State v. Hankerson
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.
In State v. Wolery (1976), 46 Ohio St. 2d 316, this court acknowledged the prevailing rule that actual *91physical possession of stolen property is not a requisite of the offense of receiving stolen property, but that a conviction may be based on the accused’s constructive possession of the property. Constructive possession exists when an individual exercises dominion and control over an object, even though that object may not be within his immediate physical possession. State v. Wolery, supra.
It is undisputed that Lorette and Joseph Hankerson owned the premises at 5858 Valley View, and had…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- State v. WoleryOhio Supreme Court · 1976
- State v. KuligOhio Supreme Court · 1974
- Commonwealth v. DavisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
- State v. NeviusOhio Supreme Court · 1947
- State v. GravenOhio Supreme Court · 1978
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by296 opinions
- State v. NicelyOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Mark A. Criss v. The City of Kent Rick Haury, Officer, Kent City Police DepartmentCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988
- State v. O'DellOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. WilliamsOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
- State v. JohnsonOhio Supreme Court · 1989
291 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.