Court Opinion

ID: 9363849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-17 20:07:32.021807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:32.377802
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Giauque, 2023-Ohio-94.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                     ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO,                               :       JUDGES:
                                             :       Hon. Earle E. Wise, P.J.
        Plaintiff - Appellee                 :       Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.
                                             :       Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-                                         :
                                             :
JUSTIN GIAUQUE,                              :       Case No. 22-COA-003
                                             :
        Defendant - Appellant                :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                             Appeal from the Ashland County
                                                     Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
                                                     20-CRI-152

JUDGMENT:                                            Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                    January 12, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                               For Defendant-Appellant

CHRISTOPHER R. TUNNELL                               DARIN AVERY
Ashland County Prosecuting Attorney                  105 Sturges Avenue
                                                     Mansfield, Ohio 44903
By: NADINE HAUPTMAN
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
110 Cottage Street, Third Floor
Ashland, Ohio 44805
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-003                                                  2

Baldwin, J.

       {¶1}   Justin Giauque appeals his conviction in the Ashland County Court of

Common Pleas for two counts of Grand Theft, one under R.C. 2913.02(A)(l) an (B)(2),

and one under R.C. 2913.02(A)(3) an (B)(2), both fourth degree felonies; Unauthorized

Use of Property, a violation of R.C. 2913.04(A) and 2913.04(F)(3)(c), a fourth degree

felony; and Possessing Criminal Tools, a violation of R.C. 2923.24(A) and (C), a fifth

degree felony. Appellee is the State of Ohio.

                    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

       {¶2}   Giauque was employed by Jason Enderle as a truck driver during the

harvest season in 2019. The harvest was completed at the end of December and

Giauque’s employment terminated. Without the consent of Jason Enderle, Giauque took

two gravity wagons from Enderle’s storage barn and began transporting corn and

soybeans to Centerra, a local vendor. Enderle discovered the unauthorized use after one

of the wagons was damaged and, after review of his inventory, concluded that a large

amount of soybeans was taken without his knowledge. He later discovered that Giauque

had sold a similar amount of soybeans to the Centerra and reported the matter to the

local authorities who pursued an investigation. That investigation led to the filing of

charges and the conviction of Giauque.

       {¶3}   Jason Enderle’s farm is comprised of 4200 acres and the crops grown

include corn and soybeans. During the harvest, each load of grain is weighed and

recorded as it is harvested, then dried and stored in bins until it is shipped to a vendor in

Fostoria or Bellevue, Ohio. Enderle did not have any business with Centerra, the vendor

that purchased soybeans from Giauque.
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-003                                                   3

       {¶4}   Justin Giauque’s father, Brian Giauque, was a friend of Jason Enderle and,

in September 2019 he contacted Enderle to recommend Justin for a job during the

harvest. Enderle hired Justin Giauque to drive a truck that hauled grain from the fields to

storage. The job involved driving a truck loaded with grain to storage, dumping the load

and returning the empty truck to the fields to be filled. Four or five trucks were involved

in the process running constantly during the day. Justin’s other duties included delivering

grain to the elevator, greasing the combines or delivering fuel to the combines. Giauque

was hired on September 24, 2019 and worked until the harvest was completed on

November 27, 2019.

       {¶5}   After the harvest was completed, Enderle was frequently out of state in

December, January and February on various business trips, auctions and shows. Enderle

confirmed someone was at the farm during the off season, but only from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30

p.m. Giauque contacted Enderle while he was in Alabama and he asked about working

in the Spring, but Enderle did not commit to hiring him as they had no need for truckdrivers

in the Spring. Enderle remembered that during the conversation that he mentioned that

was in Alabama and that the conversation took place in February 2020.

       {¶6}   Karen Russ was driving to a friend’s house on February 24, 2020 on an

unfamiliar road in the vicinity of the Enderle farm. Fearing that she had missed an

intersection, she glanced at her phone and when she looked up, she noticed a vehicle in

front of her. She unsuccessfully swerved to miss it, struck it and traveled into a ditch after

impact. She called 911 to report the accident, but she had trouble describing her location.

She described a man who came from a truck across the road, took her phone and talked

with the dispatcher. She did not recognize the man, but not seeing anyone else in the
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-003                                                  4

area, she assumed that it was the driver of the vehicle that she struck. The man who

called on her behalf was later identified as Giauque by a deputy who recognized his voice.

        {¶7}   Giauque dragged a damaged gravity wagon to Earl Stitzlein’s farm and

asked permission to leave it until he could make arrangements for repair. Stitzlein agreed

and though he had no further contact with Giauque, he remembered that the wagon was

full of soybeans and that some spilled on the ground.

        {¶8}   Giauque contacted a local repair shop during the evening of February 24,

2020 seeking a prompt repair of a damaged gravity wagon. The shop sent technicians

to make the repair, but the damage was too extensive to make a complete repair at the

scene, so the wagon was emptied and transported to the shop for further repairs. The

owner of the repair shop agreed to make the repairs, but found that the damage was more

extensive than originally believed, so the repair was postponed.

        {¶9}   The gravity wagon had “Enderle” printed on the side with a phone number

and that raised the suspicions of the staff at the repair shop, so they contacted Jason

Enderle. Enderle knew that he had stored his gravity wagons for the season, so he

thought that there was some mistake. He called an employee to check the barn where

the wagons were stored. The employee reported that the wagons were missing and

Enderle immediately drove to the repair shop and demanded that they release the wagon

to him. They refused, insisting that they could only release it to the person who brought

it in for repair, Justin Giauque. While Enderle was arguing with the proprietor, they spotted

Giauque’s truck towing the second Enderle gravity wagon. Enderle called Giauque and

insisted that he bring the wagon to him. He complied and brought the wagon to the repair

shop.
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-003                                                 5

       {¶10} When he arrived he was subject to a barrage of verbal abuse by an angered

Enderle, and, when questioned regarding why he took the wagons, he claimed that he

was using it to haul beans for a friend. That friend was never identified. Giauque

conceded that the wagons were Enderle’s and Enderle took the wagons.

       {¶11} Enderle then visited Centerra and discovered that Giauque had sold a lot of

soybeans. Enderle called his employee Stephen Beer to check on the bin that contained

the Enderle soybeans and he reported that ten to fifteen thousand bushels were missing.

Enderle asked for confirmation from Centerra and was told that Giauque had sold ten

thousand bushels of beans in loads that were consistent with using the gravity wagons to

deliver the beans. The wagons had a capacity of 390 bushels and each delivery involved

an amount of approximately 300 bushels. Enderle confirmed a few loads had been taken

from the soybean bin, but not enough to deplete it to the extent that he and his employees

observed on March 4, 2020.

       {¶12} Enderle also found soybeans on the ground around the loading chute on

the bean bin as well as tire tracks that he believed matched the tread of Giauque’s new

truck. The mass of beans in the bin were sloped toward the chute in the bin, further

supporting his conclusion that beans had been taken from the bin through that chute.

       {¶13} Enderle reported the theft to the local authorities and Detective Aaron Crites

of the Ashland County Sheriff’s Office was assigned to the case. He contacted Giauque

and invited him to offer his version of the facts. Giauque did not appear for an interview,

but did deliver six documents to Deputy Crites. Deputy Crites described some of the

documents as invoices reflecting purchases or sales by Giauque, but they did not

correspond with any of the sales described by the representative from Centerra. Deputy
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-003                                                 6

Crites could not read the balance of the documents and he noted that other documents

obtained from Centerra contained print identifying Centerra, but the documents offered

by Giauque contained no such text.

       {¶14} Appellee discovered that Giauque opened an account at Sutton Bank in

November 2019 and, beginning in December 2019, for each sale of corn and soybeans

to Centerra from the person identified as Justin Giauque, there was a subsequent deposit

in Justin Giauque’s bank account by direct deposit that matched the amounts paid to

Giauque.   The total amount deposited for the purchase of corn and soybeans was

$94,920.41.

       {¶15} The soybeans found at the Stitzlein farm where the damaged gravity wagon

was parked, the beans on the ground near Enderle’s storage bin and the beans sold to

Centerra all shared a unique DNA marker referenced as Liberty Link suggesting that they

all had the same source, but not conclusively establishing that fact.

       {¶16} Giauque was indicted on August 13, 2020 and charged with Grand Theft in

violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), 2913.02(B)(2) a felony of the fourth degree; Grand Theft

in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(3), 2913.02(B(2) a felony of the fourth degree;

unauthorized use of property in violation of R.C. 2913.04(A), 2913.04(F)(3)(c); a felony of

the fourth degree; possessing criminal tools in violation of R.C.2923.24(A), 2923.24(C),

a felony of the fifth degree. A jury found him guilty of all charges and he was sentenced

to an aggregate prison term of twelve months on the Grand Theft charges, five years

community control with relevant terms and ordered to pay restitution to Larry Enderle &

Sons Grain, LLC, in the amount of $10,275.00; and to Nationwide Mutual Insurance in

the amount of $85,749.10.
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-003                                                   7

       {¶17} Giauque filed a timely appeal and submitted three assignments of error:

       {¶18} “I. THE COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S

RULE 29 MOTION TO DISMISS.”

       {¶19} “II. GIAUQUE'S CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT

OF THE EVIDENCE.”

       {¶20} “III. THE COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING CERTAIN HEARSAY.”

                                 STANDARD OF REVIEW

       {¶21} Giauque claims that the trial court erred by refusing to grant his Crim.R. 29

motion and further erred in accepting the verdict because it was against the manifest

weight of the evidence. When this court reviews the record to determine if the conviction

is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the court functions as the “thirteenth juror,”

and after “reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences,

considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the

evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice

that the conviction must be overturned and a new trial ordered.” State v. Thompkins, 78

Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541, 547 (1997). Reversing a conviction as being against

the manifest weight of the evidence and ordering a new trial should be reserved for only

the “exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” Id.

       {¶22} This court reviews a denial of a Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal using the

same standard used to review a sufficiency of the evidence claim. State v. Henderson,

5th Dist. Richland No. 17CA104, 2019-Ohio-4958, ¶ 15 quoting State v. Larry, 5th Dist.

Holmes No. 15CA011, 2016–Ohio–829, ¶ 20 quoting State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545,

553, 651 N.E.2d 965, 1995–Ohio–104. Thus, “[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-003                                                      8

viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact

could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492, paragraph two of the syllabus.

       {¶23} Giauque also claims that the trial court committed error by admitting

hearsay evidence, but concedes that trial counsel did not object so we are restricted to a

review of the record for plain error.

              Pursuant to Crim.R. 52(B), “plain errors or defects affecting

       substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the

       attention of the court.” The rule places several limitations on a reviewing

       court's determination to correct an error despite the absence of timely

       objection at trial: (1) “there must be an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal

       rule,” (2) “the error must be plain,” that is, an error that constitutes “an

       ‘obvious’ defect in the trial proceedings,” and (3) the error must have

       affected “substantial rights” such that “the trial court's error must have

       affected the outcome of the trial.” State v. Dunn, 5th Dist. No. 2008-CA-

       00137, 2009-Ohio-1688, quoting State v. Morales, 10 Dist. Nos. 03-AP-318,

       03-AP-319, 2004-Ohio-3391, at ¶ 19 (citation omitted). The decision to

       correct a plain error is discretionary and should be made “with the utmost

       caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest

       miscarriage of justice.” Barnes, supra, quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d

       91, 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus.

Matter of J.J., 5th Dist. Knox No. 22CA08, 2022-Ohio-4196, ¶ 47.
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-003                                                 9

                                       ANALYSIS

                                           I., II.

       {¶24} Giauque’s contention that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion

to dismiss pursuant to Crim.R. 29 and that the verdict was against the manifest weight of

the evidence requires examination of the same facts and application of similar standard

of review, so we will consider them concurrently.

       {¶25} Giauque contends that Appellee failed to present sufficient evidence to

convict him of obtaining or exerting control over Enderle’s grain without his consent for

the purpose of depriving him of that grain. Giauque relies upon his characterization of the

state’s evidence as proving no beans were missing to support his argument. Giauque

points to the witnesses’ testimony regarding the capacity of the bin and their estimate of

the contents before and after the alleged theft and concludes that the testimony supports

only a conclusion that no beans were missing from Enderle’s bin. Giauque notes that

while Enderle and another witness claim beans are missing from the bin, the testimony

of the state’s witnesses is inconsistent with a conclusion that beans were removed from

the bin.

       {¶26} The testimony of the witnesses can be interpreted as inconsistent or

conflicting, but the trier of fact was free to accept or reject any and all of the evidence

offered by the parties and assess the witness's credibility. “While the [trier of fact] may

take note of the inconsistencies and resolve or discount them accordingly * * * such

inconsistencies *503 do not render defendant's conviction against the manifest weight or

sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Craig, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 99AP–739, 2000 WL

297252 (Mar 23, 2000) quoting State v. Nivens, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 95APA09–1236,
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-003                                                10

1996 WL 284714 (May 28, 1996). Indeed, the [trier of fact] need not believe all of a

witness' testimony, but may accept only portions of it as true. State v. Raver, 10th Dist.

Franklin No. 02AP–604, 2003-Ohio-958, 2003 WL 723225, ¶ 21, quoting State v. Antill,

176 Ohio St. 61, 67, 197 N.E.2d 548 (1964); State v. Burke, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 02AP–

1238, 2003-Ohio-2889, 2003 WL 21291042, quoting State v. Caldwell, 79 Ohio App.3d

667, 607 N.E.2d 1096 (4th Dist.1992).

       {¶27} Three witnesses addressed the contents of Enderle’s soy bean bin. Kevin

Berger examined the bin, took some measurements of the bin and the mass of beans it

contained and calculated that it contained 45,773.07 bushels of soy beans. He offered no

testimony or opinion regarding the amount of beans that may be missing, but he did

confirm that the mass of beans in the bin was sloped in such a way to indicate that beans

had been unloaded through the chute in the side of the bin.

       {¶28} Stephen Beer, an Enderle employee, responded to a compound question

and his answer does not clearly describe the amount of beans in the bin at the end of the

harvest:

       Q So you know how many beans are supposed to be at the end of the

       harvest, and Bin 3, how much is it supposed to have?

       A 73 thousand.

       Q 73 thousand?

       A Yes.

       Q At the end of the harvest in 2019, was that full?

       A Yes, it was.

Trial Transcript, p. 261, lines 18-25.
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-003                                                  11

       {¶29} It is not clear whether Beer was describing the total amount of beans from

all sources “at the end of the harvest” when he answered the question or whether he is

referring to the capacity of the bin. He confirms that the bin was full, but does not clearly

state that it contained seventy-three thousand bushels. The jury was free to resolve this

ambiguity by relying on the balance of Beer’s testimony and the balance of the evidence

in the record.

       {¶30} Beer described the mass of beans as sloped toward the side chute,

indicating that someone had used that chute to unload beans and that that at the end of

the season it was full and peaked, suggesting that he had inspected the contents of the

bin at the end of the harvest. He confirmed that a few loads had been taken out of the bin

previously, and the removal took the peak out of the beans in the bin. He was not asked

and did not offer any comment regarding how many bushels of beans were removed when

he took a “few loads” from the bin prior to the alleged theft. Beer did conclude that ten or

fifteen thousand bushels of the beans had been removed from the bin without his

knowledge, causing the slope in the beans within the bin.

       {¶31} The soy beans that remained in the bin were removed by Enderle and, as

they were removed the quantity of beans was measured. The bin contained 26,649.99

bushels of soy beans, a number that Enderle confirmed was approximately ten thousand

bushels short of what the bin contained according to calculations made by him over “the

whole batch.”

       {¶32} Both Beer and Enderle confirmed that the bin was emptied of ten thousand

to fifteen thousand bushels of beans. Beer reached that number by visually estimating the

loss and Enderle confirmed the amount when the remaining beans were removed. Beer’s
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-003                                                12

testimony regarding seventy-three thousand, purportedly the capacity of the bin, and

Berger’s calculation that the bin contained 45,773.07 bushels supplied potential conflicts

for Giauque to present to the jury.

       {¶33} Giauque’s effectively highlighted what he characterized as inconsistencies

in the evidence regarding the amount of beans stored in the bin compared to the amount

of beans remaining after the alleged theft and urged the jury to conclude no beans were

missing. The jury was free to resolve the inconsistencies by relying on the testimony of

Beer and Enderle regarding the amount of beans missing from the bin. We find that the

record contains sufficient evidence for a reasonable finder of fact to conclude, beyond a

reasonable doubt, that beans were missing from the Enderle bin.

       {¶34} In the second part of the first assignment of error, Giauque contends that

there was no evidence that he knowingly exerted control over either the property or

services of Centerra by deception as there was insufficient evidence that he delivered the

beans. (R.C. 2913.02(A)(3)). Giauque notes that the clerk from Centerra was unable to

identify him at trial and claims that there was no evidence that the beans sold at Centerra

were the same beans taken from Enderle. He also argues that Centerra was not harmed

by the sale as they were able to resell the beans on the market and recoup the funds paid

to Giauque.

       {¶35} Appellee provided a thorough review of Centerra’s record of payments to

Giauque for soy beans and the electronic deposits into Giauque’s account at Sutton Bank.

For each payment issued by Centerra to Giauque, there was a subsequent deposit to

Giauque’s bank account in the same amount. While the Centerra representative that

purchased the soy beans was not able to identify Giauque, the matching transactions
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-003                                                 13

supply sufficient evidence to convince a fact-finder, beyond a reasonable doubt, that

Giauque was the person selling soy beans to Centerra.

        {¶36} Giauque next contends that there is insufficient evidence to establish that he

obtained payment from Centerra by deception, contending that the record contains no

evidence the beans sold to Centerra were taken from Enderle’s bin. He also argues that

Centerra sold the beans that they purchased from him and therefore Centerra suffered no

harm.

        {¶37} Giauque used Eberle’s gravity wagons, without his consent, to haul beans

to Centerra and has admitted this infraction. He sold approximately ten thousand bushels,

an amount matching Enderle’s loss. He moved at least one load under the cover of the

dark of night. He told Centerra he purchased the beans from a farmer, then told Enderle

he was hauling them for a friend. And he was familiar with the operation of the Enderle

farm and was aware that Enderle was out of the state when the beans were taken.

        {¶38} We acknowledge that the state relies upon circumstantial evidence to

support the charges against Giauque but “[c]ircumstantial evidence and direct evidence

inherently possess the same probative value [.]” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 272,

574 N.E.2d 492, 502 (1991) paragraph one of the syllabus. Furthermore, “[s]ince

circumstantial evidence and direct evidence are indistinguishable so far as the jury's fact-

finding function is concerned, all that is required of the jury is that it weigh all of the

evidence, direct and circumstantial, against the standard of proof beyond a reasonable

doubt.” Jenks, supra at 272.

        {¶39} While inferences cannot be based on inferences, a number of conclusions

can result from the same set of facts. State v. Lott (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 168, 555
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-003                                                14

N.E.2d 293, quoting Hurt v. Charles J. Rogers Transp. Co. (1955), 164 Ohio St. 329, 331,

130 N.E.2d 820. Moreover, a series of facts and circumstances can be employed by a jury

as the basis for its ultimate conclusions in a case. Lott, supra at 168 quoting Hurt, supra

at 331.

      {¶40} We find sufficient evidence in the record to convince a fact-finder, beyond

a reasonable doubt that the beans Giauque sold to Centerra were not beans purchased

from another farm, but were stolen from Enderle. Giauque used Enderle’s gravity wagons

to haul soy beans at night, represented that he had bought the beans from another farmer

and later stated he was hauling them for a friend and was familiar with the Enderle

operation as a result of working during the harvest.

      {¶41} We also find that the record contains sufficient evidence that Giauque, with

purpose to deprive the Centerra of property or services, did knowingly obtain or exert

control over Centerra’s property by deception. (R.C. 2913.02(A)(3)). He represented to

Centerra that he purchased the beans or had authority to sell them when in fact he had

no right to the beans as they were stolen property. The fact that Centerra recouped any

loss by selling the beans is irrelevant. The statute contains no requirement that the

Appellee demonstrate that the victim of the crime was harmed; the offense was committed

upon the completion of the sale by Giauque. (R.C. 2913.02(A)(3)); Eckels v. State, 20

Ohio St. 508 (1870). The subsequent sale of the stolen property by Centerra had no

impact on Giauque’s criminal offense.

      {¶42} Giauque’s contention that there was insufficient evidence that he was using

Enderle’s gravity wagons “”for the purpose of devising or executing a scheme to defraud

or to obtain property or services" whose value exceeded $7,500” fails for the same reason
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-003                                                  15

as described above. (R.C. 2923.24(A)&(C)). The record contains sufficient evidence from

which a fact-finder may conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt that Giauque was using

Enderle’s gravity wagons to steal and sell Enderle’s grain.

      {¶43} Giauque used Enderle’s gravity wagons without his knowledge or consent

to transport and sell approximately ten thousand bushels of soy beans. Giauque told

Centerra that he purchased the beans from a farmer then explained to Enderle that he

was hauling beans for a friend, but neither alleged source appeared at the trial to

corroborate Giauque’s comments. Enderle provided testimony that his bin was missing

approximately ten thousand bushels of soy beans. After reviewing these facts and the

balance of the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that any

rational trier of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Giauque used the

stolen gravity wagons to exert control over the soy beans, falsely represented to Centerra

that he was authorized to sell the beans and that he did receive payment for

approximately ten thousand bushels of Enderle’s beans as well as several loads of corn.

The trial court did not err when it denied Giauque’s Crim.R. 29 motion to dismiss.

      {¶44} The analysis of the second assignment of error encompasses the same

facts and mandates the same conclusion. Because we have found sufficient evidence to

allow the jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Giauque committed the offenses

as charged we must then conclude that there is no evidence that the jury clearly lost its

way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be

overturned and a new trial ordered.

      {¶45} Giauque’s first and second assignments of error are overruled.
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-003                                                      16

                                               III.

       {¶46} In his third assignment of error, Giauque contends that the trial court erred

by admitting hearsay. He argues that Jason Enderle comment on redirect examination

where he stated ”they said you are missing this” (Trial Transcript p. 339, line 17) referring

to his insurance company’s evaluation of the loss that should have been excluded. He

also contends the statement of Holly Cotter should have been excluded because she

stated that the bean samples that she tested where not gathered by her and were labeled

with the location where they were found by another. Giauque acknowledges that he did

not object to these comments before the trial court and relies upon the decision in State

v. Richcreek, 6th Dist. No. WD-09-072, 196 Ohio App.3d 505, 2011-Ohio-4686, 964

N.E.2d 442 to support his contention that admitting these statements was plain error.

       {¶47} The facts of Richcreek are significantly different making the holding

inapplicable to the case before us. Richcreek was charged with rape and the evidence

presented by the state contained repeated hearsay statements that bolstered the

credibility of the victim in the context of admissible evidence that fell short of being

overwhelming in favor of conviction. That court noted:

              Generally, the admission of an isolated hearsay statement may be

       deemed harmless error. Evid.R. 103(A); Crim.R. 52(A). This conclusion is

       typically appropriate when there is substantial and independent admissible

       evidence, other than the hearsay, to prove the elements of the crime.

       However,    notwithstanding    A.L.'s      own   testimony,   the   amount   of

       inadmissible, or improperly used, hearsay in this case is significant. Multiple

       witnesses who repeat the same *528 extrajudicial statements in court
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-003                                                 17

       merely create a prejudicial reinforcing effect. A disputed statement is not

       made true simply because it is repeated. Cf. State v. Butcher, 170 Ohio

       App.3d 52, 2007-Ohio-118, 866 N.E.2d 13, ¶ 78–79.

State v. Richcreek, 6th Dist. No. WD-09-072, 196 Ohio App.3d 505, 2011-Ohio-4686, 964

N.E.2d 442, ¶ 76.

       {¶48} The statements described by Giauque may be hearsay, but we find that

they were insignificant in light of the other available evidence. With regard to Jason

Enderle’s statement that “they said you are missing this” the record shows that it occurred

during redirect immediately after cross-examination where Enderle was asked to concede

that he was compensated for his loss by the insurance company. The question during

cross-examination was different, but it would allow any reasonable fact-finder to conclude

that the insurance company evaluated the amount of the loss and paid Enderle for that

amount. Because the record shows that the price of soy beans at the time was nine

dollars per bushel and the payment was over 94,000, the insurance company’s

conclusion that Enderle suffered the loss of over ten thousand bushels of soy beans is

evident without the hearsay statement.

       {¶49} The testimony regarding the testing of the beans may have also been

inappropriately admitted but we find that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

The evidence did not prove that the beans were Enderle’s but supported a conclusion

that they beans were all from the same source. The balance of the evidence regarding

the location where beans were found on the ground, the amount of beans delivered to

Centerra and the lack of any viable alternative explanation render the weight and impact

of this evidence insignificant.
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-003                                              18

      {¶50} We find “the evidence in favor of conviction, absent the hearsay, so

overwhelming that the admission of those statements was harmless beyond a reasonable

doubt. We find the error here was not so prejudicial as to require reversal.” (Internal

citations omitted.) State v. Kidder, 32 Ohio St.3d 279, 284, 513 N.E.2d 311, 317 (1987)

      {¶51} We further reject Giauque’s contention the admission of this evidence was

plain error as we do not find exceptional circumstances or a manifest miscarriage of

justice created by their admission.

      {¶52} The third assignment of error is overruled.

      {¶53} The decision of the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

By: Baldwin, J.

Wise, Earle, P.J. and

Gwin, J. concur.