State v. Davis, 2012 Ohio 2642

Davis was convicted by bench trial in Hamilton County Municipal Court of possessing a drug abuse instrument under R.C. 2925.12(A).
On June 1, 2011, police investigated a drug complaint near Montgomery Road/Woodmont Avenue; two vehicles were observed in proximity to a suspected drug transaction.
Davis, seated in the front passenger seat, admitted to having a needle; officers recovered a hypodermic needle and syringe and advised Davis of Miranda rights.
Davis admitted to occasionally traveling to Ohio to buy heroin; officers later stopped the other vehicle and found heroin there, though no heroin was recovered from Davis or the needle.
On appeal, the court reversed and discharged, holding the evidence did not establish the element required by R.C. 2925.12(A) that the instrument was used to unlawfully administer or prepare a dangerous drug.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence supports conviction under R.C. 2925.12(A).	State contends Davis used or prepared a dangerous drug with the needle.	Davis contends mere possession, without actual use, cannot satisfy the statute.	Conviction reversed for lack of sufficient evidence.

In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1970) (due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt for each element)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1991) (set standard for sufficiency of evidence (juror could rationally find elements))
Fyffe, 67 Ohio App.3d 608, 588 N.E.2d 137 (Ohio App.3d Dist., 1990) (illustrates sufficiency review)
Hartley, 194 Ohio App.3d 486, 2011-Ohio-2530 (1st Dist., 2011) (reversal when evidence is insufficient or against weight of evidence)
Wadsworth v. Eutin, 9th Dist. No. 09CA0074-M, 2010-Ohio-4654 (9th Dist., 2010) (sufficiency where syringes linked to drug preparation/use)