State v. Markley
2021 Ohio 3340
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Grace Elizabeth Markley was indicted on three counts for bringing drugs into the Richland County Jail: illegal conveyance onto grounds of a specified governmental facility (felony 3), aggravated trafficking (felony 4), and aggravated possession (felony 5).
- An inmate informant reported Markley would bring drugs; jail staff observed her, intercepted her in the Visitation Center, and found a folded paper in her back pocket containing a crystalline substance.
- A Mansfield Police Forensic Science Laboratory Drug Analysis Report (July 22, 2020) identified the substance as 0.03 grams of methamphetamine; the analyst (Tambasco) did not testify at trial and defense did not serve a demand under R.C. 2925.51(C).
- Detective Shoemaker testified about and introduced the written lab report into evidence without objection from trial counsel.
- The jury convicted Markley on all counts; the trial court imposed concurrent sentences (aggregate 36 months). Markley appealed, arguing (1) convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence and (2) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object to admission of the lab report/testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of lab report / evidence of a "controlled substance" | Lab report complied with R.C. 2925.51 and is prima-facie evidence when defendant fails to demand analyst testimony | Without the analyst's live testimony, the report is inadmissible hearsay and insufficient to prove a controlled substance | The report met statutory requirements and, because defense did not timely demand the analyst, the report was admissible as prima-facie evidence; convictions supported proof of a controlled substance |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to detective’s testimony about the lab report | Prosecutor: counsel’s choice to not demand or object was a tactical decision; defense had the statutory opportunity to require live testimony | Markley: counsel was ineffective for not demanding the analyst and objecting to testimony about the report | Court: decision tactical and within reasonable professional judgment; no Strickland prejudice shown; claim denied |
| Whether entering the Visitation Center constituted "conveyance onto the grounds" of a detention facility | State: premises (including lobby/visitation center) are part of jail grounds; bringing meth into lobby is conveyance onto grounds | Markley: lobby was unsecured and not the kind of area covered by statute | Court: visitation center and lobby are within jail premises; evidence supported conveyance onto detention facility grounds |
| Sufficiency for aggravated trafficking (pecuniary gain element) | State: R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) covers transfers intended for sale or resale; proof of transfer intent need not include consideration | Markley: no evidence she received pecuniary benefit | Court: pecuniary gain not an element; law treats "sale" broadly—conviction not against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)
- Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic certificates are testimonial; confrontation implications)
- State v. Pasqualone, 121 Ohio St.3d 186 (2009) (R.C. 2925.51 notice-and-demand permits waiver of right to cross-examine analyst)
- State v. McCausland, 124 Ohio St.3d 8 (2009) (defense counsel can waive confrontation right by not demanding analyst testimony; tactical decision)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 (2016) (appellate review of manifest-weight claims requires review of whole record and witness credibility)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (deference to trier of fact on witness credibility)