State v. Brown, 268 N.E.3d 424

Kenneth Brown was prosecuted in Henry County, Ohio, for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity under R.C. 2923.32 as part of a drug-selling enterprise based in Lucas County.
The Tecumseh Street Gang, of which Brown and his nephews were members, operated a cocaine distribution network primarily in Lucas County.
Alexandria Armijo, not a core member but associated with the enterprise, bought cocaine from the Tecumseh Street Gang and resold it in Henry County, sometimes on credit.
Law enforcement conducted several controlled drug buys involving Armijo, who purchased cocaine from Brown’s nephew and transported it to Henry County for resale.
Brown was convicted in Henry County, and on appeal, he argued that venue there was improper because Armijo’s activities should not connect back to his enterprise.
The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed Brown’s conviction, leading to a further discretionary appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court focused on the sufficiency of the evidence for venue.

Issue	Brown's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether venue in Henry County was proper for Brown’s prosecution under R.C. 2923.32	Armijo was merely a customer, not part of the drug enterprise; thus, Henry County activity cannot be attributed to Brown’s enterprise	Armijo’s recurring, credit-based resale activity with the enterprise made her part of it; thus, enterprise activity extended to Henry County	Venue proper since Armijo’s actions in Henry County were on behalf of the same enterprise
Sufficiency of evidence linking Armijo to the enterprise	No proof she was part of the enterprise; she decided whom to sell to and kept profits	Armijo’s repeated buys, fronting, and agreement to resell for profit tied her to the enterprise	Sufficient evidence Armijo was associated with the enterprise
Manifest weight of the evidence supporting venue	Jury erred; evidence failed to show enterprise activity in Henry County	Jury could reasonably infer conspiracy from the pattern, frequency, and credit-basis of Armijo’s dealings	Conviction not against the manifest weight; no jury error
Applicability of R.C. 2923.32’s broad definition of “enterprise”	Armijo wasn’t a formal member or under control; should not count as enterprise activity	R.C. 2923.32 includes loosely associated actors if there’s an enterprise-related agreement	Armijo qualified as associated in fact; agreement and conduct sufficient

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Sufficiency of evidence standard in criminal prosecutions)
State v. Beverly, 2015-Ohio-219 (Definition of "enterprise" under Ohio’s RICO statute)
State v. Thompkins, 1997-Ohio-52 (Manifest weight of the evidence review standard)
State v. Stewart, 176 Ohio St. 156 (Ordinary scope for manifest weight review in Ohio criminal cases)