State v. Stover, 2016 Ohio 1361

Defendant Isaac Stover was indicted for one count of trafficking in heroin (R.C. 2925.03(A)(1)) following a controlled buy and convicted by a jury; sentenced to 10 months.
A confidential informant (CI) arranged a purchase by phone/text and met a blue Hyundai Sonata in a store parking lot; the CI received a rolled-up lottery ticket containing two rocks that tested positive for heroin.
CI gave marked buy money to Stover, who was seated in the rear; Stover handed the money to a front-seat occupant who had provided the lottery ticket to Stover.
Surveillance officers observed the vehicle, identified Stover in the back seat, recovered the marked money in the glove compartment and a cell phone used in the arrangement, and witnessed the vehicle leave the lot.
Stover later told police that if a transaction occurred ‘‘it was marijuana.’’ The rocks tested as heroin (~0.17 g).
Stover moved for judgment of acquittal under Crim.R. 29(A); the trial court denied the motion. On appeal the court reviewed sufficiency of the evidence and affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to convict under R.C. 2925.03(A)(1)	State: testimony, surveillance, marked money, and physical transfer show Stover knowingly sold/offered to sell a controlled substance	Stover: insufficient evidence; jury could not identify him as the seller and he lacked knowledge that substance was heroin	Affirmed — evidence was sufficient to prove knowingly selling/offering to sell a controlled substance; Crim.R. 29 motion properly denied
Whether prosecution must prove defendant knew the substance was heroin	State: need only prove defendant knowingly sold a controlled substance	Stover: must know the particular substance (heroin) to be guilty of trafficking heroin	Held — the State need not prove knowledge of the substance's specific chemical identity; proof that defendant knowingly sold a controlled substance suffices

State v. Mughni, 33 Ohio St.3d 65 (1987) (knowledge of offering to sell controlled substance completes offense; no requirement of knowledge of exact drug identity)
State v. Patterson, 69 Ohio St.2d 445 (1982) (culpable mental state relates to the act of offering to sell; no additional element of knowledge of the nature of the substance)
State v. Lee, 97 Ohio App.3d 197 (1994) (prosecution need only prove defendant knowingly offered to sell a controlled substance, not knowledge of its identity)
State v. Henton, 121 Ohio App.3d 501 (1997) (analysis of totality of circumstances in determining whether defendant knowingly offered to sell a controlled substance)
State v. Scott, 69 Ohio St.2d 439 (1982) (R.C. 2925.03 reflects legislative intent to criminalize commerce in controlled substances)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Schaffer, 127 Ohio App.3d 501 (11th Dist.) (standard for when a verdict is supported by sufficient evidence)