State v. Burns, 2016 Ohio 7375

Background

On August 12, 2014 Mansfield drug task force officers investigated two women attempting to purchase pseudoephedrine; identification left at the pharmacy tied one woman to 739 Bowman Street.
Officers obtained verbal consent to search 739 Bowman; present were Joanne Burns, her husband, co-defendant Tracy Isaac, and two minor children (≈5–6 and ≈12).
In the basement officers found items consistent with a one‑pot methamphetamine cook (rubber tubing, Coleman fuel, peeled lithium batteries, cold packs, ammonia test positive); a liquid seized was later tested and identified by the crime lab as methamphetamine.
Burns was indicted for (1) illegal manufacture of methamphetamine within the vicinity of a school zone/juvenile, (2) possession/assembly of chemicals to manufacture meth within that vicinity, and (3–4) two counts of child endangering. Jury convicted on all counts; court imposed a mandatory 10‑year term on Count One (other terms merged or concurrent).
Pretrial, State disclosed the lab report identifying methamphetamine only six days before trial; Burns moved in limine to exclude the report and testimony. The court denied the motion; Burns also challenged joinder and later filed a Rule 29 motion for acquittal after verdict.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence (Counts 1–2: manufacture; possession of chemicals)	State argued evidence (NPLEX purchase history, lab identification of meth, drug‑making items in basement, Burns’s access to basement) supports knowledge and intent	Burns argued State failed to prove she knew about or participated in manufacture or possessed chemicals	Affirmed as to Counts 1–2: viewed in prosecution’s favor, a rational juror could find elements proved beyond reasonable doubt
Sufficiency of evidence (Counts 3–4: child endangering)	State argued children lived at the residence where meth lab items were discovered and statute requires being on same parcel and within 100 feet of the illegal act	Burns argued State failed to prove the children were within 100 feet of the meth lab or in the basement	Reversed as to Counts 3–4: insufficient evidence on the statutory 100‑foot element
Ineffective assistance re: failure to renew objection to joinder	State argued joinder was proper (same act/series of acts) and Burns showed no prejudice from joinder	Burns argued counsel’s failure to renew objection constituted ineffective assistance	Denied: court found joinder appropriate and Burns failed to show prejudice or that the motion would have been granted
Exclusion of lab report/expert (Crim.R.16 late disclosure)	State argued Burns had prior notice that a liquid was seized and could have tested it; late disclosure was not willful and no prejudice shown	Burns argued late expert disclosure precluded independent testing and deprived ability to obtain counter‑expert; sought exclusion under Crim.R.16	Denied: court exercised discretion, found no willfulness and no showing of prejudice; least severe sanction unnecessary
Admission of prior NPLEX purchase history	State argued NPLEX business‑records evidence was relevant to knowledge/possession and properly authenticated	Burns argued remote prior purchases were prejudicial "other‑acts" evidence irrelevant to the charged date	Affirmed: NPLEX testimony admitted as business records and relevant to knowledge/possession; no Evid.R. 404(B) abuse

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1978) (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (sufficiency vs. manifest weight distinction)
State v. Monroe, 105 Ohio St.3d 384 (Ohio 2005) (sufficiency review standard phrasing)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective‑assistance test)
City of Lakewood v. Papadelis, 32 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1987) (factors for Crim.R.16 violation remedies)
State v. Wiles, 59 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1991) (trial court discretion for Crim.R.16 sanctions)