State v. Jackson
134 Ohio St. 3d 184
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Indictment charged Jackson with two trafficking counts under R.C. 2925.03(A)(1)-(2) alleging the drug was a Schedule I or II substance with a bulk amount condition.
- State bill of particulars alleged ecstasy; lab report later indicated marijuana-related substances among other items, though marijuana was used for a different count.
- By July 15, 2009 Jackson moved to dismiss, arguing BZP is not a Schedule I drug under Ohio law and thus Counts One and Two were improper.
- Trial court denied dismissal; court later took judicial notice that BZP is Schedule I and denied the motion to dismiss.
- Jackson pled no contest; convictions and sentences were imposed concurrently for Counts One–Five.
- Court of Appeals reversed as to Counts One and Two, holding the indictment insufficient for not naming the specific drug, leading to discretionary appeal to this court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether naming the schedule suffices | Jackson argued the indictment must name the specific drug involved. | State argued the indictment tracked the statute and schedule suffices; specifics can be obtained via bill of particulars. | Indictment sufficient if it names the schedule (C)(1) or (C)(2). |
| Does schedule-based indictment adequately inform severity | Specific drug name is needed to define offense severity. | Severity is determined by schedule; name of substance not essential. | Schedule information suffices to inform the defendant of charges and severity. |
| Role of bill of particulars in identifying the drug | Bill of particulars can supply the specific drug involved. | Bill of particulars can clarify substance without curing a defective indictment. | Bill of particulars may reveal the substance, but indictment under schedule is nevertheless sufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Headley, 6 Ohio St.3d 475 (1983) (essential element—the type of drug—must be in indictment)
- State v. Murphy, 65 Ohio St.3d 554 (1992) (indictment may track statute language; predicate elements need not be named if offense elements suffice)
- State v. Foust, 105 Ohio St.3d 137 (2004) (failing to name elements of predicate offense may not render indictment insufficient)
- State v. Buehner, 110 Ohio St.3d 403 (2006) (predicate offense elements as essential for charging offense)
- State v. Sellards, 17 Ohio St.3d 169 (1985) (bill of particulars can supply specificity when needed)