State v. Kiser, 2017 Ohio 7799

Appellant Julian Kiser was convicted of offering to sell cocaine and found to be a major drug offender (MDO) based on the jury’s finding that the substance represented as cocaine weighed over 100 grams.
Undercover officers (T.K. and C.P.) arranged a buy; appellant produced a bag of white powder that weighed ~140–150 grams, but no drug was seized or lab-tested at trial (prior suppression ruling excluded seized drugs).
The jury convicted on the offer-to-sell charge and returned the MDO enhancement; appellant was sentenced to 10 years.
On appeal, Kiser argued the MDO finding lacked sufficient evidence because the state presented no proof of the weight of actual cocaine (i.e., purity), relying on Sixth District precedents requiring proof of the drug’s actual weight.
The State relied on Garr v. Warden, arguing Chandler’s rule (invalidating an MDO when the recovered substance tested as inert) does not apply where no substance was recovered and the offeror’s representations and produced item weight may support an MDO finding.
The Ohio Supreme Court remanded after clarifying in State v. Gonzales that total mixture weight (including fillers) may determine offense level; the Sixth District, on remand, held the evidence was sufficient to sustain the MDO finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the MDO finding under R.C. 2925.03(C)(4)(g) is supported by sufficient evidence when no drug was recovered or tested	State: The offeror produced a substance >100 g and represented it as cocaine; circumstantial evidence suffices to prove MDO	Kiser: Without testing or proof of purity, the state failed to prove >100 g of actual cocaine; jury speculation cannot support MDO	Affirmed: Viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational trier of fact could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt where appellant offered to sell and produced a >100 g substance (Garr/Gonzales controlling)

State v. Garr, 933 N.E.2d 1063 (Ohio 2010) (Chandler’s rule limiting MDO when recovered substance tested inert does not apply where no substance is recovered and the offeror’s statements/acts can support MDO)
State v. Chandler, 846 N.E.2d 1234 (Ohio 2006) (holding that a recovered substance tested as inert negates an MDO enhancement when jury finds it is the drug but lab shows otherwise)
State v. Jenks, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Sanchez, 59 N.E.3d 719 (6th Dist. 2016) (applied purity/actual-drug-weight analysis to reduce trafficking level when lab showed lower actual drug weight)