Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Edmondson

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 25, 2001No. 00-1438Published

1DissentLundberg Stratton, J.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

*400In this case, the parties stipulated to the elements of theft by deception. The only issue in dispute is the value of the property that the defendant stole. The majority holds that the value of the property stolen is the entire amount of benefits received. I respectfully disagree.

The theft-by-deception statute, R.C. 2913.02(A)(3), provides, “No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property or services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property or services * * *…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. State v. LunaOhio Court of Appeals · 1994

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API