Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Ohio v. Dale A. Chait

December 26, 2012

STATE OF OHIO APPELLEE
v.
DALE A. CHAIT APPELLANT



APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO CASE No. 11-CR-0075

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Belfance, Judge.

Cite as

State v. Chait,

ss:

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Dale Chait appeals from his convictions in the Medina County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.

I.

{¶2} This matter involves Mr. Chait's failure to fully perform under a remodeling contract he entered into with Billy Porter and Debra Porter. Mr. Chait was indicted in February 2011 on one count of forgery in violation of R.C. 2913.31(A)(3). Subsequently, Mr. Chait was indicted on one count of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(2) and one count of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(3). The forgery count was separately tried, and Mr. Chait was found not guilty of that charge. A second jury trial was held, and the jury found Mr. Chait guilty of both theft counts and with respect to both counts concluded that the amount of the theft was greater than $500 and greater than $1000. Mr. Chait was sentenced to five years of community control and ordered to pay $27,000 in restitution.

{¶3} Mr. Chait has appealed, raising three assignments of error for our review.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

THE STATE OF OHIO FAILED TO INTRODUCE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION IN VIOLATION OF THE APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

{¶4} Mr. Chait asserts in his first assignment of error that his convictions for theft are based upon insufficient evidence. We agree.

{¶5} In determining whether the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain a conviction, this Court reviews the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 274 (1991). Furthermore:

An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.

{ΒΆ6} Mr. Chait was found guilty of violating R.C. 2913.02(A)(2) and (A)(3). The ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.