State v. Colley
2017 Ohio 4080
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Robert C. Colley was indicted in Scioto County for illegal assembly/possession of chemicals to manufacture methamphetamine (third-degree felony) after ODNR officers found two trash bags with items consistent with a “one‑pot” meth cook along Big Run Road in Shawnee State Forest (Scioto County).
- Trash contained three empty boxes of pseudoephedrine (Leader Allergy Relief D‑24), empty blister packs, an ice compress with corner cut (ammonium nitrate), electrical tape, a grocery list (coffee filters/sea salt), and a Mello Yello bottle with a syringe; DNA on the bottle matched co‑defendant Jeannie Kinzer.
- NPLEX and store surveillance linked purchases of pseudoephedrine at Pike County pharmacies to Colley and Kinzer on multiple dates; Kinzer testified she purchased pseudoephedrine, gave boxes to Colley, and he returned with methamphetamine; she also testified Colley “always” drove her car and they used drugs at the Big Run site.
- Colley moved for directed verdict at close of State’s case arguing improper venue (events occurred in Pike County) and later challenged sufficiency/manifest weight (no proof of intent to manufacture) and admission of testimony about out‑of‑county purchasers; the jury convicted and sentenced him to 36 months.
- The Fourth District affirmed, rejecting Colley’s venue, sufficiency/weight, and Evid.R. 403 objections and holding circumstantial evidence supported intent, possession, and proper venue under R.C. 2901.12(G).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Colley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue: Was Scioto County proper venue? | Venue is satisfied because ingredients/one‑pot remnants were discarded and discovered in Scioto County and R.C. 2901.12(G) allows charging where any element occurred. | All relevant acts (purchases, etc.) occurred in Pike County; no proof Colley committed any act in Scioto County. | Affirmed: sufficient nexus — trash with lab components found in Scioto County plus circumstantial links satisfied venue. |
| Sufficiency/Manifest weight: Did evidence prove intent to manufacture? | Circumstantial evidence (purchase histories, surveillance, Kinzer’s testimony, discarded one‑pot components, site where they used drugs, Colley’s control of Kinzer’s car) supported intent and possession. | No direct evidence linking Colley to the discarded items or showing he intended to manufacture; mere possession/purchases insufficient. | Affirmed: conviction supported by circumstantial evidence; jury reasonably inferred intent and possession. |
| Admission of pharmacist testimony about out‑of‑county purchasers (Evid.R. 403/701) | Testimony was lay opinion based on perception and helpful to explain why Scioto residents buy pseudoephedrine in Pike County; probative value outweighed any prejudice. | Testimony was irrelevant and highly prejudicial, suggesting criminality of Scioto residents and unfairly swaying the jury. | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; testimony was admissible and not outcome‑determinative. |
| Reliance on NPLEX/surveillance and co‑defendant testimony | These records and Kinzer’s statements/surveillance linked purchases and conduct; jury entitled to weigh credibility. | Kinzer was an unreliable, impeached witness and records do not establish Colley’s culpable mental state. | Affirmed: credibility determinations rest with jury; contemporaneous records and Kinzer’s testimony provided a rational basis for conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hampton, 134 Ohio St.3d 447 (2012) (venue requirement and review of sufficiency on venue)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review; circumstantial evidence has equal probative value)
- State v. Dickerson, 77 Ohio St. 34 (1907) (venue may be proven by facts and circumstances)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (manifest‑weight review; deference to jury credibility findings)
- State v. Chintalapalli, 88 Ohio St.3d 43 (2000) (venue satisfied where sufficient nexus between defendant and county)
- State v. Cumberledge, (see Jenks and Ohio precedent cited) (discussed as authority that mere possession of chemicals is insufficient without intent evidence)