State v. Barry (Slip Opinion), 145 Ohio St. 3d 354

Chelsey Barry concealed a condom containing 56.36 grams of heroin in her vaginal cavity at others' direction while traveling; she admitted she hid the drugs so police would not find them and that she knew possessing and concealing heroin was a crime.
Hours later, Ohio State Trooper Nick Lewis stopped Barry’s vehicle in Scioto County for erratic driving and smelled marijuana; after questioning, Barry produced the heroin.
Barry was indicted for trafficking, possession, conspiracy, and tampering with evidence; a jury convicted her of all counts.
At trial the court instructed the jury that committing an “unmistakable crime” gives the offender constructive knowledge of an impending investigation (the “unmistakable crime” instruction).
The Fourth District affirmed the tampering conviction, relying on the unmistakable-crime doctrine; Barry appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which accepted review on a certified conflict with State v. Cavalier.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the tampering conviction, holding that proof that the conduct was an unmistakable crime does not establish the knowledge element of tampering with evidence; the State must prove the defendant knew an investigation was pending or likely when the evidence was concealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Barry)	Held
Whether committing an “unmistakable crime” supplies the knowledge element for tampering with evidence	Unmistakable crime gives constructive knowledge that an investigation is likely, satisfying the R.C. 2921.12(A)(1) knowledge element	Constructive knowledge cannot be imputed from committing a crime; State must prove the defendant subjectively knew an investigation was pending or likely	No — Ohio does not recognize the unmistakable-crime doctrine for tampering; State must prove the defendant knew an investigation was pending or likely at the time of concealment
Whether Barry’s tampering conviction was supported by sufficient evidence given timing/location of concealment	Barry continued concealing after the stop and after warnings, so she had knowledge of likely investigation	At the time she concealed the drugs (in Middletown) she lacked awareness that an investigation was likely; later warnings do not retroactively supply knowledge	Conviction not supported: no evidence Barry subjectively believed an investigation was likely when she initially concealed the heroin

State v. Straley, 11 N.E.3d 1175 (Ohio 2014) (tampered evidence must be relevant to an ongoing or likely investigation; likelihood measured at time of tampering)
State v. White, 29 N.E.3d 939 (Ohio 2015) (jury instructions must correctly state law and fit the facts)