## Facts

- Stephen M. Wharf stole an Isuzu Trooper from an automobile dealership in Louisville, Kentucky and drove it into Ohio.
- At a SuperAmerica gas station in Clermont County, Ohio, Wharf filled the vehicle with gasoline and drove away without paying.
- After a dispatch regarding the stolen vehicle, an Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper pursued Wharf; Wharf fled at speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour across multiple counties.
- During the chase, the trooper observed Wharf reaching into the backseat and retrieving a .22 caliber rifle.
- After officers disabled the vehicle with stop sticks, the trooper approached and testified Wharf pointed the rifle at him through the passenger-side window; the trooper shot Wharf, and Wharf was arrested.
- Wharf was indicted for aggravated robbery, but the trial court amended the charge to robbery under R.C. 2911.02(A)(1).
- At trial, Wharf requested a jury instruction requiring proof he acted recklessly regarding the “have a deadly weapon on or about the offender’s person or under the offender’s control” element; the trial court refused and instructed the jury without a mens rea for that element.
- Wharf was convicted of robbery and other offenses; the court of appeals affirmed and certified a conflict on the mens rea issue.

## Issues

1. Whether the “deadly weapon” element of robbery under R.C. 2911.02(A)(1) requires proof of recklessness.
2. Whether, if the statute is silent as to culpability for that element, Ohio’s default mens rea rule supplies recklessness absent a plain legislative intent to impose strict liability.
3. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on recklessness for the deadly-weapon element.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the deadly-weapon element in R.C. 2911.02(A)(1) does not require recklessness or any specific mens rea.
- The Court concluded the statute plainly indicates an intent to impose strict liability as to having a deadly weapon on or about the offender’s person or under the offender’s control during the theft offense.
- The Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals, leaving Wharf’s robbery conviction intact.

## Legal Principles

- Under R.C. 2901.21(B), when an offense element does not specify culpability, a mental state is not required if the statute plainly indicates an intent to impose strict criminal liability; otherwise, recklessness applies by default.
- For robbery under R.C. 2911.02(A)(1), the state need only prove that, in committing or attempting a theft offense, the offender had a deadly weapon on or about the offender’s person or under the offender’s control; no additional mental state regarding that weapon-possession/control element is required.
- A trial court does not err by declining to instruct the jury on recklessness for the deadly-weapon element of R.C. 2911.02(A)(1).

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court answered the certified conflict by holding that R.C. 2911.02(A)(1)’s deadly-weapon element is strict liability, so the prosecution need not prove recklessness (or any specific mens rea) as to having a deadly weapon during the theft, and a recklessness jury instruction on that element is unwarranted.


State v. Wharf, 86 Ohio St. 3d 375 (1999)