Open App →
Home › Case briefs › Criminal Law

State v. Guthrie

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First Appellate District, Hamilton County · 2020 · Criminal Law
2020 Ohio 501 (2020)
Updated
Criminal Lawpremeditationcriminal damagingrestitutionsufficiency of the evidencemanifest weight of the evidenceR.C. 2909.06(A)(1)R.C. 2901.22(B)

Facts

Renadette testified that during a traffic encounter, Guthrie exited her car, approached Renadette’s vehicle, and slammed the driver’s side mirror, causing the plastic covering around the mirror to break apart. Renadette acknowledged that the plastic cover had already been cracked, but testified that Guthrie’s actions caused it to break. Officer Faillace later observed damage to the mirror when Renadette filed a police report. Guthrie denied touching Renadette’s car and claimed instead that Renadette had rammed her vehicle; at sentencing, the state sought $327.55 in restitution based on a repair estimate for the mirror.

Issue

Whether sufficient evidence supported Guthrie’s conviction for criminal damaging, and whether the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering restitution without an evidentiary hearing and by awarding $327.55 for the damaged mirror.

Rule

For criminal damaging under R.C. 2909.06(A)(1), the state must prove that the defendant knowingly caused or created a substantial risk of physical harm to another’s property without consent. A person acts knowingly when aware that her conduct will probably cause a certain result or probably be of a certain nature. In a misdemeanor case, a trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing on restitution under R.C. 2929.28(A)(1) only when the amount of restitution is actually disputed; if the defendant does not expressly object to the amount, no hearing is required. Restitution may be based on a repair estimate so long as the amount does not exceed the victim’s economic loss.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
During an argument in a grocery-store parking lot in Columbus, Talia Moreno walked to Devin Park’s parked SUV and shoved the folded passenger-side mirror hard against the door. Devin testified that Talia 'slammed' it with enough force to crack the outer housing, and photos taken minutes later showed the broken casing.

If Talia is charged with criminal damaging, is the evidence sufficient to prove that she acted knowingly?

Explanation. For criminal damaging, the state must prove the defendant knowingly caused physical harm to another’s property without consent. A person acts knowingly when aware that her conduct will probably cause a certain result. The majority held that testimony that the defendant 'slammed' a mirror inward, together with photographic evidence, was sufficient to support an inference that the conduct was outside normal use and knowingly caused damage.