State v. Thompson
185 Ohio App.3d 639, 925 N.E.2d 188 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To convict a person for carrying a concealed deadly weapon for an object that is not designed as a weapon, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person possessed, carried, or used the object as a weapon.
Facts:
- Larry W. Thompson was employed as a bricklayer by Roy Williams's company.
- As part of his job, Thompson used a sharp-edged knife to cut the thick fiberglass bands on bundles of bricks.
- On September 6, 2008, police were dispatched to a residence on a report of a disorderly subject.
- Upon arrival, police observed Thompson, who matched the description, leaving the residence and appearing intoxicated.
- The officers approached Thompson and asked if he had any weapons on him.
- Thompson admitted he had a knife in his pocket.
- The officer retrieved the knife, which was unsheathed with its blade pointing up, and found the sheath in another of Thompson's pockets.
- Thompson's employer later identified the knife as a work tool, noting it was bent in a way consistent with its use in bricklaying.
Procedural Posture:
- Larry W. Thompson was charged in Dayton Municipal Court with carrying a concealed weapon, a first-degree misdemeanor.
- Thompson was tried in a bench trial (trial by judge, without a jury).
- During the trial, Thompson's counsel made a motion for acquittal, arguing the state failed to prove the knife was a deadly weapon; the motion was overruled.
- The trial court found Thompson guilty of the charge.
- Thompson was sentenced to 30 days in jail and a $500 fine, with the jail sentence and a portion of the fine suspended in favor of two years of community control.
- Thompson, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the Ohio Court of Appeals, Second District, Montgomery County.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person knowingly carry a concealed 'deadly weapon' in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(1) when they carry a knife that is a common work tool, and there is no evidence that the person intended to use it as a weapon?
Opinions:
Majority - Donovan, Presiding Judge
No. A person does not carry a concealed 'deadly weapon' merely by possessing a concealed work tool that could be capable of inflicting death, absent evidence that it was designed, adapted, possessed, carried, or used as a weapon. The court applied the test from State v. Sears, which requires the prosecution to prove that an instrument is (1) capable of inflicting death and either (2) designed or specially adapted for use as a weapon, or (3) possessed, carried, or used as a weapon. While Thompson's knife was capable of inflicting death, the state failed to meet its burden to prove the second part of the test. The testimony of Thompson's employer established a peaceful, occupational use for the knife. The circumstances of the arrest, which occurred during the day and did not involve any threatening behavior with the knife, did not support an inference that he carried it as a weapon. Therefore, the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of concealed weapon statutes as applied to multi-use items like knives or tools. It establishes that the prosecution must prove a 'weapon-like' element, either in the object's design or the defendant's intent, beyond the object's mere capacity to cause harm. This precedent serves to protect individuals who carry common tools for occupational or benign purposes from being automatically prosecuted for carrying a concealed weapon. The ruling reinforces that the burden of proof remains squarely on the state to demonstrate criminal purpose, preventing convictions based solely on the possession of a potentially dangerous but legitimate tool.
