State v. Scoggins
2017 Ohio 8989
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Officers conducting a probation home check approached the Wooten residence and observed a running, unoccupied vehicle in the driveway containing an active one‑pot methamphetamine lab in plain view. A subsequent search of the vehicle revealed additional active and spent one‑pot labs, precursor chemicals, a tool bag, Scoggins’s driver’s license, and his cell phone. A minor child was present in the house on the property. Scoggins was not on the property at the time.
- Scoggins was indicted on multiple counts: aggravated trafficking and aggravated possession of methamphetamine, illegal manufacture of methamphetamine, illegal assembly/possession of chemicals for methamphetamine manufacture (all with vicinity‑of‑juvenile enhancements in the superseding indictment), and endangering children.
- The trial court denied Scoggins’s motion to suppress the vehicle evidence. A jury convicted him on all counts and found drug‑quantity and vicinity‑of‑juvenile enhancements. The trial court merged certain counts and imposed an aggregate 22‑year sentence (19 years mandatory).
- On appeal Scoggins raised suppression error, juror impartiality, discovery/Crim.R.16 issues, Evid.R.404(B)/mistrial, sufficiency and manifest‑weight challenges, merger under R.C.2941.25, and sentencing challenges to consecutive/near‑maximum terms.
- The Fourth District affirmed: (1) the vehicle observation was open view, (2) exigent‑circumstances and R.C.2933.33 justified the warrantless search, (3) discovery/exclusion and mistrial claims were rejected, (4) evidence was sufficient and not against the manifest weight for the convictions and juvenile‑vicinity findings, and (5) merger and consecutive‑sentence rulings were correct. The court, sua sponte, found plain error in two jury verdict forms and the sentencing entry misidentifying the statutory subsections for Counts 1 and 2 and instructed the trial court to file a nunc pro tunc correction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Scoggins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to suppress: was vehicle search lawful? | Officers lawfully on property saw active lab in open view; exigent circumstances + R.C.2933.33 justified warrantless search. | Search was warrantless and violated Fourth Amendment/plain‑view limits; suppression warranted. | Denied suppression: open‑view observation from driveway + probable cause and exigent circumstances (risk of explosion) excused warrant. |
| Juror impartiality (for‑cause strikes / peremptories) | Trial court properly assessed juror answers; defendant used peremptories and failed to show any seated juror was partial. | Forced to use peremptories to remove biased jurors and denied effective use; impartiality violated. | Denied: no showing a seated juror was not impartial; broad trial judge discretion in voir dire. |
| Discovery/Crim.R.16 and witness exclusion | State complied with discovery (supplemental disclosures); notes at issue were work product, not discoverable; any nondisclosure was not prejudicial. | Late disclosure of witnesses and failure to produce witness statements/convictions deprived defense and warranted exclusion. | Denied exclusion: disclosures adequate; prosecutor notes were work product; no willful violation producing prejudice shown. |
| Evid.R.404(B)/mistrial for prior‑acts testimony | Prior‑acts evidence was admissible for identity/intent/modus operandi and probative value outweighed prejudice. | Testimony that defendant ‘‘cooked meth daily’’ and prosecutor questioning injected prior‑bad‑acts prejudice; mistrial required. | Denied mistrial: testimony was relevant, inextricably linked to charged conduct, and not unfairly prejudicial enough to require mistrial. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for drug counts and child endangerment | Liquid mixture from active labs tested positive for methamphetamine; statute treats mixtures containing meth as meth; child was present on the premises within 100 feet. | Liquid precursor not final/useable meth; insufficient proof of possession/trafficking and of allowing child within 100 feet. | Affirmed: statutory definition covers mixtures containing meth; evidence supported possession/trafficking and that a minor was on premises within the vicinity. |
| Manifest weight and vicinity enhancements | Witness testimony, physical evidence, and distance estimates supported manufacture conviction and juvenile‑vicinity enhancements. | Witnesses unreliable; convictions against manifest weight and enhancements unsupported. | Affirmed: credibility and weight for jury; vicinity findings supported by testimony and photos. |
| Merger (R.C.2941.25): should manufacturing, assembly, and child endangerment merge? | Crimes were different in import/animus: quantities of extra precursor materials supported separate animus; R.C.2919.22(B)(6) permits separate punishment when drug is meth and offense occurs near a juvenile. | Cannot criminally punish possession of materials and manufacture and child endangerment separately for the same conduct. | Affirmed no merger between manufacture and assembly (separate animus/extra materials); endangering children may be punished separately under statutes expressing legislative intent. |
| Sentencing and consecutive terms | Trial court made required findings under R.C.2929.14(C)(4), considered statutory factors, and imposed lawful consecutive mandatory terms. | Consecutive/near‑maximum terms were excessive and not justified. | Affirmed: findings were made at hearing and in entry; sentences within statutory range and not contrary to law. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Roberts, 110 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 2006) (standard for appellate review of mixed questions of law and fact in suppression rulings)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (trial court as factfinder in suppression hearings; deference to factual findings)
- State v. Broom, 40 Ohio St.3d 277 (Ohio 1988) (defendant must use all peremptory challenges and show a seated juror was impartial to claim denial of effective use)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (legal sufficiency standard: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Cunningham, 105 Ohio St.3d 197 (Ohio 2004) (definition of discoverable witness statements under Crim.R.16)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make required consecutive‑sentence findings at sentencing hearing and incorporate them into the entry)
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (Ohio 2015) (R.C.2941.25 allied‑offenses analysis: conduct, animus, and import)
- State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 (Ohio 2010) (merger principles and definition of conviction for sentencing)
- State v. Pelfrey, 112 Ohio St.3d 422 (Ohio 2007) (verdict form must state degree of offense or that aggravating element was found)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (plain‑error doctrine to be applied with utmost caution)