holding that a robbery while the defendant held a metal bludgeon constituted sufficient evidence as a matter of law to submit the issue to the jury of whether the bludgeon was actually used for the purposes of aggravated robbery
How later courts described this case
- holding that a robbery while the defendant held a metal bludgeon constituted sufficient evidence as a matter of law to submit the issue to the jury of whether the bludgeon was actually used for the purposes of aggravated robbery
- stating that a toy metal gun could be used as a deadly weapon because it could be used as a bludgeon
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Marianna Brown Bettman, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I can accept the fact that in certain circumstances a toy gun could be a deadly weapon, as statutorily defined in R.C. 2923.11(A), but this is not such a case. The record in this case uncontrovertedly establishes that the small toy gun was not used as a bludgeon, and to me, the testimony of the police officer that such a gun could be used as a bludgeon does not satisfy the elements required by the statute. I believe, therefore, that in the absence of any evidence that appellant actually used the toy gun as a bludgeon, the evidence is insufficient in law to sustain a conviction for aggravated robbery. I would sustain the sole assignment of error. See, generally,
State v. Luckey
(App. 1974), 69 O.O.2d 111 , 322 N.E.2d 354 (interpreting earlier statute, but indicating result would be the same under present one);
State v. Deboe
(1977), 62 Ohio App.2d 192 , 16 O.O.3d 467 , 406 N.E.2d 536 ;
State v. McKnight
(Feb. 5, 1996), Stark App. No. 1995CA00241,
*825
unreported, 1996 WL 74083 (Gwin, P.J., dissenting);
State v. Nelson
(Aug. 18, 1995), Montgomery App. No. 14775, unreported, 1995 WL 491084 (adopting this analysis but affirming conviction for aggravated robbery on other grounds).