State v. Ward
2017 Ohio 8518
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- July 7 and August 9, 2016: a confidential informant (CI) bought substances from Tyler R. Ward (one sale July involved Ward after his girlfriend Tiffany was incapacitated; second sale Ward alone). CI recorded transactions and identified Ward from Facebook.
- BCI analysis: July 7 pill contained alprazolam; both heroin samples (July 7 and Aug 9) contained heroin and fentanyl.
- Indictment: five counts of trafficking (Counts I–V) — Counts I–III relate to July 7; Counts IV–V relate to Aug 9.
- Trial: Ward convicted on Counts I, III, IV, and V; acquitted on Count II. Sentence: 12, 12, 12, and 18 months respectively, to run consecutively for a total of 54 months. Ward appeals.
- Issues on appeal: (1) jury instruction on "knowingly" (plain error); (2) presentation/merger of multiple counts (plain error); (3) imposition of maximum consecutive sentences (claimed abuse of discretion / contrary to law).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury instruction on "knowingly" impermissibly lowered the State's burden | State: statute requires proof defendant knowingly sold a controlled substance; instruction was proper to show knowledge relates to the act of selling | Ward: instruction allowed conviction without proof he knew the substance contained fentanyl (i.e., knowledge of the underlying nature) | Court: instruction proper — statute requires knowledge of the act (selling), not of the precise chemical makeup; Patterson controls; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether multiple counts (heroin + fentanyl) from same transaction should have been excluded/merged | State: multiple offenses may be charged when statutory elements differ; evidence supported separate counts | Ward: counts based on same interaction; he lacked knowledge fentanyl was present so counts duplicative/unfair | Court: Ward failed to adequately argue merger; appellate court declined to address further and overruled the assignment of error |
| Whether trial court abused discretion or erred in imposing maximum consecutive sentences without adequate explanation in journal entry | State: sentencing complied with statutory requirements; court made required findings at hearing and incorporated findings in entry | Ward: sentence excessive given remorse/improved behavior and entry lacked explanatory reasons for consecutiveness | Court: record contains statutorily required findings; clear and convincing evidence supports maximum consecutive terms; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Patterson, 69 Ohio St.2d 445 (Ohio 1982) ("knowingly" modifies act of selling; no separate element requiring knowledge of the substance’s precise nature)
- Chandler, 109 Ohio St.3d 223 (Ohio 2006) (permitting use of filler substances to enhance weight for trafficking analysis)
- Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make statutory findings for consecutive sentences at sentencing hearing and incorporate findings into entry; reasons not required)
- Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (appellate review of felony sentences uses clear-and-convincing standard)