State v. Marr, 2020 Ohio 3898

On Dec. 28, 2018, West Carrollton Officer John Perry stopped William Marr for an illegal left turn; Marr was driving and Brian Eades was the front-seat passenger.
During the stop Marr gave equivocal answers about consent to search but ultimately consented; Eades separately consented to a search of his person.
Officers found a digital scale (with suspected meth residue) on Eades, and in the truck under a slightly ajar center cup holder they found a large bag of methamphetamine, a loaded operable black revolver, a plastic (nonfunctional) gun, a silver tin with 10 gel capsules (contain heroin/fentanyl mixtures), and a meth pipe.
Marr admitted the pipe was his but denied knowing about the gun or drugs; Eades testified at trial (after a plea agreement granting him immunity from drug charges) that the gun and drugs were his and that he placed them under the cup holder moments after the officer activated lights.
A jury convicted Marr of aggravated possession of drugs, having a weapon while under disability, possession of heroin, and possession of drug paraphernalia; the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate three-year prison term.
On appeal Marr argued (1) convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence because he lacked knowledge/constructive possession, and (2) prosecutorial misconduct for eliciting testimony and arguing that Marr and Eades met in prison.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Marr's convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence (constructive possession of drugs and gun)	State: Marr, as owner/driver with dominion and control over the truck and items located next to his seat, and given his equivocal answers and admission about the pipe, could be found to have knowingly possessed the contraband.	Marr: Officer's view was obstructed, no furtive movements observed, items could have been placed by Eades seconds before stop, Marr had no actual possession or knowledge, mere proximity insufficient for constructive possession.	Affirmed. Jury reasonably inferred constructive possession from Marr's dominion as driver, proximity of concealed items, his equivocal statements, and ability to exercise control; rejection of Eades' self-serving immunity-backed testimony was permissible.
Whether prosecutor's elicitation and closing reference to Marr and Eades meeting in prison was prosecutorial misconduct requiring a new trial	State: Questioning and closing comments were supported by Eades' testimony; reference was not improper and did not affect outcome.	Marr: Prosecutor elicited prior-bad-acts/prison evidence in violation of Evid.R. 404(B) and referenced it in closing, prejudicing the jury.	Affirmed. Plain-error review failed: the question was permissible, the closing remark tracked the testimony, and Marr did not show the misconduct altered the outcome.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (sets the Ohio manifest-weight standard)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (reversal for weight of the evidence is limited to exceptional cases where evidence weighs heavily against conviction)
State v. Hankerson, 70 Ohio St.2d 87 (defines constructive possession as awareness plus ability to exercise dominion and control)
Criss v. City of Kent, 867 F.2d 259 (6th Cir.) (recognizes constructive possession when contraband is within premises under a suspect's control and he was conscious of its presence)