State v. Carson
2017 Ohio 7243
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Dec. 9, 2015 Strongsville PD conducted a controlled buy at SouthPark Mall: an informant purchased 1.87 grams of heroin from Denico Carson. Carson and two codefendants then got into a Chevy Tahoe; Carson was the driver.
- Officers followed the Tahoe, attempted a traffic stop, and the vehicle fled through a red light before being boxed in near I-71.
- During the takedown officers observed a rear-seat passenger reach toward the third row; after removing occupants, officers found a partially concealed, operable firearm in a third-row compartment behind that passenger.
- No one claimed the gun; the buy money was later found near where the men had been seated after arrest.
- Carson was convicted on multiple drug counts and a one-year firearm-specification attached to Count 5 (trafficking in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2)). He appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of actual or constructive possession of the firearm during the trafficking.
- The trial court and the appellate panel considered whether Carson had "on or about his person or under his control" the firearm at some point during the commission of the charged trafficking offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for firearm specification (R.C. 2941.141) attached to trafficking (transport/deliver) | State: Circumstantial evidence (Carson driving the vehicle, attempted flight, passenger’s furtive reach, gun found in a compartment in the same vehicle) permitted a reasonable jury to infer Carson had control of the gun at some point during transporting/delivering | Carson: No evidence he knew of or possessed the gun; it was in the third row and not on his person; other occupants and non-ownership of vehicle negate control | Affirmed — viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational juror could find Carson constructively possessed the firearm during the commission of the trafficking count |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard and distinction from manifest-weight review)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Hankerson, 70 Ohio St.2d 87 (1982) (constructive possession exists when one knowingly exercises dominion and control over an object)
- State v. Haynes, 25 Ohio St.2d 264 (1971) (discussing constructive possession principles)
- State v. Wolery, 46 Ohio St.2d 316 (1976) (constructive possession defined by ability to exercise dominion/control)
- State v. Powell, 59 Ohio St.3d 62 (1991) (firearm-specification statute requires firearm on person or under control at some point during the offense)