Case Title: State v. Horner

Citation: 2010-Ohio-3830

Docket Number: 20090079 and 20090311

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-08-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State v. Horner, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3830.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2010-OHIO-3830 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. HORNER, APPELLANT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State v. Horner, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3830.] 
Criminal law — Indictments — Sufficiency — Indictment charging offense by 
tracking language of criminal statute not defective for failure to identify 
culpable mental state when statute itself fails to specify mental state — 
When criminal statute includes mens rea element in one discrete clause, 
subsection, or division but not in another, State v. Wac and State v. 
Maxwell apply to determine mental state — Failure to object to defect in 
indictment constitutes waiver of all but plain error. 
(Nos. 2009-0079 and 2009-0311 — Submitted April 20, 2010 — Decided  
August 27, 2010.) 
APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Lucas County,  
No. L-07-1224, 2008-Ohio-6169. 
__________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
1. 
 An indictment that charges an offense by tracking the language of the 
criminal statute is not defective for failure to identify a culpable mental 
state when the statute itself fails to specify a mental state.  (State v. 
Buehner, 110 Ohio St.3d 403, 2006-Ohio-4707, 853 N.E.2d 1162, 
reaffirmed; State v. Colon, 118 Ohio St.3d 26, 2008-Ohio-1624, 885 
N.E.2d 917, overruled; State v. Colon, 119 Ohio St.3d 204, 2008-Ohio-
3749, 893 N.E.2d 169, overruled in part.)  
2. 
When the General Assembly includes a mens rea element in one discrete 
clause, subsection, or division of a statute but not in another discrete 
clause, subsection, or division of that statute, courts must apply the 
analysis in State v. Wac (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 84, 22 O.O.3d 299, 428 
N.E.2d 428, and State v. Maxwell, 95 Ohio St.3d 254, 2002-Ohio-2121, 
767 N.E.2d 242, to determine the mental state where none is specified. 
3. 
By failing to timely object to a defect in an indictment, a defendant waives 
all but plain error on appeal.  (Crim.R. 12(C)(2) and 52(B), followed; State 
v. Colon, 118 Ohio St.3d 26, 2008-Ohio-1624, 885 N.E.2d 917, 
overruled.) 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J. 
{¶ 1} Pursuant to Section 3(B)(4), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution 
and App.R. 25, the Sixth District Court of Appeals certified its judgment in this 
case as being in conflict with the judgments of the Eighth District Court of 
Appeals in State v. Briscoe, 8th Dist. No. 89979, 2008-Ohio-6276, and the Third 
District Court of Appeals in State v. Alvarez, 3rd Dist. No. 4-08-02, 2008-Ohio-
5189, on the following issue:  “Whether the holdings of State v. Colon, 118 Ohio 
St.3d 26, 2008-Ohio-1624 [885 N.E.2d 917] and State v. Colon, 119 Ohio St.3d 
204, 2008-Ohio-3749 [893 N.E.2d 169] are applicable to the offense of 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) or only to the offense of 
robbery, a violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2).”  We also accepted appellant’s 
discretionary appeal on Proposition of Law Nos. I and II but stayed briefing on 
the appeal.1 
{¶ 2} We hold that neither of the two Colon cases are applicable and the 
indictment was not defective.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court 
of appeals. 
I.  Facts 
{¶ 3} In March 2006, Gregory Horner, defendant-appellant, and his 
codefendant, James Hahn, met two Michigan businessmen, Robert Peck and Tim 
Mulroy, and Robert’s son, Kyle, on the pretense of selling Peck and Mulroy a 
muscle car.  Horner and Hahn beat the victims and robbed them of cash. 
{¶ 4} A grand jury indicted Horner on six counts relating to his crimes, 
including two counts of aggravated robbery, in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(3), 
with firearm specifications, in relation to the two adult victims; one count of 
aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(3), which was later amended 
to R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), with a firearm specification; and three counts of felonious 
assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), with firearm specifications. 
{¶ 5} Horner pleaded no contest to five counts.  In exchange, the state 
nolled one count of felonious assault and recommended a maximum sentence of 
ten years.  Horner’s codefendant was sentenced to 12 years rather than the state-
recommended sentence of ten years.  Horner then orally requested leave to obtain 
new counsel and to file a motion to withdraw his no-contest plea.  The trial court 
held a hearing on the motion to withdraw his plea in May 2007.  Horner, who had 
retained new counsel, testified on direct and cross-examination.  The trial court 
denied the motion to withdraw the plea and sentenced him to 11 years. 
                                     
 
1.  In view of our resolution of the certified question, we dismiss the appeal as having been 
improvidently accepted. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 6} On appeal, Horner argued for the first time that the two counts of 
aggravated robbery in the indictment were insufficient pursuant to State v. Colon, 
118 Ohio St.3d 26, 2008-Ohio-1624, 885 N.E.2d 917 (“Colon I”), and State v. 
Colon, 119 Ohio St.3d 204, 2008-Ohio-3749, 893 N.E.2d 169 (“Colon II”), 
because a culpable mental state was not included in the indictment.  The Sixth 
District Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that Colon I and Colon II apply only 
to cases in which a defendant has been indicted for robbery pursuant to R.C. 
2911.02(A)(2).  Since Horner was charged with aggravated robbery rather than 
robbery, the court held that his indictment was not defective.  Thus, the court held 
that there was no plain error and, accordingly, affirmed the judgment of the trial 
court. 
{¶ 7} The Sixth District certified a conflict over the applicability of 
Colon I and Colon II, and recognizing the conflict, we accepted jurisdiction. 
II.  Law and Analysis 
A.  The Indictment 
{¶ 8} Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution provides that “no 
person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous, crime, unless 
on presentment or indictment of a grand jury.”  Crim.R. 7(B) explains the 
structure and sufficiency requirements of an indictment:  “The statement may be 
made in ordinary and concise language without technical averments or allegations 
not essential to be proved.  The statement may be in the words of the applicable 
section of the statute, provided the words of that statute charge an offense, or in 
words sufficient to give the defendant notice of all the elements of the offense 
with which the defendant is charged.” 
{¶ 9} When the offense does not track the language of the statute, 
Crim.R. 7(D) addresses amendments to criminal indictments: “The court may at 
any time before, during, or after a trial amend the indictment, information, 
complaint, or bill of particulars, in respect to any defect, imperfection, or 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
omission in form or substance, or of any variance with the evidence, provided no 
change is made in the name or identity of the crime charged.”  We have held that 
“[a]n indictment, which does not contain all the essential elements of an offense, 
may be amended to include the omitted element, if the name or the identity of the 
crime is not changed, and the accused has not been misled or prejudiced by the 
omission of such element from the indictment. (Crim.R. 7[D] construed and 
applied.)”  State v. O’Brien (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 122, 30 OBR 436, 508 N.E.2d 
144, paragraph two of the syllabus. 
{¶ 10} The purpose of a grand jury indictment has always been to give 
notice to the accused: “[A] criminal offense must be charged with reasonable 
certainty in the indictment so as to apprise the defendant of that which he may 
expect to meet and be required to answer; so that the court and jury may know 
what they are to try, and the court may determine without unreasonable difficulty 
what evidence is admissible.”  Horton v. State (1911), 85 Ohio St. 13, 19, 96 N.E. 
797. 
{¶ 11} Expanding on the idea of notice to the accused, we have held that 
“[t]he purposes of an indictment are to give an accused adequate notice of the 
charge, and enable an accused to protect himself or herself from any future 
prosecutions for the same incident.”  State v. Buehner, 110 Ohio St.3d 403, 2006-
Ohio-4707, 853 N.E.2d 1162, ¶ 7, citing Weaver v. Sacks (1962), 173 Ohio St. 
415, 417, 20 O.O.2d 43, 183 N.E.2d 373 and State v. Sellards (1985), 17 Ohio 
St.3d 169, 170, 17 OBR 410, 478 N.E.2d 781.  In Buehner, we held that an 
indictment that tracked the language of the charged offense and identified a 
predicate offense by statute number but did not include each element of the 
predicate offense still provided the defendant with adequate notice of the charges 
against him.  Id. at syllabus. 
{¶ 12} In Buehner, the defendant was charged with ethnic intimidation 
under R.C. 2927.12(A), an element of which is the commission of a predicate 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
offense (“No person shall violate [R.C.] 2903.21, 2903.22, 2909.06, or 2917.21 * 
* * by reason of the race, color, religion, or national origin of another person or 
group of persons”).  The indictment tracked the language of the statute and 
identified by statute number which of the several predicate offenses was being 
charged.  We rejected the argument that the indictment was defective for failing to 
list the elements of the predicate offense, concluding that it is the predicate 
offense itself and not the elements of the predicate offense that is an essential 
element of the charged offense.  Therefore, the indictment provided the defendant 
with adequate notice of the charge against him.  Id. at ¶ 12. 
{¶ 13} Here, the two counts of the indictment in question read:  “[I]n 
attempting or committing a theft offense as defined in §2913.01 of the Revised 
Code, or in fleeing immediately after the attempt or offense, [Horner] did inflict, 
or attempt to inflict, serious physical harm on another, in violation of 
§2911.01(A)(3) OF THE OHIO REVISED CODE, AGGRAVATED ROBBERY, 
BEING A FELONY OF THE FIRST DEGREE.” 
{¶ 14} R.C. 2911.01 defines the elements of aggravated robbery as 
follows: 
{¶ 15} “(A) No person, in attempting or committing a theft offense, as 
defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, or in fleeing immediately after 
the attempt or offense, shall do any of the following:   
{¶ 16} “ * * * 
{¶ 17} “(3) Inflict, or attempt to inflict, serious physical harm on another.” 
{¶ 18} As required by Buehner, the language of the indictment tracked the 
language of the statute.  However, Horner argues that this court’s post-Buehner 
decisions in Colon I and Colon II render his indictment defective on counts one 
and two and, in turn, require this court to vacate those convictions.  We disagree. 
B.  Absence of a Culpable Mental State and the Role of R.C. 2901.21(B) 
January Term, 2010 
7 
 
{¶ 19} As can be seen above, the aggravated-robbery statute does not 
expressly state a mental state for aggravated robbery when it involves inflicting or 
attempting to inflict serious physical harm on another during the commission of 
the robbery.  Consequently, we must turn to R.C. 2901.21(B) which provides 
guidance in determining the requirements for criminal liability when a statute 
defining an offense does not provide a mental state. 
{¶ 20} R.C. 2901.21(B) provides:  
{¶ 21} “When the section defining an offense does not specify any degree 
of culpability, and plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict criminal liability 
for the conduct described in the section, then culpability is not required for a 
person to be guilty of the offense.  When the section neither specifies culpability 
nor plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict liability, recklessness is sufficient 
culpability to commit the offense.” 
{¶ 22} In deciding whether, pursuant to R.C. 2901.21(B), recklessness is 
the culpable mental state required to commit the crime of aggravated robbery as 
defined in R.C. 2911.01(A)(3), we first consider the words of the statute to 
determine legislative intent.  Provident Bank v. Wood (1973), 36 Ohio St.2d 101, 
105, 65 O.O.2d 296, 304 N.E.2d 378.  We must “give effect to the words used, 
not * * * delete words used or * * * insert words not used.”  Columbus-Suburban 
Coach Lines, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1969), 20 Ohio St.2d 125, 127, 49 O.O.2d 
445, 254 N.E.2d 8. 
{¶ 23} Horner argues that recklessness is the requisite culpable mental 
state for aggravated robbery under R.C. 2911.01(A)(3).  The state contends that 
no specific mental state must be charged or proven.  Under R.C. 2901.21(B), 
recklessness is sufficient culpability to commit an offense if two factors are 
present.  First, the section of the Revised Code defining the offense must not 
specify any degree of culpability.  Second, the section must not plainly indicate a 
purpose to impose strict liability. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
1.  Analysis of R.C. 2901.21(B) in State v. Wac and State v. Maxwell 
{¶ 24} Our line of cases conducting this analysis begins with the seminal 
case of State v. Wac (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 84, 22 O.O.3d 299, 428 N.E.2d 428, 
where we found plain indications that the General Assembly meant to impose 
strict criminal liability for the crimes of bookmaking in violation of R.C. 
2915.02(A)(1) and operating a gambling house in violation of R.C. 
2915.03(A)(1).  Wac argued that recklessness was an element of bookmaking 
because R.C. 2915.02(A)(1) neither specified a culpable mental state nor plainly 
indicated a purpose to impose strict liability. 
{¶ 25} R.C. 2915.02 provides: 
{¶ 26} “(A) No person shall do any of the following: 
{¶ 27} “(1) Engage in bookmaking, or knowingly engage in conduct that 
facilitates bookmaking.” 
{¶ 28} We held that “[t]he General Assembly included the culpable 
mental state of ‘knowingly’ as an element of facilitating bookmaking.  
Nevertheless, there is no such requirement in the same subsection for bookmaking 
per se.  This exclusion ‘plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict criminal 
liability * * *.’ R.C. 2901.21(B).” (Emphasis sic.)  Id., 68 Ohio St.2d at 86, 22 
O.O.3d 299, 428 N.E.2d 428. 
{¶ 29} Further, Wac argued that recklessness was an element of operating 
a gambling house because R.C. 2915.03(A)(1) did not specify a culpable mental 
state for using or occupying premises for gambling.  The statute provides: 
{¶ 30} “(A) No person, being the owner or lessee, or having custody, 
control, or supervision of premises, shall: 
{¶ 31} “(1) Use or occupy such premises for gambling in violation of 
section 2915.02 of the Revised Code; 
{¶ 32} “(2) Recklessly permit such premises to be used or occupied for 
gambling in violation of section 2915.02 of the Revised Code.” 
January Term, 2010 
9 
 
{¶ 33} With regard to operating a gambling house, we held that “[t]he 
General Assembly included recklessness as an element of permitting gambling on 
one’s premises in subsection (2).  Subsection (1), however, does not contain a 
comparable standard.  This exclusion ‘plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict 
criminal liability * * *.’ R.C. 2901.21(B).”  Wac, 68 Ohio St.2d at 87, 22 O.O.3d 
299, 428 N.E.2d 428. 
{¶ 34} Thus, in R.C. 2915.02 (bookmaking), we concluded that when a 
single subsection of a statute with two discrete clauses contains one clause that 
expresses a culpable mental state and another discrete clause that does not, then 
the General Assembly has plainly indicated a purpose to impose strict criminal 
liability under R.C. 2901.21(B).  In addition, in R.C. 2915.03 (gambling house), 
which involved two separate divisions of the statute rather than a single 
subsection with two discrete clauses, we concluded that the inclusion of a 
culpable mental state in one division and the omission of a culpable mental state 
from another division means that the General Assembly plainly indicated a 
purpose to impose strict criminal liability for the second division. 
{¶ 35} Continuing the analysis from State v. Wac, in State v. Maxwell, 95 
Ohio St.3d 254, 2002-Ohio-2121, 767 N.E.2d 242, this court considered R.C. 
2907.321(A)(6), which provides: 
{¶ 36} “(A) No person, with knowledge of the character of the material or 
performance involved, shall do any of the following: 
{¶ 37} “* * * 
{¶ 38} “(6) Bring or cause to be brought into this state any obscene 
material that has a minor as one of its participants or portrayed observers.” 
{¶ 39} In examining whether R.C. 2901.21(B) supplied the culpable 
mental state of recklessness for the element of bringing child pornography into the 
state, we noted that “we need to determine whether the entire section includes a 
mental element, not just whether division (A)(6) includes such an element.”  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
(Emphasis sic.)  Maxwell at ¶ 22.  We concluded that in R.C. 2907.321(A), 
“knowledge is a requirement only for the discrete clause within which it resides: 
‘with knowledge of the character of the material or performance involved.’  Thus, 
the state must prove that appellee knew the character of the material at issue.  The 
state is not required to prove that appellee knew that in downloading files via 
America Online he was also transmitting those files from Virginia into Ohio.”  
Id., ¶ 29.  The court held that the statute plainly indicated a purpose to impose 
strict liability, thus precluding the application of recklessness as the culpable 
mental state. 
2.  Robbery, Aggravated Robbery, and State v. Colon 
{¶ 40} Turning now to robbery and aggravated robbery, we have 
previously held that the deadly-weapon element of robbery in R.C. 2911.02(A)(1) 
does not require proof of a mens rea.  State v. Wharf (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 375, 
715 N.E.2d 172.  Similarly, we have also held that the deadly-weapon element of 
aggravated robbery in R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) does not require a mens rea.  State v. 
Lester, 123 Ohio St.3d 396, 2009-Ohio-4225, 916 N.E.2d 1038.  Neither case 
followed the Wac or Maxwell analysis, but in both cases, we concluded that the 
General Assembly intended that a theft offense committed while an offender was 
in possession or control of a deadly weapon constituted robbery (and that 
brandishing or using a deadly weapon constituted aggravated robbery), and no 
intent beyond that required for the theft offense must be proven. 
{¶ 41} In Colon I, we considered the culpable mental state for the offense 
of robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2), i.e., physical-harm robbery.  Again, 
this court did not apply the analysis used in Wac and Maxwell.  However, nor did 
Colon I overrule Wac or Maxwell. Rather, we simply concluded in Colon I that 
while the statute did not specify a particular degree of culpability for the physical-
harm element, its language does not plainly indicate that strict liability is the 
mental standard.  Thus, the court concluded that the state was required to prove 
January Term, 2010 
11 
 
recklessness and the indictment was defective for failure to charge recklessness, a 
point that the state conceded.  118 Ohio St.3d 26, 2008-Ohio-1624, 886 N.E.2d 
917, at ¶ 14-15. 
{¶ 42} We went on to hold that “[w]hen an indictment fails to charge a 
mens rea element of a crime and the defendant fails to raise that defect in the trial 
court, the defendant has not waived the defect in the indictment,” id. at syllabus, 
and that instead, a structural error analysis is appropriate.  Id. at ¶ 23. 
{¶ 43} Upon reconsideration in Colon II, 119 Ohio St.3d 204, 2008-Ohio-
3749, 893 N.E.2d 169, we limited Colon I, holding that it was prospective only, 
id. at ¶ 3, and that structural-error analysis is not appropriate unless there are 
multiple errors throughout the trial that are inextricably linked to the defective 
indictment, id. at ¶ 7, and that the syllabus in Colon I was confined to the facts of 
that case.  Id. at ¶ 8. 
{¶ 44} Still, the effect of our Colon holdings meant that for the first time, 
an indictment that charged an offense in the exact language of the Revised Code 
could still be defective when the statute itself failed to specify a culpable mental 
state.  As a result, Colon I and Colon II have been called “a boon to defendants, a 
headache to appellate courts, and a nightmare to prosecutors.”  State v. Lester, 
123 Ohio St.3d 396, 2009-Ohio-4225, 916 N.E.2d 1038, ¶ 35 (Lanzinger, J., 
concurring in judgment only). 
{¶ 45} Today we recognize the confusion created by Colon I and II and 
hold that when an indictment fails to charge a mens rea element of the crime, but 
tracks the language of the criminal statute describing the offense, the indictment 
provides the defendant with adequate notice of the charges against him and is, 
therefore, not defective.  See State v. Buehner, 110 Ohio St.3d 403, 2006-Ohio-
4707, 853 N.E.2d 1162 (an indictment that does not identify the elements of a 
predicate offense provides adequate notice by citing the statute defining the 
predicate offense.)  Consequently, we respond to the certified question by holding 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
 
that Colon I, 118 Ohio St.3d 26, 2008-Ohio-1624, 885 N.E.2d 917, and State v. 
Colon, 119 Ohio St.3d 204, 2008-Ohio-3749, 893 N.E.2d 169, are inapplicable to 
the offense of aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(3).  In fact, 
Colon I is overruled, and Colon II is overruled to the extent that it holds that such 
an indictment is defective. 
{¶ 46} Further, we hold that failure to timely object to a defect in an 
indictment constitutes a waiver of the error.  Crim.R. 12(C)(2) (objections to 
defect in indictment must be raised before trial).  Any claim of error in the 
indictment in such a case is limited to a plain-error review on appeal.  State v. 
Frazier (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 323, 652 N.E.2d 1000; Crim.R. 52(B). 
C.  Application of R.C. 2901.21(B) to 2911.01(A)(3) 
{¶ 47} It remains to be determined what mental state, if any, applies to 
aggravated robbery as described in R.C. 2911.01(A)(3).  As stated previously, 
R.C. 2901.21(B) supplies the mental state of recklessness  only when two 
conditions are present: (1) no mental state is specified in the relevant statute and 
(2) the statute does not plainly indicate a purpose to impose strict liability. 
{¶ 48} We reaffirm our Wac/Maxwell analysis.  Therefore, we need to 
examine the entire section — not just division (A)(3) — for references to a mental 
state.  This existence or nonexistence of specified mental states elsewhere in R.C. 
2911.01 will inform our analysis of whether (A)(3) was meant to be a strict-
liability offense. 
{¶ 49} R.C. 2911.01(A) includes the element of attempting or committing 
a theft offense, which incorporates all the elements of theft, including its mental 
state.  However, that mental state is applicable to the theft aspect in division (A) 
only, and its incorporation into division (A) does not provide a mental state for 
the physical-harm element described in subsection (A)(3).  See Maxwell, 95 Ohio 
St.3d 254, 2002-Ohio-2121, 767 N.E.2d 242, ¶ 23 (rejecting the argument that the 
January Term, 2010 
13 
 
mental state in a division of the relevant statute for one element of an offense also 
applies to a subsection in that division that does not specify a mental state). 
{¶ 50} Moreover, division (B) of the aggravated-robbery statute specifies 
the culpable mental state of “knowingly” (“ No person, without privilege to do so, 
shall knowingly remove or attempt to remove a deadly weapon from the person of 
a law enforcement officer, or shall knowingly deprive or attempt to deprive a law 
enforcement officer of a deadly weapon * * *”). 
{¶ 51} Additionally, this court has already held that subsection (1) of 
division (A), which also does not specify a mental element, is a strict-liability 
offense, based on the court’s conclusion that R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) plainly indicates 
a purpose to impose strict liability.  Lester, 123 Ohio St.3d 396, 2009-Ohio-4225, 
916 N.E.2d 1038, ¶ 32.  By choosing language in R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) that makes 
it a crime to merely inflict or attempt to inflict serious physical harm, as opposed 
to requiring a purpose or intent to injure, the General Assembly similarly has 
indicated its purpose to impose strict liability.  See Wharf, 86 Ohio St.3d at 378, 
715 N.E.2d 172; Lester, at ¶ 20. 
{¶ 52} Accordingly, under the Wac/Maxwell approach to applying R.C. 
2901.21(B), in defining the offense of serious-physical-harm aggravated robbery, 
R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) “plainly indicates an intent to impose strict liability.”  It is 
clear that the General Assembly intended R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) to hold persons 
responsible for aggravated robbery because of the heightened potential for even 
accidental physical harm that results from the commission of the robbery. 
{¶ 53} The section defining the offense—R.C. 2911.01—specifies 
“knowingly” as a mens rea for the crime defined in division (B) of that statute, 
and R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) includes as an element an underlying theft offense, which 
itself  includes a mens rea.  Additionally, R.C. 2911.01(A)(3), defining the 
offense of serious-physical-harm aggravated robbery, plainly indicates a purpose 
to impose strict liability. Accordingly, R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) does not require proof 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
14 
 
of a mental state, and an indictment that does not identify a mental state is not 
defective. 
III.  Conclusion 
{¶ 54} For all of the reasons expressed above, we hold that an indictment 
that charges an offense by tracking the language of the criminal statute is not 
defective for failure to identify a culpable mental state when the statute itself fails 
to specify a mental state.  We further hold that when the General Assembly 
includes a mens rea element in one discrete clause, subsection, or division of a 
statute but not in another discrete clause, subsection, or division of that statute, 
courts must apply the analysis in State v. Wac (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 84, 22 
O.O.3d 299, 428 N.E.2d 428, and State v. Maxwell, 95 Ohio St.3d 254, 2002-
Ohio-2121, 767 N.E.2d 242, to determine the mental state where none is 
specified.  We hold that by failing to timely object to a defect in an indictment, a 
defendant waives all but plain error on appeal.  Because Colon I represents a 
departure from these principles, it is overruled. 
{¶ 55} Thus, because the language of Horner’s indictment charging him 
with aggravated robbery tracked the aggravated robbery statute, R.C. 
2911.01(A)(3), and because the statute does not require any further mens rea 
requirement beyond that encompassed in the theft portion of the statute, the grand 
jury considered the essential elements of aggravated robbery.  Accordingly, we 
uphold the appellate court’s determinations that the indictment was not defective 
and that there was no plain error, and we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
LANZINGER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissents. 
 
BROWN, C.J., not participating. 
January Term, 2010 
15 
 
__________________ 
 
LANZINGER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
{¶ 56} I concur in the judgment of the court and in the first and third 
syllabus paragraphs of the majority’s opinion; however, I dissent from the 
majority’s holding that, by not specifying a mens rea, R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) plainly 
indicates an intent to impose strict liability. 
{¶ 57} R.C. 2901.21(B) establishes the mens rea of recklessness as the 
default standard of liability when no mens rea is specified:  “When the section 
[defining an offense] neither specifies culpability nor plainly indicates a purpose 
to impose strict liability, recklessness is sufficient culpability to commit the 
offense.” (Emphasis added.)   
{¶ 58} The majority has mistakenly held that the lack of mens rea alone is 
sufficient to indicate an intention to impose strict liability, stating “[b]y choosing 
language in R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) that makes it a crime to merely inflict or attempt 
to inflict serious physical harm, as opposed to requiring a purpose or intent to 
injure, the General Assembly * * * has indicated its purpose to impose strict 
liability.”  Majority opinion at ¶ 50.  In other words, the majority rewrites the 
statute to say that unless there is “specific intent,” the default standard is strict 
liability, and no mental state need be proven.  But to “inflict or attempt to inflict 
serious physical harm,” as that phrase is used in R.C. 2911.01(A)(3), implies 
action on the part of a defendant that requires a mental state of some degree, 
unless it has been clearly dispensed with.  The General Assembly explicitly 
provides in R.C. 2901.21(B) that recklessness is the default mens rea, unless there 
is a clear indication that strict liability is intended. 
{¶ 59} In concluding that R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) plainly indicates an intent to 
impose strict liability, the majority purports to follow the approach outlined in 
State v. Wac (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 84, 22 O.O.3d 299, 428 N.E.2d 428, and State 
v. Maxwell, 95 Ohio St.3d 254, 2002-Ohio-2121, 767 N.E.2d 242.  But the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
16 
 
majority overextends the holdings of those cases so as to contradict the language 
of R.C. 2901.21(B).  Although we have stated in Maxwell, at ¶ 22, that we must 
consider sections rather than divisions to see whether R.C. 2901.21(B) can 
operate to supply the mental element of recklessness, the statute tells us that we 
must examine “the section defining an offense” to determine whether that 
definition “plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict criminal liability for the 
conduct described in the section.”  (Emphasis added.)  R.C. 2901.21(B). The 
majority concludes that, regardless of the context, a single reference to a mental 
state (knowingly, in R.C. 2911.01(B)) automatically indicates a purpose to impose 
strict liability in R.C. 2911.01(A)(3), which does not explicitly name a mental 
state. 
{¶ 60}  The first two divisions in R.C. 2911.01, however, relate to two 
different courses of conduct:  (A) refers to attempting, committing, or fleeing after 
a theft offense, while (B) concerns removing a deadly weapon from a law-
enforcement officer.  The majority’s reading ignores the plain language of R.C. 
2901.21(B), which states that we are to analyze the language defining an offense 
to determine whether that definition plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict 
liability for a particular course of conduct.  Because the definition of the offense 
is found solely in R.C. 2911.01(A), the language of R.C. 2911.01(B) is 
inapplicable to the question of whether the General Assembly has plainly 
indicated a purpose to impose strict criminal liability for the offense defined in 
(A). 
{¶ 61} This method of analysis is consistent with Wac and Maxwell.  In 
those cases, we examined the definitions of each offense, just as R.C. 2901.21(B) 
requires, to determine whether the General Assembly plainly indicated a purpose 
to impose strict liability for the specific conduct involved.  In analyzing R.C. 
2915.02 in Wac, we looked only at the language in R.C. 2915.02(A)(1), which 
criminalizes bookmaking.  Id., 68 Ohio St.2d at 86, 22 O.O.3d 299, 428 N.E.2d 
January Term, 2010 
17 
 
428.  In determining the proper mens rea, we did not consider the other, very 
different forms of conduct defined elsewhere in R.C. 2915.02, such as 
establishing, promoting, or operating a game of chance conducted for profit (R.C. 
2915.02(A)(2)) or betting (R.C. 2915.02(A)(4)).  By the same principle, our 
consideration of the proper mens rea for R.C. 2915.03 reflected the narrow focus 
of that statute, both divisions of which deal with the same conduct: using or 
occupying premises for gambling.  Id. at 86-87. 
{¶ 62} Similarly, in Maxwell, we examined only the language in R.C. 
2907.321(A)(6), which defined the offense of bringing child pornography into the 
state.  We ignored the other offenses defined in R.C. 2907.321, such as creating 
child pornography (R.C. 2907.321(A)(1)) or buying, purchasing, possessing, or 
controlling child pornography (R.C. 2907.321(A)(5)). 
{¶ 63} The mere lack of a mental state in R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) does not 
plainly indicate to me a purpose to impose strict criminal liability for the conduct 
of inflicting or attempting to inflict serious physical harm on another during the 
attempt or commission of a theft offense.  At the very least, the state should be 
charged with proving that the conduct was reckless. “A person acts recklessly 
when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a 
known risk that his conduct is likely to cause a certain result or is likely to be of a 
certain nature. A person is reckless with respect to circumstances when, with 
heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk 
that such circumstances are likely to exist." (Emphasis added.)  R.C. 2901.22(C). 
{¶ 64} We explained how the General Assembly shows an intent to 
dispense with a mens rea and impose strict liability in State v. Lozier, 101 Ohio 
St.3d 161, 2004-Ohio-732, 803 N.E.2d 770.  Under R.C. 2925.03(C)(5)(B), the 
offense of trafficking in LSD is a fourth degree felony if committed “in the 
vicinity of a school or in the vicinity of a juvenile.”  To determine the correct 
mens rea for the “vicinity” element, we looked to R.C. 2925.01, which defines 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
18 
 
these phrases.  Under R.C. 2925.01(BB), an offender is guilty of committing the 
offense in the vicinity of a juvenile “regardless of whether the offender knows the 
age of the juvenile, whether the offender knows the offense is being committed 
within one hundred feet of or within view of the juvenile, or whether the juvenile 
actually views the commission of the offense.”  We stated that this language 
“makes it abundantly clear that the offender’s mental state is irrelevant in 
determining whether the offender has committed an offense ‘in the vicinity of a 
juvenile.’ ” Lozier at ¶ 36.  We then turned to the definition of “in the vicinity of a 
school,” as it then existed.2  We noted that, by contrast, an offender was guilty of 
committing the offense in the vicinity of a school if the offense is committed “on 
school premises, in a school building, or within one thousand feet of the 
boundaries of any school premises.”  Former R.C. 2925.01(P), 149 Ohio laws, 
Part V, 10175, 10187.  No mens rea appeared, and, unlike the “vicinity of a 
juvenile” definition, there was no language stating that the offender is guilty 
regardless of any knowledge on behalf of the offender.  Thus, the General 
Assembly had not indicated that trafficking in LSD in the vicinity of a school was 
a strict liability offense, and the default mental state of recklessness applied.  
Lozier, 101 Ohio St.3d 161, at ¶ 45. 
{¶ 65} The majority also relies upon State v. Lester, 123 Ohio St.3d 396, 
2009-Ohio-4225, 916 N.E.2d 1038, and State v. Wharf (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 375, 
715 N.E.2d 172, as support for its conclusion that R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) plainly 
indicates a purpose to impose strict liability.  Wharf examines the completely 
separate offense of robbery as defined in R.C. 2911.02(A)(1), and Lester 
examines the “deadly weapon” version of aggravated robbery under R.C. 
2911.01.  Therefore, neither opinion is relevant to the issue of whether the 
                                     
 
1.  R.C. 2925.01(P) was amended shortly after Lozier was decided to add language similar to that 
in division (BB), making it explicit that the offender need not be aware that he is near a school to 
be guilty of the offense. 
January Term, 2010 
19 
 
General Assembly plainly indicated a purpose to impose strict liability in R.C. 
2911.01(A)(3). 
{¶ 66} Furthermore, Lester contradicts both Lozier and R.C. 2901.21(B) 
by holding that the lack of a mens rea in R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) plainly indicates a 
purpose to impose strict liability.  See Lester, 123 Ohio St.3d 396, at ¶ 44-58 
(Lanzinger, J., concurring in judgment only). 
{¶ 67} Since the General Assembly has not specified a degree of 
culpability in its definition of the offense of inflicting or attempting to inflict 
serious physical harm on another during the attempt or commission of a theft 
offense, I would take the General Assembly at its word and hold that the default 
mens rea of recklessness is applicable to R.C. 2911.01(A)(3).  Thus, I respectfully 
dissent with respect to the portion of the majority opinion that concludes that 
aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) is a strict-liability offense. 
{¶ 68} Because the indictment in this case tracked the language of R.C. 
2911.01(A)(3), which fails to specify a mental state, the indictment is not 
defective for failure to identify a mental state.  I would hold that Horner was on 
notice that the default mens rea of recklessness applied under R.C. 2901.21(B) 
and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals that the indictment was not 
defective.  I therefore concur only in the judgment of the court and in the first and 
third syllabus paragraphs of the majority opinion. 
__________________ 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 69} I agree with Justice Lanzinger’s conclusion that R.C. 2901.21(B) 
imposes a mens rea of recklessness on R.C. 2911.01(A)(3).  Had the majority so 
concluded, instead of determining that R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) is a strict-liability 
offense, then the majority could have properly weighed in on the continued 
viability of this court’s decisions in State v. Colon, 118 Ohio St.3d 26, 2008-
Ohio-1624, 885 N.E.2d 917 (“Colon I”), and State v. Colon, 119 Ohio St.3d 204, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
20 
 
2008-Ohio-3749, 893 N.E.2d 169 (“Colon II”).  But Colon I and Colon II never 
applied to indictments for strict-liability offenses, i.e., offenses without a mens 
rea.  If an offense lacks a mens rea, the indictment for that offense cannot be 
faulty for failing to state a mens rea.  The majority’s strict-liability determination 
renders Colon I and Colon II inapplicable to this case, and the majority thus 
improperly overrules them. 
{¶ 70} Had the majority found recklessness as the operative mens rea 
here, then Colon I and Colon II would have been fair game, since Colon I and 
Colon II involved a situation in which R.C. 2901.21(B) imposed a mens rea of 
recklessness and the indictment failed to set forth that mens rea.  Here, the 
majority overrules Colon I and Colon II even before determining whether they are 
applicable.  You can overrule the Colon cases or you can find strict liability for an 
R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) offense, but you cannot do both in this case. 
__________________ 
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and David F. Cooper, 
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
John F. Potts, for appellant. 
Ron O’Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L. 
Taylor, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, urging affirmance for amicus curiae 
Franklin County Prosecutor. 
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Spencer Cahoon, Assistant 
Public Defender, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Public Defender. 
______________________