State v. Crossty
100 N.E.3d 15
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Charles R. Crossty was indicted after a CCNU investigation (Jan 22–Feb 29, 2016) for multiple counts of trafficking heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl, and one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity; many counts alleged offenses occurred "in the vicinity of a juvenile."
- Six controlled buys involving a confidential informant (James Burress) were conducted; transactions were arranged by phone/text and occurred at (1) an apartment in New Richmond (Clermont County) and (2) locations in Hamilton County (including an Eastern Avenue residence).
- Two controlled buys occurred at Perkins’ apartment in New Richmond (identified as a "trap house"); other buys occurred in Hamilton County. Juveniles were observed present at several Hamilton County buys.
- Law enforcement monitored buys with searches, wired informant, and lab testing confirming heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine quantities; Crossty was arrested after the sixth buy and found with cash.
- At a three-day bench trial, the court found Crossty guilty on all counts; he was sentenced to an aggregate 20 years and nine months and forfeiture of cash. Crossty appealed raising four assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Crossty) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue in Clermont County was proven beyond a reasonable doubt | Venue proper because (1) transaction terms were arranged while informant was in Clermont County; (2) some sales (or planning) occurred in Clermont County; (3) R.C. 2901.12(H) allows venue where part of a course of criminal conduct occurred | Venue improper — state failed to prove transactions or agreements occurred in Clermont County; informant testimony uncorroborated | Court: Venue proper. Informant testimony that buys/arrangements were planned in Clermont County and sales at Perkins’ apartment established a significant nexus; R.C. 2901.12(H)(3) applied |
| Sufficiency of evidence for R.C. 2923.32(A)(1) (pattern of corrupt activity) | Evidence showed an associated-in-fact enterprise (Crossty, Moore, Rivera, Perkins) with common purpose, relationships, and longevity; multiple drug transactions in furtherance of enterprise | Insufficient proof of an enterprise with a common purpose and that multiple acts furthered it | Court: Evidence sufficient. Testimony showed continuing unit selling drugs for profit, more than two incidents of trafficking, and sales out of the trap house |
| Whether convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence | Witness testimony (informant, Moore, Perkins), surveillance, wired recordings, and lab results supported convictions | Key witnesses had credibility issues (prior lies, motives); evidence largely uncorroborated | Court: Not against manifest weight. Trial court as factfinder reasonably credited witnesses; record supports convictions |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for not using pretrial interview notes to impeach informant | Defense cross-examined informant on credibility; trial strategy reasonable; notes likely inadmissible hearsay and counsel’s choices were tactical | Counsel failed to properly impeach with interview notes and thus prejudiced defense | Court: No ineffective assistance. Counsel impeached informant extensively; notes were inadmissible hearsay or would have required counsel to testify; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (U.S. 2009) (elements of an associated-in-fact enterprise: purpose, relationships, longevity)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence and distinction between sufficiency and manifest weight)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency review standard: whether any rational trier of fact could find elements proven)