State v. Butcher
2018 Ohio 4943
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Donte J. Butcher (aka “Stacks”) was tried for selling drugs that caused two overdoses and for related trafficking; a supplemental indictment charged failure to appear and witness intimidation (the latter later dismissed).
- Victims Dalton Lewis and Jason Beck purchased drugs at a Meridian Street house; Beck testified he saw Butcher hand the buyer a package; both men later identified Butcher from a photo array.
- Lewis later overdosed twice (once immediately after the purchase and again after using the remaining substance the next day); forensic testing detected fentanyl on a straw recovered from Lewis’s clothing.
- Jury convicted Butcher of two counts of corrupting another with drugs (R.C. 2925.02(A)(1) and (A)(3)) and two counts of aggravated trafficking (R.C. 2925.03(A)); convicted of failure to appear was also entered but the State conceded insufficient evidence for that count.
- Trial court imposed an aggregate 11-year sentence including mandatory five‑year terms on the two corrupting-with-drugs counts; the court also issued a no-contact order and monetary sanctions.
- On appeal, Butcher challenged sufficiency/weight of evidence, denial of suppression of photo identifications, several sentencing aspects (mandatory term, failure-to-notify drug-testing requirement, no-contact order, fines/fees), and the failure-to-appear conviction.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Butcher's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/weight of evidence for corrupting-with-drugs and trafficking convictions | Evidence (eyewitness Beck, victim Lewis, photo IDs, fentanyl on straw) supported that Butcher sold fentanyl causing serious harm | Initial hospital statement named “Byron”; Butcher argues misidentification and insufficient proof he was seller or that drug was fentanyl | Affirmed convictions on four counts: jury reasonably found Butcher sold fentanyl; verdicts not against manifest weight or insufficient as to those counts |
| Admissibility of pretrial photo identifications (due process / R.C. 2933.83 compliance) | Photo arrays were not unduly suggestive; any statutory irregularity goes to credibility and cross-examination | Photo array unduly suggestive because Butcher’s photo showed a facial tattoo; police failed to follow R.C. 2933.83 | Denial of suppression affirmed: photo array not impermissibly suggestive; statutory noncompliance is remedied by cross-examination, not suppression |
| Mandatory five-year terms for corrupting-with-drugs (Apprendi issue) | Jury was instructed referring expressly to fentanyl, so jury implicitly found drug was fentanyl and court properly imposed mandatory terms under R.C. 2925.02(C)(1)(a) | Trial court impermissibly made the drug-schedule finding, not the jury; verdict forms did not specify fentanyl | Affirmed: jury instructions referenced fentanyl, satisfying the requirement so mandatory terms were permissible |
| Sentencing errors: failure-to-appear conviction, no-contact order, notice of drug-testing requirement, fines/fees, assessment/recoupment | State concedes failure-to-appear insufficient; no-contact order and some fee issues are contestable but court considered ability to pay; missing notice is harmless | Challenge each: vacate failure-to-appear; strike no-contact order; statutory notice required; ability-to-pay findings lacking; assessment/recoupment improper | Court reversed as to failure-to-appear (vacated) and ordered no-contact order stricken; failure-to-notify under R.C. 2929.19(B)(3)(f) deemed harmless error; court did not impose assessment/recoupment and found record shows consideration of ability to pay for imposed fine |
Key Cases Cited
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (two-step test for pretrial identification admissibility: impermissible suggestiveness then reliability under totality of circumstances)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts that increase penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for manifest-weight-of-the-evidence review)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1983) (articulating manifest-weight analysis standard)