State v. Umstead
2017 Ohio 698
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On Nov. 23, 2015 officers surveilled Matthew Umstead's home after pharmacy alerts showed Donnie Spurlock purchased pseudoephedrine; Spurlock was known to stay at Umstead's residence.
- Officers later observed a backyard fire behind the house; black smoke and a strong chemical odor were present and deputies found opened pseudoephedrine packs near the fire.
- Deputies discovered an active methamphetamine lab in a rear "man cave" shed about 40–75 feet behind the house; the lab was dismantled and police obtained a search warrant for the house.
- During the warranted search officers found methamphetamine in a safe in Umstead's bedroom; Umstead was arrested and video-interviewed at the jail.
- Umstead was indicted on eight felony counts (manufacture, assembly/possession of chemicals, possession, tampering with evidence, endangering children, weapons under disability, etc.), convicted on all counts (some firearm specs acquitted), and sentenced to 16.5 years; he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Umstead) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / manifest weight of evidence re: complicity in meth lab and related counts | Circumstantial evidence (driving co-defendants to pharmacies, presence of lab on his property, odor, burning of pseudoephedrine packets, video admission) supports finding of aiding/abetting and possession | No direct evidence he participated or knew; others made purchases and operated the lab; burning/trash not shown to be his act; gun found after search | Convictions supported. Circumstantial evidence sufficient; verdict not against manifest weight. |
| Denial of Crim.R. 29 motion at close of all evidence | Evidence presented (same as above) met Jenks sufficiency standard | Motion should have been granted for insufficient proof | Denial affirmed — Crim.R. 29 properly denied under sufficiency standard. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to suppress, hearsay/object, 404(B), cross-exam strategy) | Trial counsel's decisions were reasonable strategic choices; suppression motion would likely fail given exigent-circumstances law re: meth labs | Counsel erred by not moving to suppress/search challenge, not objecting to hearsay/other acts, and eliciting prejudicial testimony | No ineffective assistance: performance not shown to be deficient nor prejudicial under Strickland/Bradley; claims overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240 (Ohio 2001) (aiding and abetting/complicity principles)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (manifest weight review standard)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (clarifying manifest-weight standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged ineffective-assistance test)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (applying Strickland in Ohio criminal cases)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (home-entry and Fourth Amendment protections)
- Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (U.S. 1961) (privacy interests in the home)