State v. Kiser
2016 Ohio 7338
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In Oct. 2013 undercover officers (T.K. and C.P.) arranged to buy ~140–150 grams of a white powder from Julian Kiser; Kiser showed the substance on a kitchen scale but no substance was introduced at trial.
- Police did not recover or test the substance because an earlier appellate ruling found the original seizure unconstitutional.
- Jury convicted Kiser of trafficking in cocaine with a major-drug-offender (MDO) specification based on the represented weight (>100 grams).
- Kiser was sentenced to 10 years and appealed, challenging admission of testimony about weight and the sufficiency of evidence for the MDO enhancement.
- Trial court admitted witnesses’ testimony about seeing the powder on a scale; Kiser objected but testimony was admitted as lay observation.
- The Sixth District affirmed conviction for trafficking but reversed and vacated the MDO specification and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Kiser) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of witness testimony about weight/identity | Testimony about observing powder on scale is admissible as lay personal-knowledge evidence | Testimony should be excluded (motion in limine) because no actual drugs or lab reports were introduced | Testimony admissible; witnesses had personal knowledge; objections went to weight, not admissibility |
| Sufficiency to prove MDO (weight of actual cocaine >100g) | Garr permits proving quantity by circumstantial evidence where no substance recovered; representations of amount suffice | Following Gonzales/Sanchez, must prove weight of actual drug (not mixture); here no proof of cocaine purity or drug weight beyond represented gross weight | MDO enhancement reversed and vacated: insufficient evidence to prove >100g of actual cocaine |
| Application of Chandler (counterfeit/drug testing cases) | State distinguishes Chandler as inapplicable when no substance is recovered | Kiser argues Chandler requires detectable drug for MDO findings when alleged drug is recovered/tested | Court: Chandler limited to cases where substance is recovered and tested; Garr clarified Chandler doesn’t bar MDO findings when no substance recovered, but facts here left too close to statutory threshold to sustain MDO |
| Preservation of motion-in-limine error on appeal | State: denial of motion in limine is not appealable without timely contemporaneous objection | Kiser claimed preserved via continuing objection at trial | Court held objections were made but ruled testimony admissible; motion-in-limine claim fails because testimony was admissible under Evid.R. 602 |
Key Cases Cited
- Gable v. Village of Gates Mills, 103 Ohio St.3d 449 (2004) (ruling on motion in limine generally not appealable absent timely objection at trial)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)
- Garr v. Warden, Madison Correctional Inst., 126 Ohio St.3d 334 (2010) (Chandler limitation: when no substance recovered, state may prove MDO by circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Chandler, 109 Ohio St.3d 223 (2006) (holding that a substance recovered and tested must contain detectable controlled substance to support MDO finding)