State v. Underdew, 2021 Ohio 3811

On Sept. 22, 2020, Adult Parole Authority Officer Gaumer and Deputy Wisecarver entered a residence with the owner’s consent to look for Walter Underdew.
Officers found Underdew asleep across a bed; he was awakened, told to show his hands, and was told he was under arrest; he complied and placed his hands behind his back.
During a routine search incident to arrest, Wisecarver found a rolled lottery receipt in Underdew’s front left pocket containing a baggie with suspected narcotics; he paused the search for safety, retrieved gloves, then completed the search.
Evidence was submitted to the crime lab, which confirmed .583 g of cocaine and 3.924 g of methamphetamine.
Underdew was indicted on aggravated possession (methamphetamine) and possession (cocaine), convicted by a jury, and sentenced to consecutive prison terms totaling 48 months.
On appeal Underdew argued the convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight because the State did not prove he knowingly possessed the drugs.

Issue	State's Argument	Underdew's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove knowing possession of drugs	Drugs found in defendant’s front pocket; lab confirmation; proximity and pocket establish constructive possession	He was asleep; did not answer officer’s question about weapons; no explanation for how drugs got into his pocket, so no proof of knowledge	Affirmed — sufficient evidence of constructive/knowing possession
Whether the convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence	Circumstantial evidence and witness testimony were credible; jury determinations should stand	Evidence did not prove knowledge; jury may have lost its way	Affirmed — not an exceptional case warranting reversal

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency standard: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Butler, 42 Ohio St.3d 174 (Ohio 1989) (possession may be actual or constructive)
State v. Wolery, 46 Ohio St.2d 316 (Ohio 1976) (constructive possession requires dominion and control)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (credibility and weight of evidence are jury functions)