State v. Bradshaw
2018 Ohio 1105
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Garvin Bradshaw was arrested by his parole officers for alleged parole violations and transported to jail; officers warned him that conveying contraband into the jail could lead to additional charges.
- Before transport they searched the vehicle and patted Bradshaw down and found nothing; upon arrival at the jail Bradshaw was observed fidgeting and dropping a crushed cigarette pack into a trash can.
- Officers retrieved the pack and found a small baggie with a powdery substance; Bradshaw admitted it was "dope" and said he intended to deliver it to someone "in the Ville."
- A grand jury indicted Bradshaw for trafficking in heroin (R.C. 2925.03(A)(2)), possession of heroin (R.C. 2925.11(A)), and tampering with evidence (R.C. 2921.12(A)(1)).
- A jury convicted Bradshaw on all counts; the court merged possession into trafficking, sentenced him to 12 months for trafficking and 36 months for tampering, to run consecutively (total 48 months).
- On appeal Bradshaw challenged sufficiency and manifest weight for (1) tampering with evidence, and (2) possession and trafficking convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bradshaw) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove tampering with evidence (knowledge of an ongoing or likely investigation; concealment; intent to impair evidence) | Officers were investigating Bradshaw for parole violations, warned him about contraband and additional charges, so Bradshaw knew a further investigation/search was likely; he threw heroin in the trash to avoid discovery | No evidence showed Bradshaw knew any investigation into drug possession/trafficking was ongoing or likely; at most officers were processing a parole violation unrelated to the heroin | Court upheld tampering conviction: knowledge of a parole investigation and officers’ warnings supported inference Bradshaw knew further investigation/search was likely; throwing the heroin into the trash constituted concealment with intent to impair availability of evidence |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove trafficking and possession of heroin (knowing possession and delivery for sale) | Bradshaw admitted to officers he was taking the heroin to someone in the Ville (intended delivery); discarding the heroin after fidgeting showed actual constructive possession | Officers didn’t find drugs on Bradshaw during pat-down; heroin was only found in trash after he exited the vehicle, so state failed to prove he knowingly possessed or intended to traffic | Court affirmed convictions: admission of intent to deliver satisfied trafficking elements (delivery = ‘‘sale’’ under R.C.); officer testimony about fidgeting, dropping item, retrieval and Bradshaw’s admission supported knowing possession |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight review)
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (weight vs. sufficiency of evidence discussion)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Jenks v. Ohio, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (consolidated sufficiency standard under Ohio law)
- Straley v. State, 139 Ohio St.3d 339 (Ohio 2014) (tampering requires evidence related to the investigation the defendant knew was ongoing or likely)
- Barry v. State, 145 Ohio St.3d 354 (Ohio 2015) (knowledge element of tampering cannot be established solely by the fact that the act was a crime)
- Hankerson v. State, 70 Ohio St.2d 87 (Ohio 1982) (constructive possession requires consciousness of the thing’s presence)