State v. Deckard
100 N.E.3d 53
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Feb 29, 2016 Dustin Deckard was booked into the Gallia County Jail; later that evening officers smelled burning plastic, searched inmates in B-Block (8–10 persons) and recovered a baggie from between Deckard’s buttocks containing substances later identified as heroin and cocaine.
- The baggie was submitted to Ohio BCI; a BCI report identified .49 g heroin and .33 g cocaine. The BCI chemist did not testify at trial.
- Deckard was indicted on: (1) illegal conveyance of drugs onto detention-facility grounds (R.C. 2921.36(A)(2)), (2) possession of heroin, and (3) possession of cocaine.
- At trial Deckard moved in limine to exclude the BCI report (hearsay / Confrontation Clause); the trial court admitted the report over that objection; Deckard’s counsel conceded guilt on the possession counts and contested only the conveyance count.
- A jury convicted Deckard on all three counts; at sentencing the court declined to merge the convictions and imposed consecutive sentences totaling five years.
- Deckard appealed, arguing (1) Confrontation Clause violation by admission of the BCI report, (2) possessions should merge with conveyance under double jeopardy, and (3) insufficient evidence of the element "conveyance." The Fourth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Deckard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admission of BCI lab report / Confrontation Clause | Report admissible under R.C. 2925.51 and business‑records exception; trial court has discretion on untimely demand | Admission deprived Deckard of Sixth Amendment right to confront the chemist; report was testimonial and chemist should have testified | No reversible error: challenge waived by failure to renew objection at admission; counsel conceded possession counts; admission not plain error and court did not abuse discretion |
| 2. Merger / Double Jeopardy under R.C. 2941.25 | Possession of different controlled substances and the conveyance are distinct offenses with separate import/animus; separate convictions permitted | Conveyance and possession arose from the same conduct and state of mind and therefore should merge | Convictions do not merge: possession of heroin and cocaine are separate offenses (different animus) and conveyance was a separate act (conveyance into jail), so multiple punishments allowed |
| 3. Sufficiency of evidence for "conveyance" element | Circumstantial evidence (booking search, later smell, search finding drugs in buttocks only on Deckard) supports inference he knowingly moved drugs into jail | No direct evidence showing Deckard brought drugs into the jail (other inmates/visitors could have introduced them); lack of investigation undermines conveyance proof | Evidence was sufficient: circumstantial evidence allowed a rational jury to infer Deckard knowingly conveyed the drugs into the facility; conviction upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial statements require confrontation)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (lab reports may be testimonial when they are offered as prima facie proof of a crime element)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (admission of forensic report without analyst testimony can violate Confrontation Clause)
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (R.C. 2941.25 allied-offenses/three-part Ruff test)
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (discussion of merger analysis prior to subsequent clarifications)
- State v. Crager, 116 Ohio St.3d 369 (Ohio decision on admission of forensic reports under business-records doctrine)