Opinion ID: 4514181
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Christian I

Text: {¶ 3} On appeal, the Second District Court of Appeals reversed Christian’s conviction for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity after concluding that the state presented insufficient evidence of an “enterprise” to sustain that conviction. State v. Christian, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25256, 2014-Ohio-2672, ¶ 80 (“Christian I”). The court also modified Christian’s convictions for Count Two and Count Three to reflect lower degrees of the offenses pursuant to 2011 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 86, effective September 30, 2011 (“H.B. 86”). Id. at ¶ 178. (H.B. 86, which took effect after Christian was indicted but before she was sentenced, 2 January Term, 2020 made changes to the manner in which the degrees of certain criminal offenses are to be determined.) {¶ 4} The Second District certified a conflict between its decision in Christian I and a Ninth District decision regarding what evidence the state must present in order to prove the existence of an “enterprise” in a trial for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25256 (Aug. 26, 2014). This court determined that a conflict existed, 140 Ohio St.3d 1465, 2014-Ohio4629, 18 N.E.3d 445, accepted the state’s discretionary appeal on that same issue, 140 Ohio St.3d 1466, 2014-Ohio-4629, 18 N.E.3d 445, and consolidated those causes and held them for this court’s decision in State v. Beverly, 143 Ohio St.3d 258, 2015-Ohio-219, 37 N.E.3d 116. After the announcement of the decision in Beverly, this court vacated the judgment of the Second District and remanded the cause to that court to consider whether sufficient evidence of an enterprise existed in light of Beverly. 143 Ohio St.3d 417, 2015-Ohio-3374, 38 N.E.3d 888, ¶ 1.