State v. Johnson, 2023 Ohio 2638

On June 6, 2021 police searched Amanda Johnson’s bedroom after a 9-1-1 call and found a change purse jammed behind a dresser containing methamphetamine and clonazepam, plus Johnson’s EBT, debit, and credit cards and feminine items. A male roommate’s ID was also in the purse. A digital scale and baggies were found in the room.
Earlier the same day an officer had been to the house and observed a cut straw and a mirror with residue on the dresser/nightstand.
At the scene Johnson admitted recent marijuana use and, in recorded statements, acknowledged meth and benzodiazepine use in the past week; she also directed a roommate (Duffield) to tell police she was not home.
Johnson was indicted on two separate possession counts (methamphetamine and clonazepam) and one paraphernalia count; the cases were joined for trial, and a jury found her guilty on all counts.
On appeal Johnson argued (1) the convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence and (2) the trial court’s jury instruction on possession omitted statutory language and was therefore erroneous. The Third District affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Johnson)	Held
Whether convictions for possession were against the manifest weight of the evidence	Evidence (drugs in purse behind dresser in Johnson's bedroom, Johnson’s ID/cards in purse, digital scale/baggies, admissions, attempt to hide presence) supports constructive possession	Drugs were not proven to be hers; purse could belong to others who had access to the house; mere proximity insufficient	Affirmed: weight of evidence supports convictions; jury did not lose its way
Whether jury instruction on "possession" was legally insufficient (omitted final clause of R.C. 2925.01(K))	Jury instructions followed the Ohio Jury Instructions and correctly explained possession; even if omitted language was missing, the evidence showed more than mere access so any error was not prejudicial	Omission of statutory phrase (“may not be inferred solely from mere access…”) misstated law and was plain error	Affirmed: no plain error; omission harmless because evidence established more than mere access and court’s supplemental answer reinforced the required elements

State v. Thompkins, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (establishes manifest-weight standard and appellate role as thirteenth juror)
State v. Plott, 80 N.E.3d 1108 (3d Dist. 2017) (appellate review weighed whether greater amount of credible evidence supports verdict)
State v. Randle, 104 N.E.3d 202 (3d Dist. 2018) (articulates reviewing-court duties when evaluating manifest-weight claims)
State v. McClain, 153 N.E.3d 854 (3d Dist. 2020) (distinguishes actual possession from constructive possession)
State v. Lane, 202 N.E.3d 45 (3d Dist. 2022) (proximity plus additional factors can establish constructive possession)
State v. Frye, 108 N.E.3d 564 (3d Dist. 2018) (standards for reviewing jury instruction challenges and reliance on Ohio Jury Instructions)
State v. Orians, 903 N.E.2d 656 (3d Dist. 2008) (jury instructions must correctly, clearly, and completely state law)