State v. Blevins, 2011 Ohio 3367

Blevins, a back-seat passenger, was stopped with others for a cracked windshield; multiple occupants had outstanding warrants and were arrested.
A corner piece of plastic with a trace amount of meth was found after the passenger exited the vehicle; Blevins was not shown to be conscious of or in control of it.
Extensive items in the vehicle (pseudoephedrine, starting fluid, ether, lithium batteries, tape, copper fittings, siphon pump) were linked to meth manufacture, with purchases occurring in the same time frame.
The State charged Blevins with possession of methamphetamine and possession of chemicals for the manufacture of methamphetamine; the jury convicted him on both counts.
The trial court later discharged Blevins on the methamphetamine possession charge after this appeal disputed the weight of the evidence; the chemicals charge conviction was upheld, and the court addressed ineffective assistance and evidentiary challenges on appeal.
The Court ultimately reverses the methamphetamine possession conviction, sustains the possession of chemicals conviction, and remands for discharge on the methamphetamine charge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the methamphetamine possession conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence?	Blevins argues insufficient proof of possession.	State shows proximity and dominion/control evidence.	Yes; reversed for possession of methamphetamine.
Is the chemicals-for-manufacture conviction supported by substantial evidence of possession and intent?	State showed constructive possession and intent to manufacture.	Blevins lacked direct possession or clear intent.	No; conviction sustained.
Was trial counsel ineffective for not filing Crim.R. 29(A) motion?	Yes, counsel should challenge sufficiency.	Motion would have been futile given weight of the evidence.	No; motion would have been futile; no deficient performance.
Did the trial court abuse by admitting Crispen’s testimony about Blevins’ statement?	Testimony probative of guilt and relevant to dealer/user status.	Potential prejudice; testimony lacks credibility.	No; admission not an abuse of discretion.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997-Ohio-52) (established standard for weight of the evidence and sufficiency considerations)
State v. Johnson, 58 Ohio St.3d 40 (1991) (sufficiency review standard under Ohio law)
State v. Eskridge, 38 Ohio St.3d 56 (1988) (sufficiency/weight framework and evidence evaluation)
State v. Frazier, 73 Ohio St.3d 323 (1995) (credibility and weighing witnesses in weight-of-the-evidence analysis)
Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (factors for appellate review of evidentiary rulings and weight)