State v. Owens
90 N.E.3d 189
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- MARMET Drug Task Force conducted two controlled buys (Jan 7 and Feb 9, 2016) where confidential informant Stacy Keese bought cocaine from Tommy Owens; buys were audiovisually recorded and MARMET supplied the buy money.
- Search warrants for two addresses (618 Henry St. and 224 N. Grand Ave.) were obtained after the February buy; small amount of cocaine seized at Henry St.; ~80 grams found in a peanut can at Grand Ave.
- Owens was present at Grand Ave. during the search, initially admitted ownership of the peanut can cocaine to police, then later recanted at trial.
- Owens was indicted on multiple counts (possession and trafficking in cocaine); trial court denied his motion to suppress; jury convicted him on four counts; total sentence five years (concurrent).
- On appeal Owens raised four points: suppression ruling, admission of the controlled-buy recordings (informant did not testify), discovery violations/mistrial request, and sufficiency of evidence as to the 27‑gram threshold for one possession count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Validity of search warrants / motion to suppress | State: affidavits provided a sufficient factual basis; warrants issued by neutral magistrate | Owens: affidavits were poorly drafted, contained conclusions not operative facts, so no probable cause | Court: No probable cause on record, but evidence admissible under the Leon/George good‑faith exception; suppression denied |
| 2. Admission of audio/video of controlled buys when informant did not testify | State: recordings are admissible and corroborated; evidence supported by Owens’s admissions | Owens: admission of informant’s statements in recordings violated Confrontation Clause | Court: Any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because Owens admitted possession/trafficking at trial; admission did not require reversal |
| 3. Discovery violations and request for mistrial/dismissal | State: disclosure failures were inadvertent; trial court cured issues by permitting review/continuance and additional cross‑examination | Owens: cumulative discovery failures (witness plea, undisclosed statements, informant address, co‑defendant history) prejudiced defense | Court: Violations were not shown to be material under Brady/Crim.R.16; trial court’s curative measures sufficed; no mistrial/dismissal warranted |
| 4. Sufficiency of evidence / 27‑gram threshold for first‑degree possession | State: BCI showed entire mixture weighed over 27 grams and testing confirmed cocaine in the sample; under Gonzales II entire mixture counts toward weight | Owens: State failed to show actual cocaine weight or purity in mixture; constructive possession not proven | Court: Applies Gonzales reconsideration (entire mixture counts); evidence (Owens’ admissions + witnesses) sufficient; Rule 29 denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (practical, common‑sense probable‑cause assessment for warrants)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (exclusionary rule applies to states)
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (Ohio follows Leon good‑faith exception)
- State v. Castagnola, 145 Ohio St.3d 1 (affidavits must include underlying facts, not just conclusions)