2020 Ohio 651
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- Undercover CPD officers surveilled a Mazda after a confidential tip; Devaughn was seen approachiing/leaning into the Mazda and later sitting in a nearby gold Honda.
- Four undercover officers in a marked-tactical-vest minivan (badges displayed and guns drawn) approached Devaughn, identified themselves as police, and ordered him to stop.
- Devaughn locked his door, started the Honda, reversed onto the sidewalk, then accelerated toward the officers; all four had to take evasive action and one officer nearly was struck.
- After Devaughn fled, officers searched the Mazda (not the Honda) and found scales and multiple controlled-substance mixtures; the abandoned Honda contained $1,000 in the visor.
- Devaughn was convicted after a bench trial of four counts of felonious assault (against peace officers), two counts of failure to comply with a police order, and multiple drug offenses; he appealed asserting insufficiency/manifest-weight and cumulative-error claims.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Devaughn knowingly attempted to cause physical harm to officers by driving toward them (felonious assault) | Officers saw vests/badges, identified themselves, and were forced to evade — conduct shows knowledge the act would probably cause harm | He acted recklessly while fleeing and may not have known the men were police | Conviction affirmed — evidence supported a finding he acted knowingly and assaulted peace officers |
| Whether Devaughn willfully eluded police after receiving visible/audible signal (failure to comply) | Officers repeatedly identified themselves and ordered him to stop; he fled and drove toward them | He may not have known they were police; witness Watson said she did not see “Police” and would have feared robbery | Conviction affirmed — sufficiency and weight support failure-to-comply convictions |
| Whether state proved constructive possession of the drugs found in the Mazda (drug-possession/trafficking) | Drugs, scale, and $1,000 suggested trafficking and linked to Devaughn by prior presence in the vehicle and proximity | Drugs were in another vehicle not registered to him; no fingerprints/DNA, no evidence he accessed or controlled the center console | Convictions for drug offenses reversed and charges dismissed — proximity alone insufficient to prove constructive possession |
| Whether cumulative evidentiary errors (CI tip testimony) deprived Devaughn of a fair trial | Testimony about the CI was admissible to explain officers’ conduct and not offered for truth | Repeated CI references were prejudicial and undermined fairness | No reversible cumulative error — trial court limited admission for non-truth purpose; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (manifest-weight standard)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sufficiency standard for evidence)
- State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49 (deference to factfinder on witness credibility)
- State v. Hankerson, 70 Ohio St.2d 87 (constructive possession requires dominion/control and awareness)
- State v. Mitchell, 190 Ohio App.3d 676 (proximity alone insufficient to prove constructive possession)
- State v. Kingsland, 177 Ohio App.3d 655 (need proximity plus additional indicia of control)
- State v. Richcreek, 196 Ohio App.3d 505 (out-of-court statements admitted for non-truth are not hearsay)
- State v. Davis, 62 Ohio St.3d 326 (statements for non-truth-of-the-matter purpose not hearsay)
- State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67 (clarifying sufficiency review and standards)