. The employee alerted Meijer's loss prevention officer, Ryan Boerger, which prompted him to watch and review the surveillance camera. Mr. Boerger observed Appellant continue through the entire store, section by section, selecting items and putting the items in her cart. Appellant eventually had a cart so full of merchandise that Mr. Boerger could not see through it - a fact Mr. Boerger testified was not typical for the average Meijer shopper.

{¶5} Appellant eventually took her cart towards the front of the store, placed some items into reusable bags, cut through an empty checkout lane with no cashier, and then stopped at the service desk to purchase lottery tickets. Thereafter, Appellant appeared to look at and/or scratch off the tickets while proceeding to the exit, passed all points of sale without paying for any items, and exited the first set of doors into the lobby. Once she passed through the first set of doors, Mr. Boerger stopped her.

{¶6} Appellant quickly began moving items around in the cart to retrieve her purse and told Mr. Boerger she had a receipt, but never actually showed any receipt to him. Mr. Boerger took Appellant to the loss prevention office and called the Westerville police. While waiting, he and another employee scanned the items to generate a report and get an accurate total cost of everything, which was $1,180.18. Mr. Boerger also took a photograph of all scanned items.^[1] Throughout the time Appellant was in the loss prevention office waiting, Appellant did not provide the receipt she claimed she had. On cross examination, Mr. Boerger stated that Appellant looked like she was just shopping. However, Mr. Boerger reaffirmed that because Appellant had an unusually large number of items in the cart, it raised his suspicion.

{¶7} Officer Ashley Flack with the Westerville Police Department responded to the loss prevention call from Meijer. Upon arrival, Officer Flack went to the loss prevention office, observed Appellant there, and asked Appellant her name to which she replied, "Channing Bordsky." Appellant also provided a date of birth, later determined to be false. Officer Flack stated she did not independently corroborate loss prevention's version, such as watching the video, but noted that in her experience, they only called the police once they had their facts straight. Appellant did not make any admissions to Officer Flack. Appellant did not mention or offer any receipt to Officer Flack, but she did offer multiple times to pay for the items.

{¶8} Regarding the name Appellant gave to Officer Flack, she testified as follows:

Q: What did you first do when you arrived into the office?

A: Asked her what her name was.

Q: And at that time, did she give you her name?

A: She gave me a name.

Q: And what name did she give?

A: Channing -- probably pronounced differently - Brodsky.

Q: Okay. And did you further investigate that name?

A: Yes.

Q: Why?

A: How we do it is we basically -- She stated that she didn't have an ID on her.

Q: Okay.

A: So, I asked her for her name and date of birth. I asked her to spell her name. And normally I'll ask if your license is out of Ohio or a different state. She said her license was out of Florida. So when I go on to our communications to run her name through LEADS, it did not come back with an actual result.

Q: And you mentioned a date of birth. Did she give you a date of birth at that time?

A: She did.

Q: How did you -- Well, did you ever ID her?

A: Yes. From the, from the cards and everything once Officer Platt started searching her belongings, her purse that's sitting right next to her, we were able to confirm that she was indeed Erikka.

Q: Okay. And how, how did you confirm that?

A: Dispatch was able to add her information to our call. I returned to my car and was able to pull up her BMV image.

Q: Okay. When you pulled up her BMV image, what did you do with that?

A: Just verified that we were indeed speaking to Erikka.

Trial Transcript, pp. 232-235.

{¶9} Officer Flack took Appellant out of the store and placed her in the backseat of the police cruiser. The rear cruiser video reveals that Appellant repeatedly said to herself, "I'm so f----d." Trial Transcript, p. 240. Officer Flack also later discovered Appellant had approximately $540.00 cash stuffed in her bra. Although Appellant offered to pay for the items, Officer Flack testified it was too late because Appellant passed all points of sale without paying.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

{¶10} "I. FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ALLOWED THE ADMISSION OF OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE WHEN THE STATE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH EVID. R. 404(B)(2)."

{¶11} "II. SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT WEIGHED THE PROBATIVE VALUE VS. THE DANGER OF UNFAIR PREJUDICE OF THE STATE'S EVIDENCE OF APPELLANT PROVIDING A FALSE NAME IN AN ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE MANNER."

{¶12} "III. THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT PROVIDED A CURATIVE INSTRUCTION AS THE EVIDENCE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THE FIRST PLACE."

{¶13} "IV. FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: APPELLANT'S CONVICTION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE."

{¶14} "V. FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: APPELLANT'S CONVICTION IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE."

{¶15} "VI. SIXTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT'S R. 29(C) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AFTER VERDICT AND CRIM. R. 33 MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL."

{¶16} "VII. SEVENTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE TRIAL COURT'S ERRONEOUS RULINGS DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF A FAIR TRIAL."

ARGUMENT

Evid.R. 404(B) and Other Acts Evidence and Use of a False Name

{¶17} In the first assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court improperly admitted Evid.R. 404(B) evidence of other bad acts and that the State failed to comply with the notice requirements set forth in Evid.R. 404(B)(2). We disagree. Appellate courts review challenges to the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion, provided an objection is made at trial. State v. Smith, 2019-Ohio-3257, ¶ 15 (1st Dist.); State v. Ocanas, 2023-Ohio-951, ¶ 29 (5th Dist.); In re S.H.W., 2016-Ohio-841, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.).

{¶18} A trial court has broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence, so long as such discretion is exercised in line with the rules of procedure and the rules of evidence. Rigby v. Lake Cty., 58 Ohio St.3d 269, 271 (1991); State v. Echols, 2023-Ohio-2206, ¶28 (1st Dist.), affirmed by State v. Echols, 2024-Ohio-5088 ("The admission of evidence lies within the broad discretion of a trial court, and a reviewing court should not disturb evidentiary decisions in the absence of an abuse of discretion that has created material prejudice."); see also State v. Issa, 2001-Ohio-1290 (2001). An abuse of discretion implies more than an error in judgment; it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. State v. Coriell, 2023-Ohio-4113, ¶¶ 30-31 (5th Dist.).

{¶19} Evid.R. 404 is titled "Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; Exceptions; Other crimes, Wrongs, or Acts" and provides in part:

(A) Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, subject to the following exceptions:

* * *

(B) Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts.

(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime wrong or act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

(2) Permitted Uses; Notice. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of

...