State v. Acevedo, 2016 Ohio 7344

Officers executed a search warrant at 3237 Charleston Ave. (a multiunit family compound) and found Luis Acevedo sleeping in a locked bedroom.
In Acevedo’s bedroom police recovered a handgun, digital scales, sandwich baggies, ~40 g marijuana, men’s clothing and shoe boxes, and a small locked Sentry safe.
After obtaining a warrant to open the safe, officers found mason jars of marijuana, a bag with ~44 g of heroin, razor blades, and other drug-related items.
Acevedo was indicted for trafficking, possession of heroin, possession of marijuana, and possessing criminal tools; jury acquitted him of trafficking but convicted him of possession of heroin, possession of marijuana, possessing criminal tools, and a gun specification.
Trial evidence emphasized: the room was locked; the safe sat 4–6 feet from Acevedo’s bed in an open closet with men’s clothing and mail addressed to him; Acevedo said the room was his but disclaimed ownership of the safe and became agitated when it was produced.
The court affirmed convictions, rejecting sufficiency and manifest-weight challenges to the possession-of-heroin conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Acevedo)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for possession of heroin	Evidence supported constructive possession: locked bedroom, proximity of safe to bed, men’s clothes and mail in closet, scales/paraphernalia, Acevedo lived there and reacted defensively when safe shown.	Insufficient proof of dominion/control over safe contents because no evidence Acevedo had a key or otherwise could access locked safe; relied on State v. Graves.	Held: Sufficient evidence supports constructive possession; lack of key not dispositive. Verdict affirmed.
Manifest weight of the evidence	Jury could reasonably credit State witnesses and physical evidence showing dominion and control.	Verdict against manifest weight: alternative innocent explanation that Acevedo merely slept at grandmother’s home where Romero hid contraband; conflicts in testimony.	Held: Weight challenge fails—jury did not lose its way; credibility conflicts resolved in State’s favor.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (clarifies standard for reviewing sufficiency and weight of evidence)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sets Jackson/Jenks standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Hankerson, 70 Ohio St.2d 87 (1982) (constructive possession defined as dominion and control)
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist. 1986) (sets the manifest-weight standard and the "trier of fact did not lose its way" test)
Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12 (1988) (presumption in favor of trial court’s findings on review)
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982) (describes appellate court as the "thirteenth juror" when reviewing weight issues)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1st Dist. 1983) (reversal for manifest weight only in exceptional cases)
State v. Ruby, 149 Ohio App.3d 541 (2002) (emphasizes authority over object, not mere access, for constructive possession)