State v. Harris
2016 Ohio 7097
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Police CPRT received a Crime Stoppers tip that drugs were being sold from the second unit on Germantown Street (Deborah Harris’s apartment). Officers approached the front door around 9:00 a.m.
- Defendant Darren Harris answered the door; officers observed drug paraphernalia and brown residue on a glass kitchen table inside and immediately entered to secure evidence.
- Inside were four people; one occupant (Darlisa) moved quickly toward the back bedroom and was stopped by officers. During a protective sweep, officers observed a loaded handgun, suspected heroin, prescription bottles in Darren Harris’s name, and Darren Harris’s driver’s license on a bedroom dresser.
- Harris was indicted for having weapons while under disability and possession of heroin (with a firearm specification). He moved to suppress evidence as the entry was warrantless and the protective sweep unlawful.
- Trial court denied the suppression motion; jury convicted Harris of both offenses and the firearm specification. Total sentence was 42 months. Harris appealed on suppression, ineffective assistance, sufficiency and manifest-weight grounds; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of warrantless entry / exigent circumstances | Officers lawfully entered because visible drug paraphernalia and residue at the open door created exigent need to prevent destruction of evidence | Entry was unlawful because apartment was dark and small paraphernalia could not be seen from hallway; no exigency justified bypassing a warrant | Entry was lawful: officers saw paraphernalia and heroin residue in plain view when door opened; exigent circumstances to prevent destruction of evidence existed |
| Protective sweep / plain view of items in bedroom | Protective sweep was justified by Darlisa’s flight toward the back bedroom and officers’ concern about weapons; items on dresser were in plain view during sweep | Sweep exceeded Buie limits; claimed no need for sweep and items not plainly incriminating | Sweep was permissible as a limited cursory inspection given articulable safety concerns; handgun and heroin were in plain view and lawfully seized |
| Sufficiency / manifest weight re: weapon possession | Circumstantial evidence (gun on dresser with Harris’s ID, prescriptions, photo, and registration of apartment to Harris) supported constructive possession | DNA did not link Harris to gun and multiple occupants meant shared access; evidence insufficient and verdict against manifest weight | Conviction supported: totality of circumstances allowed reasonable inference of constructive possession; lack of DNA did not negate constructive possession |
| Ineffective assistance (failure to call sister as witness) | N/A (defense argues counsel erred by not calling Deborah, whose suppression testimony could have supported that bedroom was her private room) | Counsel’s decision may have been reasonable trial strategy; defendant waived calling witnesses and was informed of consequences | No ineffective assistance: record fails to show counsel acted unreasonably or prejudice; defendant knew and did not object to witness release |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (Fourth Amendment stop-and-frisk principles)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (limits and justification for protective sweeps)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (exigent-circumstances and warrant exception analysis)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (plain-view doctrine and warrant requirements)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (plain-view seizure principles)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (manifest-weight standard)
- State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586 (1994) (trial court’s role and appellate review in suppression hearings)