State v. Cook, 2019 Ohio 4745

On Oct. 10, 2014, an Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper stopped Michael Cook for illegal window tint; during the stop the trooper observed Cook make quick movements toward the glove box.
While the trooper radioed Cook’s information, a patron found a small bag in the parking lot; in-dash video later showed Cook tossing the bag while the trooper was on the radio.
Lab analysis determined the bag contained multiple small bags totaling heroin and a small bag of cocaine.
Cook was indicted on possession of cocaine, possession and trafficking in heroin, and tampering with evidence (for tossing the bag); a jury convicted on all counts and the trial court sentenced Cook to a total of six years (with the tampering sentence consecutive).
On appeal Cook argued (1) insufficient evidence to support tampering because he lacked knowledge of an ongoing or likely investigation when he tossed the bag, and (2) the trial judge improperly told jurors the bag contained heroin.
The appellate court reversed Cook’s tampering conviction and vacated that sentence for lack of sufficient evidence, but rejected the claim of judicial invasion of the jury’s province as waived/no prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Cook knew an official proceeding or likely investigation existed when he tossed the bag (R.C. 2921.12(A)(1))	State: Circumstantial facts (Cook’s nervous behavior, his statement about getting the bag to an apartment, and the fact of drug possession) supported an inference Cook anticipated search/investigation.	Cook: No evidence he knew of any investigation or warrant when he tossed the bag; mere possession/throwing of heroin is insufficient to impute knowledge of an impending investigation.	Reversed tampering conviction: insufficient evidence to prove Cook knew an investigation was in progress or likely when he discarded the bag.
Whether the trial judge invaded the jury’s province by telling jurors the bag would not be returned to the jury because it was heroin	State: Cook failed to object at trial and did not dispute the bag’s contents, so any error is waived and harmless.	Cook: The judge’s remark effectively determined an essential element (that the bag contained heroin), invading the jury’s role.	Overruled on appeal: Cook waived objection; no plain error or prejudice because lab and officer testimony already established the bag’s contents.

State v. Straley, 11 N.E.3d 1175 (Ohio 2014) (evidence tampered with must relate to an ongoing or likely investigation known to the defendant)
State v. Barry, 49 N.E.3d 1248 (Ohio 2015) (constructive knowledge is insufficient; drug possession alone does not establish knowledge of impending investigation)
State v. Martin, 90 N.E.3d 857 (Ohio 2017) (likelihood of an investigation is measured at the time of the alleged tampering; knowledge may be inferred for crimes likely to be reported)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency-of-the-evidence review)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (adopts Jackson standard for Ohio sufficiency review)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency of the evidence from manifest-weight review)