2018 Ohio 983
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On July 9, 2016, Raymond Sykes was stopped after officers learned the Lexus he was driving was reported stolen; he was arrested for driving under suspension and vehicle was impounded.
- During a department inventory search of the SUV, officers opened a child’s backpack (marijuana) and a salt container with a false bottom that revealed a baggie of tan powder later identified as heroin (6.3 g without bag).
- Sykes's fiancée, Hattie Marrow, arrived, claimed ownership of the vehicle and the contraband, and testified she bought and hid the heroin; she admitted she was high at the scene.
- Officers testified Sykes exhibited nervous behavior before the stop and later made comments at the jail indicating knowledge of the heroin’s weight.
- Jury convicted Sykes of possession of heroin (over 5 g but less than 10 g); trial court sentenced him to 36 months. Sykes appealed, challenging sufficiency and weight of the evidence, suppression (plain error), and ineffective assistance for not moving to suppress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Sykes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict of heroin possession | Evidence (drugs in impounded SUV Sykes drove; his weight-comment) supports constructive possession and knowledge | Drugs were in a closed container in back of SUV owned by fiancée; no direct proof Sykes knew or controlled them | Conviction supported; a rational juror could find constructive possession and knowledge |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | Witness testimony and Sykes’s jail statement were credible; fiancée’s testimony was unreliable (she was high) | Jury lost its way because heroin was in the rear and fiancée claimed ownership and lack of Sykes’s knowledge | Not against manifest weight; evidence did not create a miscarriage of justice |
| Admission of evidence from inventory search / plain error | Inventory impound and search followed department practice; no plain error in admitting items opened during inventory | Opening closed containers violated Fourth Amendment absent proof of a standardized policy for opening containers (Hathman) | No plain error; trial testimony supported that inventory was conducted per standard procedure and impoundment was justified |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to file suppression motion | Counsel’s strategic choice may be justified; record does not establish no policy or that suppression would succeed | Counsel was deficient for not moving to suppress closed-container evidence; prejudice obvious because evidence was central | No ineffective assistance shown on the record; defendant failed to prove a valid suppression ground and prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hathman, 65 Ohio St.3d 403 (1992) (inventory searches opening closed containers require a standardized policy and good faith)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (inventory search of lawfully impounded vehicle is exception to warrant requirement for caretaking purposes)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990) (opening closed containers during inventory must follow reasonable standardized procedures)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (inventory search rules and limits on discretion)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)
- State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460 (2001) (circumstantial evidence can be as probative as direct evidence)
- State v. Hankerson, 70 Ohio St.2d 87 (1982) (constructive possession requires conscious dominion and control)
- State v. Wolery, 46 Ohio St.2d 316 (1976) (possession may be actual or constructive; proof of control is essential)
- Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 (1988) (all evidence admitted may be considered for sufficiency review)
- Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982) (double jeopardy bars retrial after reversal for insufficient evidence)