## Facts

- Sally Rizer stood outside a parked car, waiting to get in.
- Duane Weaver ran up behind Rizer and pulled her purse from her shoulder.
- Rizer was holding onto the purse strap as the purse was taken.
- The state’s evidence was that the strap became detached during the taking and was left behind, while Weaver fled with the purse.
- Weaver was indicted for robbery, theft, and forgery arising from the purse-snatching and later use of items taken.
- At trial, Rizer identified a strap as the one she held when the purse was snatched.
- The jury found Weaver guilty on the charged offenses, and Weaver appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove robbery, specifically that Weaver used or threatened the immediate use of “force” while committing a theft offense.
2. Whether the trial court’s jury instruction on “force” should have required a showing of actual or potential physical harm.

## Decision

- The court of appeals held the evidence was insufficient to prove the “force” element required for robbery based on the purse-snatching as described at trial.
- The court vacated the robbery conviction and left standing the jury’s necessary finding on the lesser-included offense of misdemeanor theft.
- The case was remanded for resentencing consistent with the modified theft conviction.
- Because the robbery conviction could not stand on sufficiency grounds, any dispute about the wording of the “force” instruction did not change the outcome.

## Legal Principles

- Robbery under Ohio law requires proof that, in committing or attempting a theft offense, the defendant used or threatened the immediate use of force; a sudden taking from the person, without more, may fail to satisfy that element.
- On sufficiency review, the question is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational factfinder could find each element proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
- When the evidence fails to support the greater offense but supports a lesser-included offense necessarily found by the jury’s verdict, an appellate court may vacate the greater conviction and enter judgment on the lesser-included offense, then remand for resentencing.

## Conclusion

The appellate court concluded that the purse-snatching evidence—including that Rizer held the strap and the strap detached—did not supply proof of the “force” element needed for robbery, so it vacated the robbery conviction, entered judgment for the lesser-included offense of misdemeanor theft, and remanded for resentencing.


State v. Weaver, 1993 WL 441799 (1993)