State v. Peyton
2017 Ohio 243
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- James V. Peyton owned Empire Motors. Undercover detective Dan Schweitzer (posing as a buyer "Matt") and a confidential informant met Peyton multiple times in spring–summer 2013.
- Peyton sold Schweitzer multiple prescription pills (Percocet, Vicodin) on several occasions and discussed marijuana business and storage; he introduced his stepson James Smith as a "career" marijuana guy.
- On June 21, 2013, Schweitzer conducted a reverse-buy: he delivered a crate containing bricks and blocks of marijuana to Empire Motors. Peyton unloaded, bagged, and concealed the marijuana in the dealership (including the attic) and in a vehicle, and accepted $2,000 for storage.
- Officers arrested Peyton seconds after Schweitzer left; marijuana and the $2,000 were recovered. Peyton was indicted for various drug-trafficking counts and possession of marijuana; he was convicted by a jury in January 2015 and sentenced to eight years.
- At trial Peyton requested an entrapment instruction (oral request only); the court denied it. He appealed, arguing (1) the court erred by refusing the entrapment instruction and (2) his marijuana possession conviction was against the manifest weight/insufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court should have given an entrapment instruction | State: evidence showed no entrapment; Peyton was predisposed | Peyton: undercover officer induced/groomed him over time and controlled the transaction, so entrapment instruction required | Denied: Peyton failed to prove lack of predisposition; subjective test controls; abundant evidence of predisposition |
| Whether Peyton's marijuana possession conviction was supported by sufficient evidence / against manifest weight | State: Peyton exercised dominion and control (unloaded, bagged, hid, accepted payment) — sufficient | Peyton: he never truly controlled it; undercover controlled the operation and arrest was immediate | Affirmed: constructive possession proven; conviction not against manifest weight; sufficiency implied by weight ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Doran, 5 Ohio St.3d 187 (Ohio 1983) (adopts subjective entrapment test focusing on defendant predisposition)
- State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (Ohio 1982) (requirement that jury instructions be requested in writing under Crim.R. 30)
- State v. Joy, 74 Ohio St.3d 178 (Ohio 1995) (instructions must be correct, pertinent, and timely presented)
- State v. Palmer, 80 Ohio St.3d 543 (Ohio 1997) (no error in refusing affirmative-defense instruction when evidence insufficient)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)