State v. Reeves

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth Appellate District, Clermont County · 2020 · Criminal Law

2020 Ohio 5565 (2020)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawattemptsubstantial steptheftaffirmative defensesjury instructionsineffective assistance of counselmisdemeanor sentencing

Facts

Terry placed newly purchased bedding in a laundromat dryer, left to run errands, and returned hours later to find the bedding missing, with a single dryer sheet on the floor. Surveillance video showed Reeves obtain black garbage bags, open Terry's dryer, remove only the bedding, fold it, repeatedly look toward the front door, bag the bedding twice, and leave carrying it while her husband carried other laundry. When questioned, Reeves admitted she and her husband were in the video but denied taking anything not hers, denied taking the bedding by mistake, alternately claimed the blanket was hers, denied owning matching bedding, and said that folding the bedding did not mean she took it. Deputy Shouse testified the bedding removed from the dryer matched Terry's Amazon purchase and that Terry had not given permission to take it.

Issue

Did the trial court err by not instructing the jury on abandonment or mistake of fact, and did Reeves otherwise show reversible error in her conviction and sentence for theft? More specifically, was there evidence from which reasonable minds could find actual abandonment, a reasonable belief of abandonment, or a mistaken taking?

Rule

A trial court does not err in failing to instruct on an affirmative defense when the evidence is insufficient to support the instruction. In a theft case, abandonment exists only if the owner actually abandoned the property or the accused reasonably believed the property had been abandoned; abandonment requires affirmative proof of intent to abandon plus acts or omissions implementing that intent, and mere non-use is insufficient. Mistake of fact may negate the mental state for theft, but an instruction is warranted only when the record contains evidence from which reasonable minds could reach that conclusion.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a self-storage laundry room in Columbus, Nina Ortiz placed her winter coat in a dryer after paying for a cycle and adding a dryer sheet. She left for 90 minutes to pick up dinner, and when she returned, the coat was gone. Surveillance showed Omar Velez remove only the coat and walk out with it.

Omar is tried for theft and asks the court to instruct the jury on abandonment, arguing that Nina left the coat unattended in a public place for a long time. Should the instruction be given?

Explanation. A court need not instruct on an affirmative defense unless the evidence is sufficient to support it. For theft, abandonment requires either actual abandonment by the owner or a reasonable belief by the accused that the property was abandoned. Actual abandonment requires affirmative proof of intent to abandon plus acts or omissions implementing that intent; mere non-use or temporary absence is insufficient. Here, Nina's payment to dry the coat and use of a dryer sheet are facts inconsistent with intent to abandon, so the instruction is unwarranted.