State v. Syed
2018 Ohio 1438
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Adam Syed owned and operated two Medina County gaming establishments (Cyber City and Cyber 777); law enforcement investigated after tips and performed undercover purchases.
- Officers and an employee testified customers inserted cash into machines described as slot machines and received cash payouts from employees.
- Search warrants yielded gaming machines from both businesses, machines in storage at A&A Vending and a family-owned motorcycle shop, cash from Adam’s rental car and the family home, and documents at A&A Vending linking Azeem to Adam’s businesses (repair bills, sign-in sheets, a co-signed lease, invoices).
- Adam was indicted for operating a casino gaming operation (R.C. 3772.99(E)(12)), possession of criminal tools, and forfeiture specifications; Azeem was indicted for complicity and forfeiture specifications. Both convicted after a bench trial.
- On appeal, Adam argued insufficiency and weight-of-evidence defects and challenged forfeiture of cash/property; Azeem argued insufficiency of complicity proof, defective indictment, improper venue, and improper forfeitures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency that machines were "slot machines" (Adam) | State: undercover testimony, Casino Control Commission expert tested two machines and found unmodified slot-machine software, BCI agent opinion. | Adam: machines were sweepstakes/modified; State only tested two machines, so insufficient to prove all machines were slot machines. | Court: Evidence sufficient; expert testing + testimony supported slot-machine finding. |
| Mens rea and possession of criminal tools (Adam) | State: circumstantial evidence showed Adam knew machines were illegal and concealed income/payroll, supporting purpose/knowledge. | Adam: believed he sought to modify machines to comply with then-available standards; lacked purposeful/knowing intent. | Court: Sufficient circumstantial evidence supports purposeful/knowing state; convictions upheld. |
| Forfeiture of $3,920 found in Adam's rental car | State: cash found near home; other cash connected to gaming operations, so proceeds forfeitable. | Adam: accompanying ledgers link cash to separate Portage County gentlemen’s club, not gaming operations. | Court: Forfeiture of $3,920 reversed — insufficient competent, credible evidence linking that cash to offenses. Other forfeitures upheld. |
| Complicity and venue (Azeem) | State: documents and invoices at A&A Vending, co-signed lease, testimony that Azeem acknowledged machines delivered to his building; principal crimes occurred in Medina so venue proper. | Azeem: insufficient proof he aided/abetted; some events occurred in Summit County; indictment defective for not specifying how/where he aided. | Court: Complicity evidence and venue in Medina sufficient; indictment adequate; forfeiture challenge mostly forfeited or lacked standing; convictions upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for reviewing sufficiency and manifest-weight claims)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist. 1986) (standard for manifest-weight review and when reversal is warranted)
- State v. Trivette, 195 Ohio App.3d 300 (9th Dist. 2011) (forfeiture: burden and standard of review; need competent, credible evidence to support forfeiture)