## Facts

- Late on December 15, 1999, Melody Kay drove to her boyfriend’s workplace, Fluid Regulators, in Painesville, Ohio.
- Kay left the vehicle unlocked and left her purse inside the car along with other items; the purse contained a Citi Bank credit card and a Bank One money card, along with additional personal property.
- Kay went inside the building for about five minutes and returned to find her purse (and other items) missing.
- A nearby resident, Tammy Mapes, heard her dogs barking and looked outside toward the parking lot area; she observed three individuals running from the area and toward nearby woods.
- Police responded and located three men in the wooded area shortly after the theft; the men were drinking beer consistent with beer reported missing from the vehicle.
- Officers ordered the men not to move; two fled and were chased and apprehended, while James T. Jennings remained at the scene but moved a short distance from where he initially stood.
- When officers returned to Jennings, they found Kay’s Citi Bank credit card and Bank One money card on the ground at Jennings’s feet.
- The State charged Jennings with two counts of receiving stolen property under Ohio Rev. Code § 2913.51, one count tied to each card.
- Before trial, the State sought to have John Jeffrey Reed called as a court’s witness under Ohio Evid.R. 614; Jennings objected, but the trial court allowed the request.
- A jury found Jennings guilty on both counts, and the trial court entered judgment of conviction; Jennings appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Jennings “received, retained, or disposed of” the stolen cards—i.e., that he had possession or control—when the cards were found on the ground at his feet and no officer saw him hold them.
2. Whether the Bank One “money card” qualified as a “credit card” under Ohio law for purposes of the charged offense level.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the State to call John Jeffrey Reed as a court’s witness under Evid.R. 614.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh Appellate District (Lake County), affirmed the convictions.
- The court held that the jury could reasonably find Jennings had possession or control of the stolen cards based on the surrounding circumstances, including the timing, location, and the cards’ discovery at his feet.
- The court rejected Jennings’s argument that the Bank One money card could not be treated as a “credit card” under the relevant statutory definition, and upheld the conviction level tied to that card.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to call Reed as a court’s witness under Evid.R. 614.

## Legal Principles

- On a sufficiency challenge, the reviewing court considers whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
- For receiving stolen property under Ohio Rev. Code § 2913.51, the state may prove “receiving” or “retaining” through circumstantial evidence; direct proof that the defendant physically handled the property is not required.
- Constructive possession may be inferred when evidence shows the defendant was in a position to exercise dominion or control over the property, particularly when proximity is coupled with other facts linking the defendant to the theft or the stolen items.
- A bank “money card” may fall within Ohio’s statutory definition of a “credit card” depending on how the statute defines that term and how the card functions as an access device tied to funds or credit.
- A trial court has discretion under Ohio Evid.R. 614 to call a witness as the court’s witness in appropriate circumstances; appellate review is for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

State v. Jennings, 2002 Ohio 7266 (2002), affirmed two receiving-stolen-property convictions where the victim’s credit and money cards were found at the defendant’s feet shortly after the theft and the circumstances supported an inference of constructive possession, and it also upheld treating the bank money card as a “credit card” under Ohio law and found no abuse of discretion in calling a witness as the court’s witness under Evid.R. 614.
