State v. Gross, 2019 Ohio 5304

On January 4, 2019, Deputy Detective Seth Andrews stopped a van for traffic violations; Daniel Gross was the driver, Toby Mizer the front passenger, and Kaylee Clough a rear passenger.
While speaking with occupants, the officer observed a large bag of suspected methamphetamine on the passenger-side floorboard between Mizer's legs; Mizer resisted commands, was arrested, and placed in a patrol car.
After securing the vehicle and obtaining a search warrant, officers recovered a 33.57‑gram bag of methamphetamine on the passenger floorboard, a pipe, a syringe, and 0.54 grams of methamphetamine on the driver side.
Gross was taken to the hospital with complaints consistent with meth use; hospital tests showed methamphetamine in his system.
A recorded jail phone call captured Gross saying he ingested meth he had on his person and that he was aware of the large quantity of meth in the van.
Gross was indicted for Aggravated Possession of Drugs (over five times the bulk amount), convicted by a jury, sentenced to seven years, and appealed claiming insufficient evidence of knowledge/dominion over the large bag on the passenger floorboard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Gross knowingly possessed >5× bulk amount of methamphetamine	Location of drugs in plain view from driver side, drugs also on driver seat, meth in Gross's system, and his jail‑call admission show knowledge and dominion	Insufficient proof that Gross knew of or exercised control/dominion over the 33.57 g bag located under Mizer's legs on the passenger floorboard	Affirmed: viewing evidence in prosecution's favor, a rational juror could find Gross constructively possessed the large quantity based on proximity, meth in his system, admissions, and plain view; conviction upheld

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency standard: view evidence in light most favorable to the prosecution)
State v. Butler, 42 Ohio St.3d 174 (1989) (distinguishes actual and constructive possession)
State v. Wolery, 46 Ohio St.2d 316 (1976) (constructive possession requires dominion and control)
State v. Hankerson, 70 Ohio St.2d 87 (1982) (knowledge of illegal goods on property can support constructive possession)
State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160 (1990) (circumstantial evidence and permissible inferences)
State v. Huff, 145 Ohio App.3d 555 (1st Dist. 2001) (knowledge inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (manifest‑weight standard)
Ulster County Court v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 (1979) (permissive inference that occupants may be presumed to possess items found in an automobile)