State v. Struckman, 2020 Ohio 1232

Background

Police responded to a shots-fired call at 622 Maple Street; SWAT cleared the residence and secured defendant Buddy Struckman.
Officers searched the only habitable area (a small second-floor room) and found a .45 handgun; in a closet safe they found a .45-caliber MAC-10 automatic weapon, six loaded magazines, a suppressor made for the weapon, a detached stock, and ~600 rounds of .45 ammunition.
Struckman was repeatedly associated with the address (listed it on forms; his truck parked outside); he was the only person present when police established a perimeter and later when officers arrested him five days after the initial entry.
Indictment charged two counts of unlawful possession of a dangerous ordnance (automatic weapon and suppressor) and two R.C. 2941.144 specifications alleging possession of an automatic firearm equipped with a suppressor.
At trial Struckman proceeded pro se after multiple attorney withdrawals and executed written waivers; post-conviction he appealed alleging (1) insufficient/manifestly-weighty evidence of constructive possession; (2) denial of right to counsel when midtrial re-request was not granted; and (3) error in competency determination.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Struckman)	Held
Sufficiency / Manifest weight of evidence for possession and R.C. 2941.144 specifications	Circumstantial evidence established constructive possession: Struckman lived/was sole occupant of the small second-floor living area where the weapons and suppressor were secured in a closet safe	State failed to prove dominion, control, or consciousness of the weapons; insufficiency and verdict is against manifest weight	Evidence was sufficient and convictions were not against manifest weight; circumstantial proof of constructive possession was adequate
Right to counsel / midtrial request	Struckman knowingly and voluntarily waived counsel after multiple colloquies and signed written waivers; court properly appointed standby counsel and explained dangers of self-representation	Court should have conducted a new waiver colloquy or obtained a new written waiver after Struckman sought counsel midtrial; denial deprived him of the Sixth Amendment right	Waivers (prior and repeated colloquies) were valid; no denial of right to counsel—no new colloquy required when defendant repeatedly and unequivocally elected self-representation
Competency to stand trial	Court relied on two subsequent psychiatric evaluations finding competency; those reports provided reliable, credible evidence to find defendant competent	Initial evaluation found defendant incompetent; the court improperly relied on later, less-credible evaluations to find him competent	Court properly found defendant competent based on credible expert reports; competency finding affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hankerson, 70 Ohio St.2d 87 (1982) (defines constructive possession as knowingly exercising dominion and control and being conscious of the object)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sets Ohio standard for sufficiency review—whether reasonable trier of fact could find elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (sets Ohio manifest-weight standard and review framework)
State v. Martin, 103 Ohio St.3d 385 (2004) (explains waiver of counsel and the requirement that waiver be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
State v. Gibson, 45 Ohio St.2d 366 (1976) (court should explain charges, penalties, defenses, and other facts essential to an informed waiver)
State v. Were, 118 Ohio St.3d 448 (2008) (defines competency standard—factual and rational understanding and ability to consult with counsel)
State v. Jordan, 101 Ohio St.3d 216 (2004) (places burden on defendant to prove incompetency by a preponderance of the evidence)
State v. Vrabel, 99 Ohio St.3d 184 (2003) (mental instability, lack of cooperation, or psychosis does not automatically equal incompetency)
State v. Cowans, 87 Ohio St.3d 68 (1999) (gives deference to trial court findings because it sees and hears testimony)
State v. Neyland, 139 Ohio St.3d 353 (2014) (right to self-representation must be clear and unequivocal)
State v. Obermiller, 147 Ohio St.3d 175 (2016) (defendant must clearly indicate revocation of prior waiver to require new colloquy)