State v. Gregory, 2015 Ohio 4901

Gregory was indicted in March 2014 for illegal assembly or possession of chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine (lithium batteries) near Barberton High School, elevating the offense to a second-degree felony, plus a forfeiture specification; supplemental indictment charged intimidation of a crime victim or witness; jury convicted counts 1 and 2 and acquitted the intimidation charge; he received an aggregate five-year sentence.
Evidence included: batteries found in car near school, testimony of Boychi and Detective Laurella linking batteries and attempted pseudoephedrine purchases to meth manufacture, and a stop five feet from Barberton High School grounds.
State's theory: batteries plus attempted pseudoephedrine purchases and drug activity shown intent to manufacture methamphetamine in the vicinity of a school.
Gregory challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the jury’s verdict, argued the proximity statute requires recklessness, and asserted due-process Brady and vagueness issues; issues decided on appeal.
Court affirmed conviction and rejected defenses, finding no plain error or weight issue, and noting statutes now impose strict liability for vicinity-of-school enhancements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is R.C. 2925.041(C) vague as applied?	State contends proximity to school raises strict liability.	Gregory argues vagueness applied to him.	Not plain error; statute applied reasonably.
Was the illegal-assembly conviction supported by sufficient evidence?	State argues evidence showed batteries and intent near the school.	Gregory argues evidence insufficient and requires recklessness.	Sufficiency found; jury could infer intent and vicinity.
Is the conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence?	State asserts credibility and corroboration support verdict.	Gregory challenges credibility of key witness Boychi.	Not against the manifest weight; not clearly a miscarriage of justice.
Did the State violate Brady by delaying exculpatory disclosures?	State argues disclosure timing did not prejudice defense.	Gregory alleges delayed Brady material prejudiced trial.	No due-process violation; delay not shown to prejudice.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (sufficiency review de novo; rationality standard for guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (guides sufficiency/Jury standard; Kept standard at issue)
State v. Lozier, 101 Ohio St.3d 161 (2004) (strict liability in vicinity of juvenile; near-school language interpreted as strict liability)
State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St.3d 466 (2010) (amendment of R.C. 2925.01(P) to strict-liability language)
State v. Stigall, 2015-Ohio-137 (2015) (application of vicinity statute; credibility/weight considerations)
State v. Carrick, 131 Ohio St.3d 340 (2012) (vagueness and as-applied challenges; due process standard)
State v. Reeder, 18 Ohio St.3d 25 (1985) (due process vagueness standards; notice)
State v. Pargia, 137 Ohio St.3d 81 (2013) (principles of statutory interpretation when language clear)
State v. Osie, 140 Ohio St.3d 131 (2014) (Brady material timing; prejudice analysis)
State v. Iacona, 93 Ohio St.3d 83 (2001) (Brady disclosure timing; effectiveness for trial)