State v. Rock, 2014 Ohio 1786

Indicted in Seneca County on counts of possession of drugs (fifth-degree) with a prior-drug-offense specification and tampering with evidence (third-degree).
Incident occurred May 31, 2012 when a Fostoria officer saw Rock toss hydrocodone pills onto the ground and approach in patrol proximity.
May 2, 2013, a jury convicted Rock on both counts and found the prior-drug-offense specification for Count One.
Rock was sentenced August 16, 2013 to 11 months on Count One and 24 months on Count Two, to be served concurrently.
Rock filed a notice of appeal September 12, 2013 challenging the tampering conviction as insufficient evidence under Crim.R. 29.
A dissent argues the State failed to prove Rock knew an official proceeding or investigation was underway or imminent, needed for tampering with evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the tampering conviction is supported by sufficient evidence	Rock argues there was no knowledge of an investigation.	State argues Rock purposefully concealed to impair evidence.	Yes; sufficient evidence supports tampering conviction.

State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1978) (sufficiency standard viewed with sufficiency test)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1981) (sufficiency review standard for elements)
State v. Delaney, 2004-Ohio-4158 (Ohio 2004) (distinguishable from Delaney; plain-view and timing distinctions)
State v. Hicks, 2008-Ohio-3600 (Ohio 2008) (knowledge of investigation based on reasonable person standard)
State v. Lovelace, 2003-Ohio-732 (Ohio 2003) (knowledge of investigation shown by police contact and conduct)
State v. Cavalier, 2012-Ohio-1976 (Ohio 2012) (no automatic knowledge of investigation despite surveillance)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (due process and sufficiency distinction clarified)
State v. Purdy, 2013-Ohio-4105 (Ohio 2013) (distinguishes sufficiency from manifest weight)
State v. Drummond, 201 Ohio6 (Ohio 2006) (conceptual framework for sufficiency/weight)