State v. Butcher, 2017 Ohio 4154

Police executed a search warrant at the Canton home of Kristin Butcher and Damarcus Nicholson; officers found drug paraphernalia (press with residue, scale, syringe, burnt spoon), multiple cell phones, and surveillance equipment in the residence.
While surveilling, officers observed an orange Jeep driven by Nicholson; after the warrant execution they stopped the Jeep with Butcher as passenger and the couple’s infant in the back seat.
An inventory search of the impounded Jeep uncovered Crown Royal bags containing small baggies of suspected heroin, a digital scale, and a pill bottle with suspected heroin; Butcher’s purse contained a cell phone and one oxycodone/acetaminophen tablet.
Forensic testing identified heroin and fentanyl; text messages recovered from phones and the residence showed communications consistent with drug dealing (offers to front heroin, trades for goods, references to a dealer).
A grand jury indicted Butcher on counts of trafficking heroin, possession of heroin, aggravated trafficking (fentanyl), and aggravated possession (oxycodone); she was convicted at jury trial on the first three counts she appealed and sentenced to an aggregate 12 months.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency and weight of evidence for convictions (counts 1–3)	State: physical evidence in car + texts + items from residence prove Butcher knowingly possessed and trafficked drugs as principal or accomplice	Butcher: State failed to prove she knowingly possessed the drugs (lack of proof of intent/possession)	Court: Evidence sufficient; convictions not against manifest weight or sufficiency
Complicity (aiding and abetting)	State: texts, presence, and circumstantial evidence show she aided/encouraged and shared intent	Butcher: mere presence and travel in vehicle insufficient to prove aiding/abetting	Court: Complicity may be inferred from presence, companionship, conduct before/after and overt acts; evidence supported culpability
Knowledge standard for drug offenses	State: circumstantial evidence (texts, items) establishes knowledge/intent	Butcher: disputes that she was aware of or controlled the drugs	Court: Under R.C. 2901.22(B) knowledge can be inferred from high probability and avoidance; evidence met that standard
Standing to challenge vehicle search (not raised by State)	State: not argued on appeal	Butcher: did challenge sufficiency, not standing	Court: noted Butcher arguably lacked standing to challenge car search (no possessory interest) but did not base decision on this point

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240 (2001) (complicity requires support/assistance and shared intent; intent may be inferred)
State v. Widner, 69 Ohio St.2d 267 (1982) (mere presence at scene insufficient alone to prove aiding and abetting)
State v. Cartellone, 3 Ohio App.3d 145 (1981) (aiding and abetting may be inferred from presence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense)
State v. Sims, 10 Ohio App.3d 56 (1983) (accused must take some role in causing the offense to constitute aiding and abetting)
State v. Trocodaro, 36 Ohio App.2d 1 (1973) (overt acts of assistance, e.g., driving getaway car, can establish aiding and abetting)
State v. Lett, 160 Ohio App.3d 46 (2005) (discusses evidence supporting complicity and circumstantial proof of participation)