2016 Ohio 7914
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Ian Benjamin Black was charged with possession and trafficking of ~150 hashish‑infused chocolate candy bars ("edibles") seized from his business; total weight of seized edibles exceeded 2,000 grams.
- Each edible was labeled as containing 100 mg of hashish; if only the actual hashish is counted (excluding chocolate/filler), total controlled‑substance weight would be far less than 2,000 grams, affecting felony grading.
- Black sought a court order requiring the state to provide samples to his retained expert to scientifically determine the weight of hashish in each edible and to permit reweighing.
- The state moved in limine to exclude evidence arguing (1) R.C. 2925.51 does not entitle a defendant to reweigh contraband, and (2) filler may not be separated from total weight for statutory purposes.
- The trial court granted Black’s request (and denied the state’s motion in limine) but stayed the order pending the state’s appeal to this court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2925.51 authorizes a defendant to obtain an independent reweighing of seized controlled substances | Relying on statute: no statutory right to an independent reweighing; defendant limited to independent analysis and presence at weighing only | Defendant claims R.C. 2925.51 entitles him to a representative sample for his expert to reweigh | Court: R.C. 2925.51 does not grant right to reweigh; reading that right into statute would be erroneous |
| Whether defendant may introduce evidence separating filler (chocolate) from the controlled substance weight to lower trafficking/possession grading | State: charging weight properly includes filler; statutes encompass compounds/mixtures so total weight may include non‑controlled filler | Defendant: expert can scientifically determine actual weight of hashish and exclude filler, reducing charged amount | Court: statutes covering hashish and hashish mixtures permit inclusion of filler in total charged weight; exclusion was error; state’s motion in limine should have been granted |
| Whether trial court erred in permitting the expert to possess seized edibles for reweighing (chain/possession concerns) | State: allowing defense expert to possess contraband was improper | Defendant: possession by expert necessary to perform scientific testing | Court: decision on allowing possession is moot given reversal on statutory and limine issues |
| Standard of review for admissibility and motions in limine | State: evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion | Defendant: same | Court: applied abuse of discretion standard in reviewing trial court rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 (discussing abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings)
- Illinois Controls, Inc. v. Langham, 70 Ohio St.3d 512 (motions in limine reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State ex rel. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 102 Ohio St.3d 344 (definition and standard of abuse of discretion)