Opinion
2022 CA 0034
07-21-2023
STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff - Appellee v. ANDREW T. PRIEST, Defendant-Appellant
For Plaintiff-Appellee BENJAMIN E. HALL Assistant Prosecuting Attorney For Defendant-Appellant TODD W. BARSTOW
Appeal from the Coshocton County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2022 CR 0043
For Plaintiff-Appellee
BENJAMIN E. HALL
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
For Defendant-Appellant
TODD W. BARSTOW
JUDGES: Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
OPINION
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} The appellant, who was found guilty by a jury on one count of aggravated possession of drugs, appeals his conviction. Appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE
{¶2} On or about March 2, 2022, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant upon the appellant at a trailer located at 420 N. Oak Street in West Lafayette, Ohio, at which the appellant, who also had an active arrest warrant, had been staying off and on for the preceding month. The trailer was owned by the appellant's ex-girlfriend, Hayley Mardis, who had purchased a new home and was no longer staying at the trailer. Both Mardis and the appellant consented to a search of the trailer.
{¶3} The trailer had a kitchen and a living room which were separated by a couch. The appellant's jacket was found on the couch, and the appellant admitted that he had slept on the couch the night before. The stove was located a couple of steps from the couch. An unlocked lock box was found on the stove in which Methamphetamine was found. Other items belonging to the appellant were also found on the stove, including a piece of paper upon which the email address Priest85@yahoo.com was written, a 2021 W-2 belonging the appellant which had been issued in January of 2022, and paperwork from Coshocton County Job and Family Services for the appellant and another woman. Also found inside the unlocked lockbox were syringes, a couple of scales, male jewelry, a tongue ring, a broken smoking device used to ingest or smoke methamphetamine, a necklace, and a ring.
{¶4} On March 21, 2022, the appellant was indicted on one count of aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and R.C. 2925.11(C)(1)(b), a felony of the third degree. The matter proceeded to jury trial on November 8, 2022. The following testimony and evidence was adduced at trial.
{¶5} Detective Matt Woitel of the Coshocton County Sheriffs Office, Narcotics Unit, testified that he executed the search warrant upon the appellant at the trailer, and obtained both his consent and that of Ms. Mardis to conduct a search of the trailer. He testified that he found methamphetamine in the unlocked lockbox on the stove, surrounded by items belonging to the appellant. Detective Woitel identified photographs of the trailer, including photos of the inside of the trailer depicting the proximity of the couch were the appellant's clothing was found to the stove on which the unlocked lockbox and other of appellant's items were located. The appellant argued that the methamphetamine was not his, but rather, belonged to someone else. Officer Woitel testified that he did not find methamphetamine in any other room of the trailer; it was found only a couple of steps from where the appellant had slept the night before, surrounded by other items belonging to him.
{¶6} Hayley Mardis testified that she was the appellant's ex-girlfriend, and they had two children together. Ms. Mardis testified that while she owned the trailer in question, she no longer lived there, having moved into a new home a couple of months earlier. She testified that the appellant had a key to the trailer, and that she permitted him to stay there periodically. She testified that during their relationship she knew him to wear a tongue ring. She further testified that she visited the trailer after the appellant's arrest, and noted his clothing in the living room and kitchen areas. Finally, she testified that she did not have any methamphetamine in the trailer.
{¶7} Sergeant Dave Stone of the Coshocton County Sheriffs Office, Narcotics Unit, testified that he is a K-9 Officer, and that he and his K-9 partner assisted in the search of the trailer on March 2, 2022, where methamphetamine was found. He identified his body-cam footage of the K-9 search, which was played for the jury.
{¶8} Mark Hiatt of the Central Ohio Regional Crime Lab testified regarding his forensic analysis of the drugs taken from the search of the trailer, identifying them as methamphetamine.
{¶9} The appellee rested and Exhibits 1 through 20 were admitted into evidence. The appellant moved for acquittal pursuant to Crim. R. 29, which was denied, and the parties presented closing arguments. The trial court thereafter instructed the jury, which included the following instruction on "knowingly possess":
What is "knowingly"? A person acts knowingly, regardless of his purpose, when the person is aware that the person's conduct will probably cause a certain result or be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when the person is aware that such circumstances probably exist. Because you cannot look in the mind of another, knowledge is determined from all the facts and circumstances in evidence. You will determine from these facts and circumstances whether there existed at the time in the mind of the defendant an awareness that he was in possession of methamphetamine.
What does "possess" mean? "Possess" means having control over a thing or substance, but may not be inferred solely from mere access to the thing or substance through ownership or occupation of the premises upon
which the thing or substance is found. Therefore, the mere presence of a person at a residence where methamphetamine is discovered is not enough to support the element of possession. If the evidence demonstrates that the defendant was able to exercise dominion or control over the illegal substance, the defendant can be convicted of possession.
{¶10} The jury deliberated for approximately one hour, and returned with a guilty verdict.
{¶11} The appellant filed a timely appeal in which he sets forth the following sole assignment of error:
{¶12} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE ONE SECTION TEN OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION BY FINDING HIM GUILTY OF AGGRAVATED POSSESSION OF DRUGS AS THAT VERDICT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND WAS ALSO AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE."
{¶13} The appellant argues that his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence, and that it was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶14} Sufficiency of the evidence was addressed by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Worley, 164 Ohio St.3d. 589, 2021-Ohio-2207, 174 N.E.3d 754:
The test for sufficiency of the evidence is "whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a
reasonable doubt." State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 102, 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997), fn. 4, and following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)." Proof beyond a reasonable doubt' is proof of such character that an ordinary person would be willing to rely and act upon it in the most important of the person's own affairs." R.C. 2901.05(E). A sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge asks whether the evidence adduced at trial "is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law." State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512, 2011-Ohio-4215, 954 N.E.2d 596, ¶ 219.Id. at ¶57.
{¶15} Thus, a review of the constitutional sufficiency of evidence to support a criminal conviction requires a court of appeals to determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
{¶16} Manifest weight of the evidence, on the other hand, addresses the evidence's effect of inducing belief. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386-387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated by State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 684 N.E.2d 668, 1997-Ohio-355. The Thompkins Court stated:
Weight of the evidence concerns "the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the
issue rather than the other. It indicates clearly to the jury that the party having the burden of proof will be entitled to their verdict, if, on weighing the evidence in their minds, they shall find the greater amount of credible evidence sustains the issue which is to be established before them. Weight is not a question of mathematics, but depends on its effect in inducing belief." (Emphasis added.) Black's, supra, at 1594.Id. at 387.
{¶17} The Court stated further:
When a court of appeals reverses a judgment of a trial court on the basis that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the appellate court sits as a" 'thirteenth juror'" and disagrees with the factfinder's resolution of the conflicting testimony. Tibbs, 457 U.S. at 42, 102 S.Ct. at 2218, 72 L.Ed.2d at 661. See, also, State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 20 OBR 215, 219, 485 N.E.2d 717, 720-721 ("The court, reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. The discretionary power to grant a new trial should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.").Id.
{¶18} Furthermore, "[I]n determining whether the judgment below is manifestly against the weight of the evidence, every reasonable intendment and every reasonable presumption must be made in favor of the judgment and the finding of facts. * * *
{¶19} "If the evidence is susceptible of more than one construction, the reviewing court is bound to give it that interpretation which is consistent with the verdict and judgment, most favorable to sustaining the verdict and judgment." Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984), fn. 3, quoting 5 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d, Appellate Review, Section 60, at 191-192 (1978).
ANALYSIS
{¶20} The appellant argues that his conviction on the charge of aggravated possession of drugs was not based upon sufficient evidence, and was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree.
{¶21} Aggravated possession of drugs is defined by R.C. 2925.11, which states in pertinent part:
(A) No person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use a controlled substance or a controlled substance analog.
* * *
(C) Whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of one of the following:
(1) If the drug involved in the violation is a compound, mixture, preparation, or substance included in schedule I or II, with the exception of marihuana, cocaine, L.S.D., heroin, any fentanyl-related compound, hashish, and any controlled substance analog, whoever violates division (A)
of this section is guilty of aggravated possession of drugs. The penalty for the offense shall be determined as follows: * * * (b) If the amount of the drug involved equals or exceeds the bulk amount but is less than five times the bulk amount, aggravated possession of drugs is a felony of the third degree, and there is a presumption for a prison term for the offense.
{¶22} The jury heard testimony from several law enforcement officers involved in the search and arrest of the appellant, as well as the forensic analyst regarding the methamphetamine. The jury was presented with photographic, video, and audio evidence in support of the allegations against the appellant. In addition, the jury heard testimony from Hayley Mardis, the owner of the trailer at which the appellant had been staying at the time of his arrest, which established that he had a key to the trailer and thus had unrestricted access to the trailer. Further, Ms. Mardis testified that she no longer lived in the trailer, and that she did not have any methamphetamine in the trailer.
{¶23} The jury weighed the evidence, heard the testimony of the witnesses, and was in the best position to ascertain the veracity of the witnesses and credibility of the evidence.
{¶24} We find, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, that any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime of aggravated possession of drugs beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, the evidence adduced at trial is legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict as a matter of law, and the jury's finding that the appellant was guilty of aggravated possession of drugs is therefore supported by sufficient evidence.
{¶25} Furthermore, after a review of the entire record made with every reasonable intendment and every reasonable presumption in favor of the judgment, we cannot say that the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. As such, we find that the jury's verdict is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
CONCLUSION
{¶26} The appellant's conviction for aggravated possession of drugs was supported by sufficient evidence, and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellant's sole assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the Coshocton County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Baldwin, J. Wise, John, P.J. and Delaney, J. concur.