Title: State v. Edmondson

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State v. Edmondson, 92 Ohio St.3d 393, 2001-Ohio-210.] 
 
 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. EDMONDSON, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State v. Edmondson (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 393.] 
Criminal law — Theft by deception — False information submitted by applicant 
for Aid to Dependent Children funds and food stamps who would have 
been eligible for benefits if she had been truthful on her application but 
in an amount less than she actually received — R.C. 2913.02, applied. 
(No. 00-1438 — Submitted March 27, 2001 — Decided July 25, 2001.) 
CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 18061. 
__________________ 
 
COOK, J.  The appellant, Michelle Edmondson, was convicted on two 
counts of theft by deception for receiving government benefits after she submitted 
false information to the Montgomery County Department of Human Services 
(“MCDHS”) on her benefits application.  Had she been truthful on her 
application, Edmondson would have remained eligible for benefits, but in an 
amount less than she actually received.  This case asks us to decide whether 
Edmondson has stolen the total amount of benefits that MCDHS gave her 
following the deception or only the amount exceeding what she would have been 
eligible to receive had she provided truthful information. 
I 
 
During a four-year period between September 1990 and October 1994, 
Edmondson received nearly $13,000 in financial assistance from the Ohio Aid to 
Dependent Children (“ADC”) program and food stamps from the federal 
government worth almost $9,000.  The benefits received by Edmondson were the 
maximum amounts allotted under both the ADC and food stamp programs.  At no 
time during this period did Edmondson inform the MCDHS, which administered 
the distribution of benefits, that she was employed.  Employment status is one of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
several factors affecting the amount of assistance available to an applicant for 
benefits. 
 
In 1994, MCDHS began to investigate whether Edmondson had been 
employed while receiving government assistance.  Edmondson admitted to a 
welfare fraud investigator that she had worked at various jobs while collecting 
ADC funds and food stamps.  She also acknowledged that she failed to report her 
employment to MCDHS despite being aware of her responsibility to report any 
employment she obtained. 
 
A grand jury indicted Edmondson on two counts of theft by deception in 
violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(3).  The first count alleged theft of ADC benefits 
valued at $5,000 or more.  The second count charged Edmondson with theft of 
food stamps, also valued at $5,000 or more.  Because the alleged value of the 
benefits stolen exceeded $5,000 (but was less than $100,000), each count charged 
the offense of grand theft, a fourth-degree felony.  R.C. 2913.02(B)(2). 
 
Before trial, the parties stipulated that Edmondson collected government 
benefits between October 1990 and September 1994 without informing MCDHS 
of her employment during this period.  As a result of the parties’ stipulations, the 
case proceeded to a bench trial limited to determining the value of the benefits 
stolen by Edmondson.  The prosecution contended that Edmondson stole the total 
amount of benefits she received after misrepresenting her employment status.  In 
contrast, Edmondson contended that she could not be guilty of stealing the full 
amount of benefits because, by MCDHS’s own admission, she would have been 
eligible for assistance (albeit in a lesser amount) even if she had reported her 
employment.  Thus, Edmondson theorized that the dollar value of the theft was 
limited to the amount exceeding what she would have received had she truthfully 
reported her employment.  The MCDHS calculated this “overpayment amount” to 
be $2,415 in ADC benefits and $2,211 in food stamps. 
January Term, 2001 
3 
 
The trial court agreed with Edmondson.  It noted that Edmondson would 
have received substantial benefits even if she had been truthful on her application.  
The trial court therefore concluded that Edmondson “only received the benefit of” 
the overpayment amount as a result of the deception.  And because the 
overpayment amount for both the ADC benefits and the food stamps was less than 
$5,000 (but greater than $500), the trial court found Edmondson guilty of two 
counts of fifth-degree felony theft, a lesser-included offense of grand theft.  See 
R.C. 2913.02(B)(2). 
 
The state obtained leave to appeal the trial court’s decision under R.C. 
2945.67(A).  The Second District Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s legal 
analysis of the theft amount was incorrect.  The court of appeals deemed it 
irrelevant for purposes of the theft statute that Edmondson would have been 
entitled to benefits even if she had truthfully reported her employment.  Relying 
on its earlier decisions, the court reasoned that “ ‘the deception’ is what ‘triggers 
the offense’ and all welfare benefits the defendant received after the ‘initial 
misrepresentation’ are to be included in the theft amount,” quoting State v. 
Chambers (Sept. 28, 1982), Montgomery App. No. 7360, unreported.  See, also, 
State v. Crowder (Feb. 10, 1995), Montgomery App. No. 14478, unreported, 1995 
WL 58679.  The court of appeals certified its decision as being in conflict with the 
judgment of the Sixth District Court of Appeals in State v. Luna (1994), 94 Ohio 
App.3d 653, 641 N.E.2d 747.  The cause is now before this court upon our 
determination that a conflict exists. 
II 
 
Before reaching the merits of Edmondson’s appeal, we note that the 
procedural posture of this case presents an oddity: our decision has no practical 
effect on this appellant.  Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that 
jurisdiction in this court is proper. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Because it rejected the legal conclusion reached by the trial court, the 
court of appeals originally reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded for 
further proceedings.  The court of appeals later issued an amended entry in which 
it affirmed the trial court’s judgment finding Edmondson guilty only of the lesser-
included offenses.  Edmondson therefore remained guilty of stealing only the 
“overpayment amount” as calculated by MCDHS.  The court of appeals’ 
correction of its judgment was necessary insofar as reversal and remand would 
have been a futile exercise; double-jeopardy principles barred the state from 
pursuing the grand theft charges because the trial court’s finding of guilt on the 
lesser-included offenses operated as an acquittal of the greater offenses.  See 
Brown v. Ohio (1977), 432 U.S. 161, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187; see, also, 
State v. Curry (1991), 76 Ohio App.3d 175, 601 N.E.2d 176 (affirming judgment 
of acquittal because of double-jeopardy principles despite sustaining state’s 
assignment of error in R.C. 2945.67[A] appeal).  Thus, the court of appeals 
recognized that its decision could not affect Edmondson’s conviction. 
 
Although the state’s appeal had no effect on Edmondson’s case, the court 
of appeals had the statutory authority to exercise jurisdiction over it.  R.C. 
2945.67(A) grants discretion to the courts of appeals to allow appeals by the state 
of a trial court’s “substantive law rulings made in a criminal case which result in a 
judgment of acquittal so long as the judgment itself is not appealed.”  State v. 
Bistricky (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 157, 555 N.E.2d 644, syllabus; see, also, State v. 
Arnett (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 186, 22 OBR 272, 489 N.E.2d 284, syllabus.  
Although it was not required to do so, State v. Fisher (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 22, 
517 N.E.2d 911, the court of appeals exercised that discretion in this case by 
granting leave to the state to appeal the substantive legal issue concerning the 
amount of the theft.  It then decided the question differently from the trial court.  
The court of appeals also resolved the issue differently from another appellate 
district, prompting it (on Edmondson’s motion) to certify the record to this court 
January Term, 2001 
5 
for review and final determination under Section 3(B)(4), Article IV of the Ohio 
Constitution. 
 
Though unusual, this procedural history poses no jurisdictional bar to our 
review.  The court of appeals validly exercised jurisdiction over the state’s appeal 
under R.C. 2945.67(A).  Bistricky at syllabus.  When its decision on the legal 
issue directly before it revealed an actual conflict between appellate judicial 
districts on a rule of law, the court of appeals properly certified the case to this 
court.  Whitelock v. Gilbane Bldg. Co. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 594, 613 N.E.2d 
1032, paragraph one of the syllabus.  Accordingly, the case is properly before us 
based upon the certification of the Second District Court of Appeals. 
III 
 
The elements of theft by deception appear at R.C. 2913.02, which 
provides: 
 
“(A) No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property or services, 
shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property or services in any 
of the following ways: 
 
“* * * 
 
“(3) By deception.” 
 
The parties do not dispute that the state proved these essential elements in 
Edmondson’s case.  Thus, there is no dispute that Edmondson knowingly 
obtained control over property (viz., ADC cash assistance and food stamps) with 
purpose to deprive MCDHS of it.  Nor is there any dispute that Edmondson 
knowingly deceived MCDHS by misrepresenting her employment status.  See 
R.C. 2913.01(A) (defining “deception” to include “any false or misleading 
representation * * * that creates, confirms, or perpetuates a false impression in 
another”). 
 
The only dispute in this case involves the degree of theft offense 
Edmondson committed.  R.C. 2913.02(B)(2) categorizes theft offenses into 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
different degrees depending on the value of the property or services stolen.  
Edmondson urges us to follow the trial court’s conclusion that the value of the 
stolen ADC funds and food stamps is limited to the “overpayment amount” 
calculated by MCDHS. 
 
In support of her argument, Edmondson relies on State v. Luna, supra, the 
case certified as being in conflict with the court of appeals’ decision in this case.  
In Luna, the trial court convicted a defendant of theft of ADC benefits by 
deception.  On his benefits application, the defendant had falsely stated that he 
was neither an owner nor buyer of any real property; in fact, the defendant was 
the vendee on a land contract executed prior to his application for benefits.  The 
state argued that the sum of benefits received was the product of theft.  The court 
of appeals disagreed and explained that “the relevant inquiry is * * * what 
benefits did appellant receive as a result of the deception that he would not have 
received had he been truthful.”  (Emphasis added.) Id., 94 Ohio App.3d at 662, 
641 N.E.2d at 753.  The court therefore concluded that the defendant could have 
stolen only the amount “over and above what he would have received had he been 
truthful.”  Id. at 663, 641 N.E.2d at 753. 
 
We disagree with the legal theory advanced by Edmondson and the Luna 
court and instead endorse the conclusion reached by the Second District Court of 
Appeals.  Edmondson’s argument that she stole only the “overpayment amount” 
relies upon the premise that she owned or possessed (and therefore did not steal) 
the non-overpayment portion of the benefits she received.  But this premise is 
incorrect.  Edmondson was not entitled to any benefits until MCDHS actually 
determined her eligibility based on the information disclosed on her application.  
See R.C. 5107.12; see, also, Ohio Adm.Code 5101:1-2-10(D)(2) (an applicant’s 
failure to provide necessary information during the application process “shall 
result in a denial” of benefits).  The benefits remained government property until 
they were actually paid to Edmondson.  See R.C. 5101.54(B) (“food stamps * * * 
January Term, 2001 
7 
are the property of the department of job and family services from the time they 
are received * * * by the department from the federal agency responsible for such 
delivery until they are received by a household entitled to receive them”); see, 
also, former R.C. 5107.01, 146 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 6935, 6950 (noting that ADC 
payments are made from state and federal funds).  When Edmondson actually 
obtained the benefits from MCDHS, she received them only because MCDHS 
deemed her eligible for government assistance based on the materially false 
information she provided.  Because Edmondson did not own any benefits until 
she received them, her deception taints all of the ADC funds and food stamps that 
MCDHS gave to her based on her materially false application.  We reject 
Edmondson’s view to the contrary, as it requires us to indulge in the legal fiction 
that Edmondson somehow owned a portion of the benefits before she even 
received them. 
 
In contrast to the rule advocated by Edmondson, the court of appeals’ 
decision in this case comports with the statutory elements of theft by deception. 
R.C. 2913.02(A)(3) imposes criminal liability against a person “who deprives an 
owner of his rightful possession of property through deceptive or fraudulent 
means.”  State v. Clifton (1989), 65 Ohio App.3d 117, 122, 583 N.E.2d 326, 329; 
see, also, State v. Talley (1983), 94 N.J. 385, 390-391, 466 A.2d 78, 81 (the 
essential nature of all theft offenses is the “ ‘involuntary transfer of property,’ “ 
either “ ‘without [the victim’s] consent or with consent obtained by fraud or 
coercion,’ “ quoting from the Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law 
Revision Commission, Vol. II: Commentary [1971] 216, Section 2C:20-2).  The 
state must prove that the accused engaged in a deceptive act to deprive the owner 
of possession of property or services.  The state must also prove that the accused’s 
misrepresentation (or other conduct creating a false impression) actually caused 
the victim to transfer property to the accused. Clifton, 65 Ohio App.3d at 121-122, 
583 N.E.2d at 328-329; see, also, State v. Graven (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 114, 126-
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
127, 8 O.O.3d 113, 120, 374 N.E.2d 1370, 1377-1378 (W. Brown, J., dissenting); 
Williams v. State (1908), 77 Ohio St. 468, 83 N.E. 802, syllabus; 2 LaFave & 
Scott, Substantive Criminal Law (1986) 391-392, Section 8.7(c).  Finally, if the 
state seeks a conviction for grand theft, R.C. 2913.02(B) requires proof that the 
accused wrongfully obtained property or services valued at $5,000 or more. See 
State v. Henderson (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 171, 173-174, 12 O.O.3d 177, 178, 389 
N.E.2d 494, 495 (factor that enhances the degree of theft offense is an element 
that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt). 
 
The straightforward application of these elements supports the state’s legal 
theory and undermines Edmondson’s position.  Edmondson obtained benefits 
only after she failed to be truthful about her employment status.  In turn, MCDHS 
relied on the information Edmondson provided when it approved her benefits 
application and awarded over $5,000 in ADC funds and food stamps before 
learning of Edmondson’s deception.  The state does not have to prove the 
additional fact, as Edmondson’s rule would require, that the accused obtained 
benefits for which he or she was not otherwise eligible absent the deception.  See 
State v. Robins (1995), 233 Conn. 527, 530-531, 660 A.2d 738, 739 (interpreting 
Connecticut’s larceny statute as requiring state to prove only that defendant 
obtained benefits by filing false claim and not the additional element that 
defendant obtained benefits to which he was not entitled).  Imposing this 
additional burden on the state would add an element that does not appear in the 
theft statute. 
 
Moreover, the rule advocated by Edmondson would potentially invite 
mischief.  Recipients could provide false information to enhance their level of 
benefits knowing that the overpayment amount was the maximum for which they 
could be held criminally responsible if the authorities detected the deception. 
 
The court of appeals correctly rejected Edmondson’s claim that she stole 
only the “overpayment amount.”  The correct valuation of the benefits stolen is 
January Term, 2001 
9 
the entire amount Edmondson received following her deception.  We accordingly 
affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and F.E. SWEENEY, J., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS, J., concurs in judgment. 
 
RESNICK, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting.  Edmondson was entitled to a certain amount of 
welfare benefits.  She provided false information and received welfare benefits in 
excess of the amount to which she was entitled.  The state prosecuted her for theft 
by deception of the entire amount she received, which includes the amount to 
which she was entitled. 
 
Unlike the majority, I would rather engage in a legal fiction, that 
entitlement is a form of ownership, than embrace the absurd.  The theft offense 
should be based on the difference between her entitlement and what she actually 
received.  To do otherwise is ridiculous. 
 
The majority is concerned about the potential “mischief” of welfare 
recipients receiving more benefits than they are entitled to.  The possibility that 
people otherwise entitled to benefits might be too frightened to pursue them and 
the possibility that the state might overreach in prosecuting these cases is more 
troubling.  Surely the state has more pressing business than prosecuting our 
society’s most downtrodden for receiving benefits to which they are entitled.  I 
dissent. 
 
RESNICK, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  I respectfully dissent from the 
majority’s decision to affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
In 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 * * * [b]y deception.”  R.C. 
2913.02(B)(2) sets forth the degree of the theft offense based on the value of the 
property stolen.  Nowhere in the plain language of the theft statute is a 
government assistance recipient required to forfeit the portion of the benefits to 
which he or she is legally entitled. 
 
Nor do any Department of Human Services regulations require repayment 
of benefits to which the defendant is entitled.  Ohio Adm.Code 5101:6-20-01(B) 
provides, “An individual may be disqualified from OWF [Ohio Works First], PRC 
[Prevention, Retention, and Contingency Program], and/or food stamp programs 
for intentional program violations.”  (Emphasis added.)  Further, Ohio Adm.Code 
5101:6-20-03(A)(1) requires repayment of the “fraudulent assistance” before 
restoration to the program.  Thus, even the Department of Human Services 
regulations do not require that all benefits be repaid. 
 
Instead of the majority’s interpretation, I would adopt the reasoning of 
State v. Luna (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 653, 641 N.E.2d 747, the case with which 
Edmondson is in conflict.  Luna held that the relevant inquiry is what benefits the 
defendant would have obtained had he or she been truthful.  Luna, 94 Ohio 
App.3d at 662, 641 N.E.2d at 753.  In Luna, a government assistance applicant 
was convicted of theft by deception and other crimes.  The court held, “Although 
appellant may have received excess benefits as a result of the deception, the 
record is devoid of any evidence showing that but for the alleged deceptive 
January Term, 2001 
11 
answer appellant would not have been entitled to benefits of a certain amount.”  
Id. at 663, 641 N.E.2d at 753-754. 
 
In other theft cases, we do not measure the amount of the theft as the 
majority does in this case.  For example, suppose an employee works eight hours 
one day but by deception convinces the employer that he or she worked ten hours 
and, consequently, the employer pays the employee for ten hours of work.  We 
would find the employee guilty of theft for only the two hours of pay that he or 
she obtained fraudulently.  The law does not require the employee to forfeit all 
wages to which he or she is entitled.  I fail to see why this case should be any 
different. 
 
Therefore, I would hold that in a prosecution of theft of government 
benefits by deception, the value of property for purposes of determining the 
seriousness of the crime under R.C. 2913.02(B)(2) is the amount of benefits 
received as a result of the deception rather than the sum of all benefits received. 
 
I do not believe that this interpretation of the law would encourage 
government assistance recipients to lie in order to obtain benefits to which they 
are not otherwise entitled.  Contrary to the majority’s contention, serious penalties 
do attach in addition to a criminal charge and possible prison.  The defendant 
becomes ineligible for further assistance until repayment, hardly an incentive for 
mischief as claimed by the majority. 
 
In this case, the defendant received $12,829 in Aid to Dependent Children 
(“ADC”) benefits, an overpayment of $2,415, and $8,836 in food stamps, an 
overpayment of $2,211.  She would have received $17,039 in ADC and food 
stamps even when taking her wages into consideration.  In my view, the law 
requires us to allow her to keep that to which she is legally entitled, for we are not 
seeking to punish qualified recipients or their children, for whom government 
assistance provides a means to obtain essential food, clothing, housing, and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
medical care.  See Goldberg v. Kelly (1970), 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 
L.Ed.2d 287. 
 
Nowhere else in Ohio law do we penalize defendants charged with theft 
by requiring them to repay more than they stole.  I agree with the trial court that 
defendant would have still received substantial ADC and food stamp benefits had 
she truthfully reported her employment status.  Therefore, in calculating the theft 
amount, the defendant should be criminally liable for only the $4,626 in benefits 
she received because of her deception, an amount warranting a fifth-degree felony 
conviction.  Accordingly, I respectfully dissent and would reverse the judgment of 
the court of appeals. 
 
RESNICK, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
Kirsten A. Davies, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
 
Arvin S. Miller, Montgomery County Assistant Public Defender, for 
appellant. 
__________________