2018 Ohio 4451
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On July 21, 2015, Ohio State Highway Patrol troopers stopped a rented Jeep on the Ohio Turnpike after observing the vehicle speeding; Dequez Reed was the driver and Dorisha Moore the passenger.
- Trooper smelled marijuana; Reed admitted recent marijuana use and could not produce his license; he briefly opened then slammed shut the center console when asked for his license.
- Troopers summoned backup, searched the vehicle, and found two pouches of pills (total ~300 tablets) in the center console; lab testing identified 30 mg oxycodone tablets with an estimated street value of about $9,000.
- Reed and Moore both denied ownership; Reed was arrested and charged with aggravated drug possession and preparation of drugs for sale (both second-degree felonies).
- A jury convicted Reed on both counts; the court merged convictions for sentencing, the state elected preparation-for-sale count, and Reed received a mandatory three-year prison term, fine, and postrelease control.
- Reed appealed arguing the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the state proved only proximity and produced no fingerprint, phone, or other direct link tying him to the pills.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Reed’s conviction supported by the manifest weight of the evidence? | State: Reed’s furtive conduct (opening/slamming console), change in demeanor when a search was requested, and his control as driver support constructive possession. | Reed: Only proximity to the console; no fingerprints, phone evidence, ownership of rental, or other indicia of dominion; passenger had equal access. | Affirmed. Jury did not lose its way; constructive possession proven by dominion/control as driver, furtive movement, and conduct when faced with a search. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
- State v. Hankerson, 70 Ohio St.2d 87 (1982) (definition of constructive possession)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1983) (reversal on manifest-weight is reserved for exceptional cases)
- State v. Pilgrim, 184 Ohio App.3d 675 (2009) (constructive possession may be inferred from surrounding facts and defendant’s actions)