State v. Gordon
2012 Ohio 4930
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Glenroy Gordon appeals after being convicted of two counts of drug possession with forfeiture and one count of possessing criminal tools.
- Cleveland Police used a confidential reliable informant to arrange a controlled marijuana purchase; Cromity was the middleman, and Bell and Williams were involved.
- The deal centered at Klymaxx store; marijuana was retrieved from a GMC van and money was recovered in a hidden compartment.
- Codefendant Bell was described as “Magic” and statements about the source of the drugs were made during the conspiracy.
- The trial admitted Bell’s statements about “Magic” as the source of the drugs; Gordon was convicted and sentenced to three years.
- The court affirmed, addressing evidentiary issues, sufficiency, weight, and denial of a Rule 29 motion; a dissent argued these co-conspirator statements were prejudicial and improperly admitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of co-conspirator statements under Evid.R. 801(D)(2)(e) | State shows conspiracy existed with Gordom, Bell, Williams, Cromity | Statements were not made in furtherance of the conspiracy | Overruled; prima facie conspiracy shown; statements admissible |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for drug possession and tools | Evidence supported possession/conspiracy | Insufficient/weighty evidence | Sustained; evidence sufficient and not against weight of the evidence |
| Manifest weight and Crim.R. 29 acquittal denial | Evidence weighty enough to sustain conviction | Convictions against weight; Rule 29 error | Not against weight; no abuse of discretion in denial of acquittal |
| Confrontation Clause concerns re co-conspirator statements | Admission permissible under conspiracy exception | Prejudicial; statements improperly admitted | Not violated; statements admissible under Were/Bruton framework |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Were, 118 Ohio St.3d 448, 890 N.E.2d 263 (2008-Ohio-2762) (co-conspirator statements admissible with independent proof of conspiracy)
- State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 1995-Ohio-104, 651 N.E.2d 965 (1995-Ohio-104) (Evid.R. 801(D)(2)(e) prima facie conspiracy proof required)
- State v. Braun, 8th Dist. No. 91131, 2009-Ohio-4875 (2009-Ohio-4875) (confrontation/co-conspirator issues; persuasive authority on admissibility)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (unanimous; co-conspirator statements implicating defendant violate confrontation clause)
- U.S. v. Blakey, 960 F.2d 996 (11th Cir. 1992) (rule 801(d)(2)(E) limitations; statements that shift blame are prejudicial)