State v. Adams, 2013 Ohio 4639

Richard D. Adams lived in the residential portion of a head shop and had two roommates; police executed a search warrant on November 11, 2011.
Officers forced entry into a locked bedroom after hearing movement and a voice saying "wait a minute," and found Adams alone inside.
Items in the bedroom included mail addressed to Adams, two jars later identified as MDPV ("bath salts"), three digital scales, spoons with residue, and blue/green pills; a separate tan amphetamine tablet was found in the kitchen.
Lab testing identified the jars as MDPV (Schedule I); the tan pill was an amphetamine (Schedule II); the blue/green pills were Alprazolam and Clonazepam (Schedule IV).
Adams was indicted on two counts of aggravated possession (MDPV and the amphetamine) and one count of possession (the benzodiazepines); he was acquitted on the amphetamine count but convicted of the others and sentenced to five years community control.
On appeal Adams challenged the sufficiency and weight of the evidence for constructive possession of MDPV and argued the timing of criminalization and an asserted implied "grace period" warranted acquittal or benefit of doubt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish constructive possession of MDPV	State: Adams was alone in a locked bedroom with mail addressed to him, jars of MDPV, scales and spoons with residue — circumstantial evidence of dominion and control	Adams: alternative, equally reasonable inference that the drugs were being stored for disposal after recent criminalization; lack of direct proof he knowingly possessed them after they became illegal	Court: Affirmed — totality of circumstances (locked room, alone, mail, paraphernalia with residue) supported constructive possession and knowing possession
Whether the recent criminalization of "bath salts" or an implied grace period negates knowing possession	State: timing does not negate knowing possession; evidence showed intentional control regardless of when substance became illegal	Adams: argued he should get benefit of doubt because substance was criminalized only ~3 weeks earlier and could have been being prepared for disposal	Court: Rejected — no evidence supporting the disposal inference; legislature chose not to provide a grace period and court will not engraft one; defendant had months between enactment and the search to dispose but did not

State v. Brooks, 113 Ohio App.3d 88 (6th Dist.) (constructive possession focuses on dominion and control rather than physical contact)
Pratte v. Stewart, 125 Ohio St.3d 473 (Ohio 2010) (courts may not add statutory tolling or grace periods the legislature chose not to include)