State v. Thomas
2025 Ohio 1321
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- Travon L. Thomas was charged and convicted after a jury trial in Allen County, Ohio, on ten drug-related offenses, including aggravated funding of drug trafficking and engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity.
- The convictions stemmed from a large-scale investigation, involving controlled buys of narcotics, use of a confidential informant, and cooperation from co-defendant Sidney Jackson.
- Jackson played a central role: assisting Thomas in obtaining, preparing, and distributing drugs, with communication largely taking place via WhatsApp; she testified extensively using conversations drawn from her cellphone.
- Thomas appealed the conviction, arguing (1) insufficient evidence for the aggravated funding count, (2) improper admission of uncharged drug activity, and (3) improper double punishment for the same conduct.
- The appellate court affirmed most convictions but reversed on the aggravated funding count, finding legally insufficient evidence and a deficient indictment.
Issues
| Issue | Thomas's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated funding | No proof Thomas provided money/items of value to another as statute requires; indictment omitted a necessary element. | State conceded lack of evidence and a flawed indictment during appeal. | Thomas’s conviction vacated; remanded to trial court to vacate Conviction on Count 1. |
| Admission of uncharged drug activity (404(B)) | Admission of certain texts about other drug activities prejudiced jury and violated rules against propensity evidence. | Messages were probative, intrinsic to proving existence of an enterprise and corrupt activity. | Evidence was direct proof of charged offenses, admissible and not barred by Rule 404(B); conviction stands. |
| Double punishment (merger) | Convicted/charged twice for same conduct (aggravated funding & trafficking in fentanyl). | Not reached — State concedes if Count 1 is vacated, this is moot. | Mooted by reversal of aggravated funding conviction; no merger necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hartman, 2020-Ohio-4440 (Ohio 2020) (explaining Evidence Rule 404(B) and prohibition on propensity evidence)
- State v. Roe, 41 Ohio St.3d 18 (Ohio 1989) (admission of evidence blended or connected with offenses constituting proof of elements)
- State v. Coleman, 85 Ohio St.3d 129 (Ohio 1999) (prior drug sales admissible to prove elements of corrupt activity pattern)