State v. Wolfe
| Decision Date | 10 August 1988 |
| Docket Number | 4321 and 4322,Nos. 4288,s. 4288 |
| Citation | 51 Ohio App.3d 215,555 N.E.2d 689 |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. WOLFE et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In reviewing a ruling on a Crim.R. 29(A) motion for judgment of acquittal the reviewing court construes the evidence in a light most favorable to the state. An entry denying the motion is proper if the evidence is such that reasonable minds can reach different conclusions as to whether each material element of a crime has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. In order to prove an incident of corrupt activity, in violation of R.C. 2923.32, the state is required to show the defendant engaged in, or solicited, coerced or intimidated another person to engage in a prohibited activity as set forth in R.C. 2923.31(I).
3. Unlawful transactions in weapons, a violation of R.C. 2923.20(A)(1), and possession of firearms with purpose to engage in unlawful transaction in weapons, a violation of R.C. 2923.20(A)(2), are allied offenses of similar import, and a defendant charged with both offenses may be convicted of only one of them. (R.C. 2941.25, applied.)
Gregory A. White, Prosecuting Atty., for appellee.
James M. Burge, Lorain, for appellants.
On December 2, 1986, the appellants, Thomas and Laura Wolfe, were indicted and charged with unlawful transaction in weapons, in violation of R.C. 2923.20(A)(1).
On February 3, 1987, in another indictment, Thomas and Laura were charged with engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity (R.C. 2923.32), and possession of firearms with the purpose of engaging in unlawful transaction in weapons (R.C. 2923.20[A]] ).
At trial, Thomas and Laura were found guilty on two counts of unlawful transaction in weapons. Thomas was found guilty of engaging in corrupt activity; Laura was found not guilty of engaging in corrupt activity. Accordingly, the appellants were sentenced and they now appeal.
The appellants contend that the state failed to produce evidence sufficient to make out a prima facie case in that: (1) the state did not prove that, in the October 23, 1985 gun transaction, Thomas possessed a weapon, or that the sale of guns was to a prohibited person; and (2) the state did not prove that the sale of weapons made on November 13, 1985 was to a prohibited person.
In reviewing a ruling on Crim.R. 29(A), this court construes the evidence in a light most favorable to the government. An entry denying the motion is proper if the evidence is such that reasonable minds can reach different conclusions as to whether each material element of a crime has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Bridgeman (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 261, 9 O.O.3d 401, 381 N.E.2d 184, syllabus.
The record shows that Thomas played an important part in procuring another to buy the guns. Thomas recruited Mark Seese to purchase the guns. Thomas reasoned with Seese that the guns would not be "thrown down," i.e., left at any crime scene. Thomas apologized to Seese after his arrest and provided him with the receipt for the guns. An expert witness testified that the name and phone number obliterated on the order form for the guns were those of Thomas Wolfe.
The record also shows that the parties stipulated that under R.C. 2923.13, Euripedes Velasquez was a "prohibited person," as defined by R.C. 2923.20. Seese testified that he purchased the guns for "Petie," and that he took Petie home after purchasing the guns. Seese testified that Petie resided at 2332 Sunset Drive, Lorain, Ohio. Agent Johnson testified that Euripedes Velasquez lived at 2332 Sunset Drive, Lorain, Ohio, and that in his presence, Seese identified Petie's car at this address.
Based on the foregoing, there was sufficient evidence justifying the trial court's denial of the appellant's motion for acquittal as to the October 23, 1985 gun transaction.
The record further shows that on November 13, 1985, Laura sold firearms to two Puerto Rican males. One man called himself Jose Garcia. Agent Johnson testified that he was provided with information that Jose Garcia was in fact Pedro Velasquez. Agent Johnson also testified that Pedro Velasquez was convicted of illegal transfer of firearms and narcotics and, thus, was a prohibited person under R.C. 2923.20. Based on the foregoing, the trial court did not err in denying the appellant's motion for acquittal as to the November 13, 1985 gun transaction. This assignment of error is not well-taken.
Thomas contends that the state failed to prove that he engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity after the effective date of R.C. 2923.32.
" 'Pattern of corrupt activity' means two or more incidents of corrupt activity * * * that are related to the affairs of the same enterprise, are not isolated, and are not so closely related to each other and connected in time and place that they constitute a single event." R.C. 2923.31(E). "At least one of the incidents forming the pattern shall occur on or after the effective date of this section." Id. The effective date of the statute is ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. John R. Dougherty
... ... reasonable minds can reach different conclusions as to ... whether each material element of a crime has been proved ... beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Bridgeman ... (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 261, 381 N.E.2d 184, syllabus; ... State v. Wolfe (1988), 51 Ohio App.3d 215, 216, 555 ... N.E.2d 689 ... An ... appellate court's function when reviewing a claim under ... Crim.R. 29 was affirmatively set forth by the Ohio Supreme ... Court in State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, ... 574 ... ...
-
State v. Davis, 2008 Ohio 2418 (Ohio App. 5/16/2008)
...different conclusions as to whether each material element of a crime has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Wolfe (1988), 51 Ohio App.3d 215, 555 N.E.2d 689, paragraph one of the syllabus. In the case sub judice, we conclude, given the evidence, there was sufficient evidence as......
-
State v. Phillips, 2008 Ohio 4367 (Ohio App. 8/28/2008)
...conclusions as to Page 24 whether each material element of a crime has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Wolfe (1988), 51 Ohio App.3d 215, 216, 555 N.E.2d 689, citing State v. Bridgeman (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 261, 381 N.E.2d 184, {¶ 89} Within this assignment of error, appella......
-
State v. Jose Trinidad Loza, 93-LW-1810
...2903.01(A). Construing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, State v. Evans, supra, 63 Ohio St.3d at 248; State v. Wolfe (1988), 51 Ohio App.3d 215, there sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence upon which reasonable minds could reach different conclusions as whether ap......