State v. Creighton, 2011 Ohio 5919

Appellant Deonddray Creighton was part of a 12-count indictment with co-defendants Freeman and Atkinson, facing multiple drug, weapon, and related charges in Cuyahoga County, including Ecstasy trafficking, marijuana cultivation, and weapon offenses.
Motions to suppress evidence seized at 1253 East 89th Street and related statements were denied after a suppression hearing, with joint trial held July 12, 2010; appellant waived a jury trial on the weapon-disability count.
A confidential informant arranged a controlled Ecstasy buy at Freeman’s residence; police surveilled a Black Cadillac Escalade and observed individuals entering the 89th Street house following a traffic stop of Atkinson.
During the drug buy, Freeman and appellant re-entered the house; detectives entered the home without a warrant after Freeman attempted to flush pills and fled upstairs, while a protective sweep revealed marijuana grow labs upstairs.
Evidence recovered included marijuana grow equipment, Ecstasy pills, cash, a Glock handgun, drug paraphernalia, and a suitcase belonging to appellant containing personal items; detectives later obtained a search warrant and seized further contraband.
The jury found appellant guilty of tampering with evidence and acquitted on schoolyard specifications; convictions for various drug trafficking/possession, tools, and weapon offenses were reversed due to insufficient linkage to appellant, while the tampering conviction was affirmed and the case remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Warrantless entry exigence	State contends exigent circumstances justified entry; suppression denied.	Creighton argues no exigent circumstances; entry was self-created and unlawful.	Exigency not established; entry affirmed as upheld in Freeman; first assignment overruled.
Sufficiency of evidence for Ecstasy trafficking/possession	State asserts appellant participated in trafficking/possession via his presence and conduct.	Creighton asserts lack of direct evidence tying him to the sale and drugs.	Insufficient evidence to sustain trafficking/possession convictions for Ecstasy; reversed.
Manifest weight of the evidence	State claims evidence supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.	Creighton contends the weight of the evidence requires reversal.	Tampering with evidence not against weight; support for that conviction affirmed; other counts weighed against.
Consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.13(E)	State argues correct statutory findings were made to impose consecutive terms.	Creighton asserts error in failing to make required findings.	Remand for resentencing due to improper/insufficient findings on consecutive sentences; remaining counts reversed.

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency standard; reasonable doubt framework)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1984) (sufficiency standard; elements proving analysis)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (credibility and weight of evidence deference to jury)
State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 (2004) (manifest weight standard; exceptional case for new hearing)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (weight of evidence; jury credibility determination)
State v. Byers, 8th Dist. No. 94922, 2011-Ohio-342 (2011) (possession of cell phones insufficient to prove tools)
State v. Freeman, Cuyahoga App. No. 95608, 2011-Ohio-5651 (2011) (relevant suppression ruling principle mirrored in this matter)