R.C. 2911.02(A)(1) Interpretation

The Supreme Court of Ohio, in State v. Wharf, 86 Ohio St.3d 375, 715 N.E.2d 172, 1999 Ohio 112, held that "to establish a violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(1), it is not necessary to prove a specific mental state regarding the deadly weapon element of the offense of robbery." Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus. The Wharf court stated that "the General Assembly intended that a theft offense, committed while an offender was in possession or control of a deadly weapon, is robbery and no intent beyond that required for the theft offense must be proven." Id. at 377, 715 N.E.2d 172. In State v. Ferguson, 10th Dist. No. 07AP-640, 2008 Ohio 3827, the court applied Wharf in a post-Colon case. In Ferguson, the appellant argued that, under Colon, the indictment charging him with aggravated robbery and robbery was defective because it omitted the recklessness mens rea. Id. at P 31, 885 N.E.2d 917. The court first noted that the charge at issue was, unlike Colon, R.C. 2911.01(A)(1). The court then noted "that although Wharf involved an examination of R.C. 2911.02(A)(1), its holding has been held applicable to R.C. 2911.01(A)(1)." Id. at P 46, 715 N.E.2d 172, citing State v. Kimble, 7th Dist. No. 06 MA 190, 2008 Ohio 1539. The Ferguson court concluded that the statute was unaffected by the Colon holding. Id. at P 50, 885 N.E.2d 917.