## Facts

- Michael W. Arnold was in a convenience store when a manager/employee observed him remove four packages of bacon from a cooler.
- Arnold placed the bacon inside his coat, concealing the merchandise while still inside the store.
- After noticing he was being watched, Arnold returned the bacon to the cooler.
- Arnold left the store without taking the bacon outside and without paying for it.
- The State charged Arnold with attempted theft under Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.02.

## Issues

1. Whether concealing merchandise inside a store, without exiting the premises, constitutes a “substantial step” sufficient for attempted theft under Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.02.
2. Whether a defendant avoids attempt liability by abandoning the criminal purpose after taking a substantial step, when the abandonment occurs only upon realizing the conduct has been detected.

## Decision

- The municipal court found Arnold guilty of attempted theft.
- The court held that removing the bacon from the cooler and concealing it inside Arnold’s coat constituted a substantial step toward theft, exceeding mere preparation.
- The court rejected abandonment/renunciation as a defense because the attempt was complete once intent and an overt act (substantial step) were shown.
- The court found as a fact that Arnold abandoned the criminal enterprise only upon discovery by store personnel, which did not negate attempt liability.

## Legal Principles

- Under Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.02, attempt requires purpose/knowledge plus conduct constituting a substantial step toward the offense, not mere preparation.
- Concealment of store merchandise on the defendant’s person while inside the store can constitute a substantial step toward theft.
- Once criminal intent is formed and coupled with an overt act/substantial step toward the offense, abandonment is not a defense to criminal attempt.
- Abandonment prompted by detection or fear of apprehension does not defeat attempt liability.

## Conclusion

The court held that Arnold’s concealment of merchandise inside the store was a substantial step toward theft and that returning the goods only after being observed did not provide an abandonment defense; he was therefore guilty of attempted theft under Ohio law.


State v. Arnold, 9 Ohio Misc. 2d 14 (Hamilton Cty. M.C. 1983)