State v. Davis, 2022 Ohio 577

Late-night stop at a Shell station: a 2004 GMC Yukon with license plates registered to a different car was observed; occupants acted furtive and took unusually long to exit.
Troopers observed a clear bag with large rock-like white substances on the rear passenger floorboard in plain view and seized it; two additional baggies and smoking paraphernalia (glass pipes, makeshift pipe, "Chore Boys") were found in the center console.
Appellant Michael L. Davis denied knowledge, provided a false name/SSN, and claimed the Yukon belonged to an unnamed "buddy." His phone was found next to a pipe in the console.
A search warrant of Davis’s phone produced Facebook Messenger messages showing he arranged purchase/possession of the Yukon shortly before the stop.
Lab testing confirmed the substances totaled over 98 grams of cocaine; Davis was indicted for trafficking and possession (first-degree felonies); trafficking count was dismissed, Davis convicted of possession and sentenced to 10–15 years.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether conviction for possession of cocaine is against the manifest weight of the evidence	State: circumstantial evidence (drugs in plain view, additional baggies in console, phone next to pipe, Facebook showing Davis as vehicle possessor) supports knowing, constructive possession	Davis: denied knowledge; DNA absent on baggies; passenger could have deposited drugs; mere presence insufficient	Affirmed: evidence supported constructive and knowing possession; not an exceptional case to overturn verdict
Whether jury instruction on constructive possession misled jury and violated due process	State: instruction correctly explained that constructive possession requires both control over vehicle/part and knowledge of contraband’s presence	Davis: instruction implied control of vehicle equates to control of contents, relieving State of burden to prove knowledge/dominion	Affirmed: instruction, read as whole, accurately stated law and did not permit conviction solely from vehicle control

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (defines manifest-weight review and standard for overturning verdict)
State v. Hankerson, 70 Ohio St.2d 87 (Ohio 1982) (knowledge of illegal goods on one's property can establish constructive possession)
State v. Wolery, 46 Ohio St.2d 316 (Ohio 1976) (constructive possession requires ability to exercise dominion and control)
State v. Butler, 42 Ohio St.3d 174 (Ohio 1989) (distinguishes actual and constructive possession and relevant standards)
State v. Trembly, 137 Ohio App.3d 134 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000) (circumstantial evidence may establish dominion and control)
State v. Scalf, 126 Ohio App.3d 614 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998) (presence in close proximity to readily accessible drugs supports constructive possession)
State v. Huff, 145 Ohio App.3d 555 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001) (knowledge inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances)
State v. Williams, 190 Ohio App.3d 645 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (drugs and paraphernalia in plain sight can support knowing possession)