In re M.D.
2016 Ohio 5393
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Jan. 13, 2015 M.D. exchanged texts with cousin Brandy Amaro to help obtain $40 worth of heroin; M.D. contacted Brandon Barton who relayed to Tydon Beaver, who had a contact to sell.
- M.D., Amaro, Barton, and Beaver drove to meet the seller; M.D. acted as an intermediary but did not visibly handle the drug during the brief transaction.
- After returning to Barton’s house, Amaro went home; the next morning she was found dead from recent heroin use (autopsy confirmed heroin ingestion and a fresh IV puncture).
- Detective charged juvenile M.D. with delinquency for involuntary manslaughter (as proximate result of felony), trafficking in heroin (complicity), and corrupting another with drugs; juvenile court adjudicated delinquent and committed M.D. to DYS for a minimum year.
- M.D. appealed asserting: (1) trafficking-by-complicity is a legal fiction as a purchaser’s agent; (2) insufficient evidence for trafficking and manslaughter; (3) temporal and causal gap between sale and death; (4) insufficient evidence she "furnished" drugs.
- The Ninth District affirmed on all counts, finding (a) aiding/abetting a link-in-the-supply-chain supports trafficking, (b) texts and circumstantial evidence supported that a sale occurred and M.D. acted knowingly, (c) heroin obtained was a reasonably foreseeable proximate cause of death, and (d) providing a source/ride constituted "furnishing."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether M.D. can be complicit in trafficking when she only aided purchaser | M.D.: purchaser’s agent cannot be charged with trafficking; she merely assisted her cousin buy drugs | State: anyone who is a link in the supply chain can be guilty of offering to sell via complicity | Held: Overruled — aiding/abetting a link in the chain supports trafficking (no purchaser-agent defense) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for trafficking (complicity) | M.D.: lacked mens rea and identity/knowledge of seller; Barton didn’t see sale | State: texts, communications, ride, post-transaction text and possession circumstantially show knowing assistance | Held: Overruled — evidence, viewed in prosecution’s favor, was sufficient to prove complicity |
| Sufficiency of evidence for involuntary manslaughter (proximate cause) | M.D.: sale ~12 hours before death and ~10 hours since last contact—too speculative to connect death to her conduct | State: fresh IV marks, paraphernalia, timeline, and circumstantial link make heroin purchase a direct, foreseeable cause | Held: Overruled — circumstantial evidence supported proximate causation for involuntary manslaughter |
| Sufficiency of evidence for corrupting another with drugs ("furnish") | M.D.: did not directly give or sell drugs; "furnish" should mean supplying/giving | State: furnishing includes providing access/source and assistance that enables another to obtain drugs | Held: Overruled — providing source, ride, and assistance constituted furnishing under the statute |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Scott, 69 Ohio St.2d 439 (Ohio 1982) (holding a middleman/link can be treated as offering to sell)
- State v. Latina, 13 Ohio App.3d 182 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (no "agent of the purchaser" defense for trafficking)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review; circumstantial evidence has same probative value as direct evidence)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard of review for sufficiency and appellate review principles)