2016 Ohio 5040
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Jeremy Cheesman, on community control, was arrested on a warrant for failing to report and transported to the county jail.
- During booking pat-downs deputies found drug-paraphernalia (pen barrel, foil) and observed Cheesman clench and act nervous.
- Deputies obtained permission to strip-search; while disrobing Cheesman faked a seizure-like episode, attempted to push something further into his rectum, and resisted; deputies retrieved a plastic bag from his rectum containing pills.
- BCI testing identified the pills as prescription drugs (Tramadol and Amitriptyline); Cheesman was indicted for tampering with evidence (R.C. §2921.12(A)(1)) and illegal conveyance of a drug into a detention facility (R.C. §2921.36(A)(2)).
- Cheesman moved to suppress (denied), was found competent, tried by jury, convicted on both counts, and sentenced (24 months on the conveyance count; community control on the tampering count).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Cheesman's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony relying on an online reference database | Expert's use of the database is part of the basis for her opinion; database is reliable authority under Evid.R. 803(18) / expert-opinion rules | Reliance on the internet database introduced inadmissible hearsay to prove that the pills were "dangerous drugs" | Court upheld admission: expert may rely on and testify about professional references; database found reliable and admissible under Evid.R. 803(18) and precedent (Beard) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for tampering with evidence (R.C. §2921.12(A)(1)) | Cheesman's conduct in the change-out room — putting hands over rectal area and attempting to shove contents farther in while deputies were investigating conveyance — satisfied knowledge, concealment, and purpose elements | Cheesman argued the pills were already concealed before arrest so he lacked knowledge of any investigation regarding those pills | Court found sufficient evidence: jury could reasonably conclude Cheesman attempted further concealment during an investigation, satisfying tampering elements |
Key Cases Cited
- Valentine v. Conrad, 110 Ohio St.3d 42 (Ohio 2006) (appellate review of admission of expert testimony is for abuse of discretion)
- Beard v. Meridia Huron Hosp., 106 Ohio St.3d 237 (Ohio 2005) (expert may rely on professional literature as part of the basis for opinion; distinction between using literature as substantive evidence vs. basis for opinion)
- Piotrowski v. Corey Hosp., 172 Ohio St. 61 (Ohio 1961) (discussion of limitations on using professional literature as independent substantive evidence)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard for criminal convictions)
- State v. Straley, 139 Ohio St.3d 339 (Ohio 2014) (setting out the three elements of tampering with evidence)
- Stinson v. England, 69 Ohio St.3d 451 (Ohio 1994) (context on learned treatises and expert reliance on literature)