State v. Eafford, 132 Ohio St. 3d 159

Eafford was convicted by jury of possession of cocaine under Count Two, but the verdict form said only “guilty of Possession of Drugs,” omitting degree and specific drug.
The trial court instructed that conviction required the drug to be cocaine, which the record later confirms tested positive for cocaine.
The jury returned guilty verdicts on Counts One and Two; Counts One and Two were treated as felonies of the fifth degree.
The Eighth District vacated the sentence for possession of cocaine, concluding the Count Two verdict was ambiguous as to degree and drug identity.
The Ohio Supreme Court granted review to determine whether a verdict form that omits degree or aggravating elements can still support a conviction for possession of cocaine.
The court ultimately held that the verdict on possession of drugs, coupled with the record showing cocaine and the jury instructions, supports possession of cocaine as a felony of the fifth degree; no plain error occurred and the sentence was reinstated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Count Two verdict supports a cocaine conviction without a drug-specific verdict	Eafford argues the form lacks drug identity/degree	State contends total record shows cocaine; form suffices	Yes; record supports cocaine conviction despite form
Whether omitting degree in the verdict constitutes plain error	Eafford did not object; plain error standard applies	No plain error since jury instructions and record align with cocaine possession	No plain error; verdict adequate under law
Whether R.C. 2925.11(C)(2) versus (C)(4) distinctions affect sentencing	Discrepancy between possession of drugs vs possession of cocaine	Record shows cocaine; verdict aligns with cocaine charge	Record supports possession of cocaine under (C)(4) based on amount
Whether a verdict form can be cured by indictment/evidence when it omits drug identity	Indictment and evidence should not be overridden by form	Judicially supplementing the verdict is permissible	Not reversible error; form consistent with charges and trial evidence
Whether the judgment of the appellate court properly reinstated the sentence	Appellate court erred in vacating sentence	Sentence consistent with indictment, record, and instructions	Yes; judgment reversed and sentence reinstated

State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (Ohio 2007) (plain-error standard for Crim.R. 52(B))
State v. Barnes, (2002) (Ohio 2002) (plain-error correction guidance for Crim.R. 52(B))
State v. Long, (1978) 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (exceptional circumstances for plain error)
State v. Johnson, 71 Ohio St.3d 332 (Ohio 1994) (jury follows court instructions; juries presumed to follow)
State v. Pelfrey, 112 Ohio St.3d 422 (Ohio 2007) (verdict form must state degree or aggravating element)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (Sixth Amendment/fact-finding by judge concerns)