State v. Manso
2014 Ohio 1388
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Manso was stopped for a traffic violation in Akron on July 22, 2012, leading to the discovery of crack cocaine in the vehicle.
- He was indicted for possession of cocaine, a felony of the fifth degree.
- Manso moved to suppress the evidence from the stop; the trial court denied the motion after a hearing on October 25, 2012.
- A jury found him guilty of possession of cocaine and he was sentenced to 12 months, suspended on two years of community control, with a six-month license suspension.
- On appeal, Manso challenges the suppression ruling and raises five additional assignments of error addressing sufficiency, weight, Crim.R. 29, ineffective assistance, and self-incrimination-related issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the stop lawful based on a traffic violation? | Manso argues no legitimate basis for the stop. | Manso contends the stop was unjustified. | Yes; the stop was lawfully based on a traffic violation (California stop) under Fourth Amendment and Ohio Constitution. |
| Is there sufficient evidence to sustain possession of cocaine? | Manso asserts the State failed to prove knowledge of the cocaine. | State argues the evidence shows knowledge of cocaine given its location and circumstances. | Yes; evidence viewed in the State’s favor supports knowledge and possession. |
| Is the conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence? | Manso asserts the small amount and credibility of witnesses undermine the verdict. | State maintains credibility of officers and the link to possession supports weight. | No; the verdict is not against the manifest weight. |
| Did the court err by denying Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal? | State failed to produce insufficient evidence; Crim.R. 29 should have yielded acquittal. | State presented sufficient evidence to sustain conviction. | No; the State’s evidence was sufficient, and relief on Crim.R. 29 was not warranted. |
| Was trial counsel ineffective for not renewing Crim.R. 29 or other deficient performance? | Counsel’s performance allegedly deficient, prejudicing outcome. | Counsel acted reasonably; no prejudice shown. | No; failure to renew Crim.R. 29 did not prejudice the outcome; record supports competency and strategy. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard for reviewing suppression findings; trial court as fact-finder)
- State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (Ohio 1992) (credibility resolution on suppression testimony)
- State v. Campbell, 9th Dist. Medina No. 05CA0032-M, 2005-Ohio-4361 (Ohio 2005) (reasonable articulable suspicion and traffic-stop framework)
- State v. Hoder, 2004-Ohio-3083 (Ohio 2004) (support for stop based on observed traffic violation)
- State v. Shook, 1994 WL 263194 (Ohio 1994) (early precedent on traffic stops)
- State v. Smallwood, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24282, 2009-Ohio-1987 (Ohio 2009) (preserves issues not properly raised at suppression hearing)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review; view evidence in light most favorable to the State)
- State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706 (Ohio App. 4th Dist. 1997) (guidance on sufficiency review post-judgment)
- State v. Love, 9th Dist. Summit No. 21654, 2004-Ohio-1422 (Ohio 2004) (manifest weight standard; weighing all evidence)
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (Ohio 1986) (thirteenth juror instruction concept in weight of the evidence)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (weight of the evidence standard; exceptional cases)
- State v. Arnold, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24685, 2009-Ohio-6077 (Ohio 2009) (Crim.R. 29 motions and sufficiency analysis distinction)
- State v. Nurse, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26363, 2013-Ohio-785 (Ohio 2013) (treatment of sufficiency challenges when Crim.R. 29 is not renewed)
- State v. Bays, 87 Ohio St.3d 15 (Ohio 1999) (defense rights and waiver considerations for trial strategies)