Case Studies
Chapter 04: Proof via Evidence
Overview— Based on: State v. Seagraves, 2010 Ohio 308, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 246 (2010).
The prosecutor brought charges against Defendant Seagraves along with two others, for committing larceny of diesel fuel from a Speedway fuel filling station on three separate dates. For its main evidence against defendants, the government presented primarily a circumstantial evidence case. The company surveillance video indicated that, on three occasions, codefendant Amorine’s white van displaying “Service Vehicle” magnetic signs was parked on top of the diesel fill cap that connected to the storage tanks. During the investigation of the filling station complaint, a detective reviewed the video and identified a Buick motor vehicle, owned by codefendant Amorine, that he determined to be a blocker for the van. On one occasion, a male resembling Defendant Seagraves was present in the station’s parking lot and seen entering the store from the direction where the van was parked. A “Crime Stoppers” tip identified Seagraves as being the male in the still photo made from one of the video recordings. A video on another occasion when diesel fuel was stolen revealed substantially the same picture. The prosecutor presented evidence that co-defendant Amorine purchased three “Service Vehicle” magnetic signs around March 6, 2008, prior to the thefts alleged in this case. In addition, on the three occasions when the white van was parked over the diesel fill cap, the store’s computer issued alarm reports showing a large loss of fuel. Police also found the white van belonging to the co-defendant, Amorine, that had been impounded in Columbus, Ohio. An inspection of the van revealed that it had been modified with additional wiring, batteries, a power inverter, and air shocks. Police also discovered that a hole had been cut in the van’s floor that would allow access to the filing station’s diesel cap.
Seagraves contended that there was no direct evidence that the filling station did not consent to the taking of the fuel, and there was only circumstantial evidence that the station had not consented to the fuel removal. Although the defendant presented an alibi defense for some of the days in question and offered evidence that he might have been present at a different Speedway on one of the dates, the jury evidently did not believe the defendant’s story and rendered a verdict of guilty for the crimes as charged.