State v. Straley, 2013 Ohio 510

Straley pled no contest to crack cocaine trafficking and possession, both fifth-degree felonies, after a suppression ruling.
A related trial proceeded on a separate tampering with evidence charge, a third-degree felony, based on dropping a baggie of crack cocaine while urinating.
Plain-clothes detectives stopped Straley in an unmarked car, searched the car with consent, found no contraband, and observed Straley urinating in a dark area near a building.
Detective Speakman saw a baggie on the ground, covered in urine, which contained crack cocaine, and arrested Straley after retrieving the baggie.
Straley argued the tampering conviction lacked sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for tampering	State argues she concealed or removed to impair evidence.	Straley contends no tampering occurred; she discarded unrelated contraband.	Tampering insufficient; reversed
Manifest weight of the evidence for tampering	State asserts evidence shows concealment/removal with likely investigation and purpose to impair.	Straley claims no purposeful impairment or relevant ongoing investigation.	Weight favors Straley; conviction vacated

State v. Delaney, 2004-Ohio-4158 (3d Dist. Union No. 14-04-10, 2004) (tampering in full view lacks sufficiency)
State v. Henderson, 2003-Ohio-1470 (9th Dist. Lorain No. 02CA008052) (openly placing weapon in road does not prove tampering)
State v. Moulder, 2009-Ohio-5871 (2d Dist. Greene No. 08-CA-108) (tampering requires linkage to an ongoing or likely investigation)
State v. Spears, 178 Ohio App.3d 580 (2d Dist. Montgomery No.) (distinguishes sufficiency/weight considerations in tampering)
State v. Skorvanek, 182 Ohio App.3d 615 (9th Dist. 2009-Ohio-1709) (no requirement that tampered item be directly related to officer's investigation purpose)