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 v. Labriola

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District

June 24, 2013

STATE OF OHIO, Appellee
v.
VINCENT E. LABRIOLA, Appellant

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO CASE No. 11CR0350.

DAWN M. KING, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

DEAN HOLMAN, Prosecuting Attorney, and MATTHEW A. KERN, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

DONNA CARR, Judge.

{¶1} Appellant Vincent Labriola appeals his conviction in the Medina County Court of Common Pleas. This Court reverses and remands.

I.

{¶2} Labriola was indicted on one count of complicity to commit arson in violation of RC. 2923.03(A)(1) and 2909.03(A)(1), a felony of the fourth degree. He pleaded not guilty and the matter proceeded to trial. At the conclusion of trial, the jury found him guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to three years on community control. Labriola appealed and raises three assignments of error for review. This Court considers the assignments of error out of order to facilitate review.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO ESTABLISH ON THE RECOR[]D SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A [COMPLICITY TO COMMIT ARSON][1] CHARGE IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 1, 10 & 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

{¶3} Labriola argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. This Court disagrees.

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.

State v. Galloway, 9th Dist. No. 19752, 2001 WL 81257 (Jan. 31, 2001) quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.

{¶4} The test for sufficiency requires a determination of whether the State has met its burden of production at trial. State v. Walker, 9th Dist No 20559, 2001 WL 1581570 (Dec 12, 2001); see, also, State v Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 390 (1997) (Cook, J, concurring).

{¶5} Labriola was convicted of complicity to commit arson in violation of R.C. 2923.03(A)(1) and 2909.03(A)(1) which state that "No person, acting with the kind of culpability required for the commission of an offense, shall * * * [s]olicit or procure another to, by means of fire or explosion, [] knowingly * * * [c]ause, or create a substantial risk of, physical harm to any property of another without the other person's consent[.]" "A person acts knowingly, regardless of his purpose, when he is aware that his conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when he is aware that such circumstances probably exist." R.C. 2901.22(B). "Physical harm to property" is defined as "any tangible or intangible damage to property that, in any degree, results in loss to its value or interferes with its use or enjoyment." R.C. 2901.01(A)(4).

{¶6} Labriola does not dispute that Steven Combs committed arson by setting fire to an outbuilding/barn on Chad Barco's property. He argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he knowingly ...


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.