Yes, the Ohio Supreme Court found the indictment defective in State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St. 3d 466 (2010). The court held that the indictment was insufficient because it did not allege that the defendant acted with the mens rea (criminal intent) required for aggravated robbery.

The mens rea for aggravated robbery is that the defendant “purposely or knowingly” took or attempted to take property from the person of another by force or threat of force. The indictment in Horner did not allege that the defendant acted with either purpose or knowledge, but only that he acted “recklessly.” Recklessness is a lesser form of mens rea than purpose or knowledge, and it is not sufficient for aggravated robbery.

The court reasoned that the indictment was defective because it did not give the defendant fair notice of the charge against him. The defendant could not have known that he was facing a charge of aggravated robbery unless the indictment alleged that he acted with purpose or knowledge.

The court’s decision in Horner is important because it ensures that defendants are not convicted of crimes for which they have not been properly charged. The court also made clear that the mens rea element of a crime is an essential part of the charge, and that it cannot be waived by the defendant.

Here is a more detailed summary of the case:

• Horner was charged with aggravated robbery.
• The indictment did not allege that Horner acted with purpose or knowledge, but only that he acted recklessly.
• Horner pleaded no contest to the charge.
• Horner moved to dismiss the no contest plea, arguing that the indictment was defective.
• The trial court denied the motion.
• Horner appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
• The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and dismissed the no contest plea.

The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Horner is a reminder that the mens rea element of a crime is an essential part of the charge. Defendants cannot be convicted of crimes for which they have not been properly charged.