State v. Hamilton, 2017 Ohio 230

Background

Hamilton was indicted on multiple drug offenses after police conducted surveillance, ten trash pulls from 1485 F Street, and a search of the residence; charges included trafficking and possession of cocaine (with major drug offender specifications), possession of criminal tools, drug paraphernalia, and misdemeanor marijuana possession.
Trash pulls over ~6½ months produced mail addressed to Hamilton, items with presumptive field-test positives for cocaine (some later negative by lab), and items suggesting drug cutting agents; detectives relied on a confidential informant and their investigative corroboration to obtain a search warrant.
A warrant search yielded cocaine (confirmed by lab), crack, baggies, scale, cutting agents, large sums of cash, and personal items tying Hamilton to the home; he was arrested and tried.
At trial Hamilton was convicted on five counts; the court found him a major drug offender, merged counts, imposed an 11-year sentence and a $10,000 fine (the fine was suspended for indigency), and ordered forfeiture of $19,135 after Hamilton stipulated to that forfeiture.
On appeal Hamilton raised four assignments of error: (1) insufficiency of evidence re: identification/weight of cocaine for penalty enhancement, (2) jury instruction on weight of controlled substance, (3) manifest-weight challenge to possession convictions, and (4) suppression challenge alleging false/misleading statements in the search-warrant affidavit.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of search warrant (false/unreliable info)	Detective relied on unreliable/false information (unvouched CI; field tests later contradicted by lab) so warrant should be suppressed	Affidavit contained corroborating facts (surveillance, trash evidence, defendant's history); even if some field-test statements were false, remaining averments supplied probable cause	Denied suppression: affidavit provided probable cause; CI reliability not required where corroborated; even assuming some false statements, remaining facts sustain the warrant
Sufficiency/enhanced penalty — whether weight must exclude cutting agents	State failed to prove weight of pure cocaine (exclusive of cutting agents) for 100-gram enhancement	State argued aggregate weight controls (total mixture)	Reversed as to enhancement: following Ohio Supreme Court, State must prove weight of actual cocaine (exclude fillers) to support enhanced penalties
Jury instruction on weight definition	Court should have instructed that weight means pure cocaine exclusive of fillers	Trial court instructed that any mixture with detectable controlled substance counted toward amount	Moot after reversal on sufficiency/enhancement; appellate court declined to address further
Manifest weight of evidence re: possession	Verdicts were against manifest weight; insufficient proof Hamilton exercised dominion/control over contraband	Sufficient circumstantial evidence: mail, ID, personal items, proximity to drugs, large cash, trafficking indicia support constructive possession	Affirmed: convictions for possession (cocaine, marijuana), criminal tools, paraphernalia are not against manifest weight

Key Cases Cited

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (established two-part test for challenging an affidavit’s veracity to invalidate a warrant)
State v. Waddy, 63 Ohio St.3d 424 (standard for proving false statements in warrant affidavits under Franks)
State v. McKnight, 107 Ohio St.3d 101 (omissions in affidavits can be false if designed or recklessly made to mislead)
State v. Dibble, 133 Ohio St.3d 451 (remedy for false affidavit allegations is redaction and reanalysis of probable cause)
United States v. Charles, 138 F.3d 257 (articulates Franks two-part approach in the Sixth Circuit)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (standard for reversing convictions as against the manifest weight of the evidence)
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (articulates appellate role when reviewing manifest-weight claims)