## Facts

- Kevin Cadle entered a Home Depot store pushing an empty flat cart.
- A store employee saw Cadle in an aisle with two other men whom Home Depot employees recognized from prior theft-related problems.
- The two men selected power tools and returned with the tools to Cadle’s flat cart, which held a vanity.
- The tools were placed inside the vanity, which was later found “packed with power tools.”
- Cadle took the cart with the vanity toward the checkout/front area but did not complete a purchase.
- Cadle abandoned the cart and left the store.
- The two other men were in a van positioned to watch the door Cadle used; when Cadle exited, the van pulled out of its parking spot.
- A store employee followed Cadle across the parking lot, and the concealed tools were discovered in the vanity.
- Cadle was charged and convicted of theft. At trial, the State argued he acted with the other men as part of a coordinated shoplifting plan.
- On appeal, Cadle argued (1) the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and (2) the jury should have been instructed on attempted theft as a lesser-included offense.

## Issues

1. Was Cadle’s theft conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence?
2. Did the trial court err by refusing to instruct the jury on attempted theft as a lesser-included offense?

## Decision

- The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas.
- The court held the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The court held the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on attempted theft.

## Legal Principles

- Manifest-weight review requires an appellate court to review the record, weigh the evidence and reasonable inferences, consider witness credibility, and decide whether the jury clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice; reversal is reserved for extraordinary cases where the evidence weighs heavily against conviction.
- A defendant’s participation in an offense may be proven by circumstantial evidence, including the defendant’s presence with others involved in the crime and the defendant’s conduct before, during, and after the offense.
- Coordinated conduct—such as acting with known shoplifters, moving merchandise used to conceal other items, and timing movements with confederates waiting outside—can support an inference that the defendant acted in concert rather than innocently.
- A lesser-included-offense instruction is required only when the evidence would reasonably support both (a) acquittal on the greater offense and (b) conviction on the lesser offense.
- When the evidence presents an “either guilty of the charged offense or not guilty” choice, and no reasonable view of the evidence supports only the lesser offense, the trial court may properly refuse to instruct on the lesser offense.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Cadle’s theft conviction because the jury could reasonably find, based on the coordinated conduct inside and outside the store and the concealed tools in the vanity on Cadle’s cart, that he participated with the other men in the theft; and because the evidence did not reasonably support a verdict of attempted theft while also allowing acquittal on theft, the trial court correctly declined to give an attempt instruction.


State v. Cadle, 2008-Ohio-3639 (2008)