State v. Hill
104 N.E.3d 794
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Appellant Cito Hill was convicted by a jury of aggravated trafficking in drugs (oxycodone) after a traffic stop; sentenced to 18 months imprisonment and fines. One trafficking count and forfeiture spec originally indicted; one count dismissed pretrial.
- During an early-morning traffic stop, officers found Hill driving a rental car not rented in his name, with three prescription bottles in his name (filled two days earlier in Florida) showing large quantities of oxycodone/alprazolam missing, two cell phones, and $1,935 in cash; urine testing showed cocaine and marijuana metabolites.
- Trial testimony included law‑enforcement drug‑interdiction evidence (common indicators such as rental cars, out‑of‑state travel, multiple phones, broken pills) and an expert urinalysis witness; defense filed motions in limine to exclude some of that evidence but did not always renew objections at trial.
- Hill argued on appeal: (1) insufficient evidence for trafficking; (2) erroneous admission of other‑acts/drug‑interdiction evidence; (3) ineffective assistance for failure to object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing; and (4) improper admission/authentication/hearsay of prescription labels.
- The Fourth District affirmed: found the evidence — especially large numbers of pills missing from recently filled prescriptions, rental car circumstances, phones, cash, and interdiction testimony — sufficient circumstantial proof of knowledge/intent to distribute; rejected Evid.R. 404(B) and hearsay/authentication challenges; denied ineffective‑assistance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hill) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for trafficking under R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) | Circumstantial evidence (many pills missing from recent prescriptions, rental car not in his name, large cash, multiple phones, interdiction testimony) supports inference Hill knew drugs were for sale | Missing pills alone do not prove he transported or intended remaining pills for sale; prosecution stacked inferences without direct proof of sales | Affirmed: evidence sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to prosecution to permit reasonable inference of trafficking |
| Admission of urine test results and drug‑interdiction testimony (other‑acts/Evid.R. 404(B)) | Urine results and interdiction factors are relevant to knowledge/motive and admissible; testimony explained investigative context | Such evidence was impermissible other‑acts/character evidence and should have been excluded | Affirmed: testimony admissible as background and for non‑character purposes; urinalysis testimony not properly preserved for all objections but was admissible if considered |
| Effectiveness of counsel for failure to object to prosecutor’s closing remarks | Prosecutor’s references were within permissible argument; counsel’s strategic choice not to object was reasonable | Failure to object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct deprived Hill of fair trial | Affirmed: no deficient performance or prejudice shown; trial court rulings and jury instructions undercut claim |
| Authentication/hearsay objections to prescription labels | Labels and bottles were physical evidence seized from car and admissible; labels arguably business records if hearsay | Labels were hearsay and unauthenticated, so inadmissible | Affirmed: labels/bottles were real evidence; alternatively admissible under business‑records rationale; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standards for sufficiency review)
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (sufficiency and due process principles in Ohio)
- Jenks v. Ohio, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)
- Mahlerwein v. Mahlerwein, 160 Ohio App.3d 564 (presumption of correctness for trial‑court factual findings)