State v. Smith, 2017 Ohio 8558

Background

On Nov. 29, 2015 a neighbor called 911 reporting a burglary in progress; officers arrived minutes later and encountered Maurice Smith leaving the building with a visible bag of marijuana in his pocket. A struggle ensued, during which drugs (cocaine and marijuana) were thrown/spilled and items belonging to the victim were recovered. Smith was arrested.
Indictments: second-degree burglary; first-degree trafficking in cocaine; first-degree possession of cocaine; fifth-degree possession of marijuana; third-degree tampering with evidence; and a community-control violation in a related case.
Pretrial: Smith filed multiple pro se motions (including requests for independent fingerprint analysis and speedy-trial dismissal); counsel changed; two suppression hearings were held and denied.
Trial: Jury heard 911 call (Smith stipulated to admissibility), officer lay-opinion testimony about bulk packaging/distribution, eyewitness testimony that Smith threw drugs, and rebuttal testimony about prior statements; jury convicted on all counts.
Sentencing: Court imposed consecutive prison terms; on appeal the State conceded allied-offense error between trafficking and possession counts. Court affirmed convictions but vacated part of sentence and remanded for election/resentencing on the allied offenses.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to suppress arrest/search	Officers had probable cause from observing large bag of marijuana on Smith and the burglary-in-progress broadcast; search incident to arrest lawful	Smith argued detention/arrest lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause	Overruled: officer personally observed contraband and had probable cause; search incident to lawful arrest permitted (motion denied).
Request for new counsel	State: no error in denying because defendant failed to articulate grounds for substitution	Smith argued trial court should have appointed new counsel (pro se motion drafted but not filed; he declined to state grounds at hearings)	Overruled: no good cause shown when given opportunities to explain; denial within trial court discretion.
Admission of 911 call and rebuttal hearsay	State: 911 call admissible (stipulated by Smith; falls within excited utterance/present sense impression and is non‑testimonial); rebuttal testimony admissible to impeach Hodge’s denial	Smith: 911 call/hearsay statements violated Confrontation and hearsay rules; rebuttal was improper prior inconsistent hearsay	Overruled: Smith stipulated to 911 admission (waiver); 911 calls generally admissible; rebuttal testimony permissible under Evid.R. 613(B) after witness denied prior statements.
Sentencing for allied offenses / consecutive terms	State conceded possession and trafficking are allied; trial court made required consecutive findings and considered statutory factors	Smith argued allied-offense error and other sentencing defects (lack of statutory findings / DNA notice)	Partially sustained: trial court’s consecutive findings and factor consideration valid; but allied‑offense error required vacating one of the trafficking/possession sentences and remand for state election and resentencing.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard for appellate review of suppression findings)
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (U.S. 2001) (officer may arrest for offenses committed in presence)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969) (search incident to lawful arrest doctrine)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (limits and purposes of search-incident-to-arrest)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance of counsel two‑prong test)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (manifest-weight standard)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (requirements for court to make and incorporate consecutive‑sentence findings)