State v. Rowe, 2023 Ohio 3686

On Nov. 9, 2022, Rowe was stopped for vehicle equipment and plate violations; officers planned to impound the truck.
While standing by the truck, a glass pipe fell from the left pocket of Rowe’s jacket, struck the ground, and broke into two pieces; officers recovered the pipe and entered it into evidence.
Officer Powell (sole prosecution witness) testified the glass pipe (with a bubbled stem and burn marks) is commonly used to smoke methamphetamine or crack and that the burn marks indicated prior use.
Body-worn camera footage and the officer’s observations were admitted; the officer did not see Rowe using the pipe and found no drugs on Rowe, her passenger, or in the vehicle.
Rowe testified she had taken an old jacket from a used vehicle earlier that night, denied knowledge the pipe was in the pocket, and said she put her license into the pocket before approaching officers.
After a bench trial Rowe was convicted of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (R.C. 2925.14(C)(1)), sentenced to jail with probation, fined, and appealed claiming insufficiency/manifest-weight challenges as to knowledge and intent to use.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rowe "knowingly" possessed the pipe	State: pipe was in Rowe’s pocket, video showed familiarity with jacket, Rowe reached for pipe — supports knowledge	Rowe: jacket belonged to employer’s vehicle; she didn’t check pockets and didn’t know pipe was there	Court: Evidence sufficient and not against manifest weight; trier of fact could infer knowledge and disbelieve Rowe’s testimony
Whether Rowe possessed the pipe "with purpose to use"	State: pipe had burn residue, was the type commonly used to smoke meth/crack, was immediately accessible in her pocket — supports intent to use	Rowe: no drugs found, passed jail drug test, no drug history — argues lack of evidence of intent	Court: Evidence sufficient and not against manifest weight; circumstances support inference of intent to use

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency review standard: view evidence in prosecution’s favor)
State v. Teamer, 82 Ohio St.3d 490 (Ohio 1998) (intent/knowledge inferred from surrounding facts)
State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160 (Ohio 1990) (intent often proved circumstantially)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (deference to trier of fact on witness credibility)
State v. Scalf, 126 Ohio App.3d 614 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998) (actual and constructive possession explained)
State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67 (Ohio 2011) (manifest-weight reversals are exceptional)