State v. Armour, 2022 Ohio 2717

Background

A confidential informant made three controlled buys from 543 E. Second St., Lima (last on July 22, 2020); the CI did not testify at trial.
Police obtained a warrant and executed it July 24, 2020; Armour and his partner Lexus Becker were on the second-floor landing outside the east bedroom when officers entered.
Inside the east bedroom officers found: a loaded firearm on the bed, matching ammunition in a black case, $9,111 in cash (including bills used in the controlled buys), ~211 g methamphetamine (in multiple packages), 9.81 g fentanyl‑related compound, heroin, and small amounts of cocaine; Armour acknowledged staying in the room the prior night.
Armour told police the money belonged to him and/or Becker and admitted he used fentanyl but denied knowledge of the drugs or gun; an ID with name similar to Armour was found in the room and a digital scale was recovered.
Armour was tried on consolidated indictments for multiple drug and weapons offenses, convicted on most counts, sentenced to consecutive prison terms, and appealed asserting: (1) improperly admitted hearsay, (2) improper prosecutor reference to that hearsay in closing, and (3) convictions against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of an officer repeating a CI’s out‑of‑court statement (why officers delayed executing warrant)	State: Officer testimony was non‑hearsay to explain the next investigative step; the court can admit limited testimony under Ricks/McKelton.	Armour: The officer’s repetition of the CI’s statement was testimonial hearsay implicating the Confrontation Clause and prejudicial; limiting instruction insufficient.	Court: Overruled; even if erroneous, admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (jury could rely on other evidence tying Armour to room contents).
Prosecutor’s reference to the CI‑based testimony during closing	State: Counsel’s comment summarized evidence and inferences; defense had previously used the CI info; prosecutor’s remark was not improper.	Armour: Prosecutor treated inadmissible hearsay as substantive evidence contrary to the limiting instruction, prejudicing the jury.	Court: Overruled; defense had elicited the CI info without objection and used it; prosecutor’s comments were not reversible misconduct and any error was non‑prejudicial.
Manifest‑weight challenge to constructive possession of drugs and firearm	State: Circumstantial evidence (proximity, large quantities, buy money in same bundle, Armour’s admissions) supports constructive possession beyond mere presence.	Armour: He was only on the landing, others in the house could own the items; presence alone insufficient to prove dominion and control.	Court: Affirmed convictions; jury reasonably credited circumstantial evidence and Armour’s statements, and did not clearly lose its way.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (appellate court as thirteenth juror when reviewing manifest‑weight claims)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (trial court affords discretion on witness credibility)
State v. Ricks, 136 Ohio St.3d 356 (2013) (limits on using out‑of‑court statements to explain police conduct)
State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 (2016) (Confrontation Clause and review of hearsay used to explain investigative steps)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements and the Confrontation Clause)
Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (requirements for admission of out‑of‑court statements and confrontation implications)
State v. Hankerson, 70 Ohio St.2d 87 (1982) (constructive possession may be proven by circumstantial evidence)