2018 Ohio 3249
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Javonte R. Lacy was indicted on two counts of second‑degree trafficking in heroin following two controlled buys on May 17 and June 14, 2016; a jury convicted him on both counts after an November 2017 trial.
- Trial counsel William Bobulsky represented Lacy at trial; post‑verdict, Lacy retained new counsel and filed a motion for new trial alleging (1) an actual conflict of interest because Bobulsky also represented Lacy’s brother Jonah in an unrelated matter, and (2) breaks/deficiencies in the chain of custody and testing of narcotics by Ohio BCI.
- Lacy’s motion rested principally on his own affidavit claiming Jonah would have testified that the drugs and transactions were Jonah’s, and that Bobulsky refused to call Jonah because of the alleged conflict.
- The trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding Lacy’s affidavit lacked credibility and that trial evidence (informant testimony, audio recordings, police observations, and family testimony) strongly supported that Javonte, not Jonah, sold the heroin.
- BCI testimony at trial showed initial testing by two analysts later disciplined; a BCI analyst retested the samples and obtained consistent results; the court found any breaks in chain of custody affected weight, not admissibility.
- Lacy appealed the denial of the motion for new trial; the appellate court affirmed, rejecting both the conflict‑of‑interest and chain‑of‑custody challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an actual conflict of interest (trial counsel representing defendant’s brother) deprived Lacy of effective assistance | State: No conflict requiring relief; Jonah was not a state witness or co‑defendant and alleged testimony was unreliable | Lacy: Bobulsky’s dual representation prevented calling Jonah, who would exculpate Lacy, creating an actual conflict and prejudice | Court: Affidavit lacked credibility and trial evidence contradicted the claim; no abuse of discretion in denying a new trial |
| Whether BCI testing and breaks in chain of custody required exclusion / new trial | State: Any lapses go to weight not admissibility; retesting produced consistent results | Lacy: Disciplined analysts and incomplete custody documentation undermine reliability and raise reasonable doubt | Court: Incomplete chain affects weight only; retest corroborated earlier results; no prejudice warranting new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 564 N.E.2d 54 (standard of review for Crim.R. 33 motions)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 714 N.E.2d 905 (factors for assessing credibility of affidavits in paper hearings)
- State v. Wilkins, 64 Ohio St.2d 382, 415 N.E.2d 303 (strict chain of custody not always required; substitution/alteration must be reasonably precluded)
- State v. Richey, 64 Ohio St.3d 353, 595 N.E.2d 915 (contamination/chain breaks go to evidentiary weight, not admissibility)