State v. Henry
2017 Ohio 5730
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Earl Henry was indicted on four counts of fifth-degree felony trafficking in cocaine arising from three controlled buys conducted Sept–Oct 2014; the fourth count was dismissed before trial.
- A confidential informant (Hart) and an unwitting intermediary (Dunaway) made three purchases after Dunaway entered Henry's residence and returned to the car with cocaine; Hart and an undercover detective monitored with AV recording equipment, but Dunaway was not wired or searched.
- Dunaway originally told detectives Henry was his supplier but at trial recanted, claiming he already possessed the cocaine and used Henry's house as a ruse; Hart did not see money exchanged and did not observe the inside of Henry's house.
- Detective Valdez monitored buys remotely, patted Hart before/after buys, conducted a later search of Henry's home that found no drugs or marked bills, and did not search Dunaway.
- The jury convicted Henry on three counts; he was sentenced to community control, local incarceration, and treatment with prison time reserved. Henry appealed claiming insufficient evidence and that convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove Henry sold cocaine | State: Circumstantial evidence (videos, pattern of buys, Dunaway's pre-trial statement) supports a reasonable inference Henry supplied the drugs | Henry: No direct proof; Dunaway not searched or wired; Hart never saw money exchanged; later search of Henry's home found nothing | Affirmed — viewing evidence most favorably to State, a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Manifest weight of the evidence (credibility of witnesses) | State: Jury entitled to reject Dunaway's recantation and credit the pattern of controlled buys and Dunaway's prior statement | Henry: Evidence weak and inconsistent; risk of miscarriage due to reliance on unwitting intermediary and lack of corroboration | Affirmed — weighing credibility and evidence, jury did not lose its way; no manifest miscarriage of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for review of sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Hopfer, 112 Ohio App.3d 521 (1996) (circumstantial and direct evidence have equivalent probative value)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1983) (standard for manifest-weight review and rarity of granting new trial)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (clarifies manifest-weight standard and appellate review scope)