State v. Griffin
2013 Ohio 2230
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Griffin was convicted by a jury of heroin possession (10–50 grams), five counts of criminal tools, and one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity; sentence included a 5-year term for heroin, 5 years for pattern, and 12 months on each tool count.
- This appeal was reopened after Griffin claimed ineffective appellate assistance; the matter was remanded for further proceedings with appointed counsel.
- Griffin argued (1) the court erred by not instructing on “enterprise” as an element of pattern of corrupt activity; (2) gel caps found in the van were not separate criminal tools from heroin; (3) several items (razor, gel capsules, plate, baggies) were drug paraphernalia not criminal tools; (4) cell phones were criminal tools; (5) suppression ruling and complicity instruction were improper given the bill of particulars identifying Griffin as principal offender.
- The court adopted Franklin’s framework, applied de novo review to the enterprise instruction issue, and reversed Griffin’s conviction for Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity.
- The court also held that gelatin capsules used for packaging heroin were drug paraphernalia rather than criminal tools, but it upheld the cell phones as criminal tools and denied suppression challenges, remanding only as to the tool counts.
- On remand, Griffin’s conviction for Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity will be reversed, and the four of five criminal-tools sentences will be reversed and remanded; the remainder of the judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court failed to give enterprise instruction | State asserts no prejudice; proper instruction given | Griffin contends lack of enterprise instruction prejudiced case | Assignment sustained; enterprise instruction required and remand for further proceedings |
| Whether gel caps were separate criminal tools from heroin | State maintains gel caps separate enough to support criminal-tools charge | Griffin argues gel caps were part of heroin or allied offenses | Assignment overruled; gel caps properly treated as separate tools? (partial) |
| Whether gel capsules and other items should be drug paraphernalia rather than criminal tools | State contends items fall within drug paraphernalia category under 2925.14 | Griffin argues they are not paraphernalia and should be lesser offense | Assignment sustained; items classified as drug paraphernalia, not criminal tools, requiring different sentencing |
| Whether cell phones were properly charged as criminal tools | State supports criminal-tools classification for phones used in drug activity | Griffin argues phones are not criminal tools | Assignment overruled; phones properly classified as criminal tools |
| Whether suppression ruling and complicity instruction were correct | State maintains suppression rejected; complicity instruction proper | Griffin argues suppression and complicity instruction improper given bill of particulars | Assignment overruled; suppression upheld and complicity instruction adequately commanded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Franklin, 2011-Ohio-6802 (2d Dist. Montgomery Nos. 24011 and 24012 (2011)) (reversed enterprise instruction in related case; framework used)
- State v. Chippendale, 52 Ohio St.3d 118 (1990) (R.C. 1.51 framework for general vs. specific provisions; allied offenses)
- State v. Volpe, 38 Ohio St.3d 191 (1988) (choice between criminal tools and paraphernalia; statutory precedence)
- State v. Susser, 1990 WL 197958 (1990) (drug paraphernalia vs. criminal tools; later Susser II clarifications)
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010) (allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25; same conduct analysis)