State v. Thompson, 2014 Ohio 4665

Thompson was convicted by a jury of four counts of heroin trafficking (three fifth-degree, one fourth-degree) in Washington County after consolidating two indictments (12CR322 and 13CR139).
Evidence focused on controlled buys by confidential informants; officers testified about observations, surveillance, and buys, with some transactions not captured on video.
State introduced no testimony from confidential informants themselves; recordings of some buys were objected to and excluded as hearsay.
Defense argued no direct witness to the actual hand-to-hand exchanges and contended absence of informants violated Confrontation Clause and undermined sufficiency.
Jury relied on officer testimony and circumstantial evidence to establish elements of all four trafficking counts; informants were not called as witnesses.
Thompson was sentenced to a total term of 42 months’ imprisonment, with some counts consecutive and others concurrent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause violation	Thompson asserts lack of testifying confidential informants violated confrontation rights.	State relied on officer testimony; informants were not required to testify.	No plain error; Confrontation Clause not violated; officers’ testimony supported the charges.
Sufficiency and weight	State lacked direct testimony of actual sale; conviction unsupported.	Circumstantial and direct evidence together prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt.	Evidence was sufficient and not against the manifest weight; reasonable jurors could find guilt.
Juror relation to informant	A juror was allegedly related to a confidential informant in a prior case against Thompson.	Record insufficient to show prejudice; relationship not proven on record.	No reversible error; record shows no demonstrated prejudice and speculation cannot support reversal.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed to subpoena informants and failed to move to suppress evidence.	Counsel's strategy and lack of prejudice negate a finding of ineffective assistance.	No ineffective assistance; decisions were strategic and no reasonable probability of different outcome.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause requires unavailability and cross-examination for testimonial evidence)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (Sufficiency standard; circumstantial and direct evidence equally probative)
State v. McCausland, 2009-Ohio-5933 (Ohio 2009) (Manifest weight vs. sufficiency; appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1966) (Credibility and weight for juries; standard for weighing evidence)
State v. Thomas, 70 Ohio St.2d 79 (1982) (Credibility and weighing of testimony by fact-finder)