State v. West, 2013 Ohio 96

Timothy West and his brother Todd were jointly charged in a consolidated trial with illegal manufacture/cultivation of marijuana, drug trafficking, drug possession, and possession of criminal tools, with multiple forfeiture specifications.
Evidence at trial showed a Scranton Road warehouse where marijuana was cultivated, stored, and packaged; seizures included plants, grow equipment, packaging materials, scales, and cash; Todd's statements were introduced via witnesses during Todd’s interrogation.
Timothy testified he rented part of the Scranton Road building to Eddie and Maria Torres and denied knowledge of the marijuana operation.
Police surveilled the Scranton Road property on November 3 and 5, 2010, observing the defendants’ routine access and entry into a gated, locked area leading to the grow operation.
The jury found Timothy guilty on all counts; the trial court imposed a 16-year sentence and ordered forfeiture of Timothy’s car, cash, and the Scranton Road property.
On appeal, the court held issues regarding confrontation, merger of offenses, forfeiture, and trial strategy, concluding some merits existed and remanding for merger and resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Todd’s statements violated Confrontation Clause rights	West; Todd’s statements were testimonial	West; admission harmed trial fairness	Harmless error; sufficient independent evidence supported guilt
Whether Timothy was entitled to separate trials	Todd and Timothy should be severed	Invited error; joint trial was strategic	Invited error; no reversible error
Whether trafficking and cultivation/manufacture were allied offenses requiring merger	Counts should merge under Johnson test	No merger? separate convictions sustain	Merger required; consecutive-sentencing issue moot
Whether forfeiture orders were proper for cash and property	Cash and Scranton Road property linked to offense	Some assets not proven proceeds or instrumentality	Reversed as to $1,313 cash; Scranton Road property forfeiture sustained; $280 cash instrumental and forfeitable
Whether counsel was ineffective for issues raised on appeal	Counsel failed to object/argue allied offenses	Counsel acted within trial strategy	Moot; previously addressed issues

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation clause; testimonial statements require unavailability and cross-examination)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (non-testifying codefendant statements violate confrontation when used to implicate defendant)
Moritz, 63 Ohio St.2d 150 (1980) (precludes prejudicial use of co-defendant statements in joint trial)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010) (allied offenses; Johnson framework for merger/reasonable-minded assessment)
Brown, 119 Ohio St.3d 447 (2008) (allied offenses context; weighs in merger analysis)
State v. Wolpe, 11 Ohio St.3d 50 (1984) (weights for marijuana leaves when attached to plant; admissible aggregation)
State v. Golston, 66 Ohio App.3d 423 (1990) (cash forfeiture evidence; general rule on proceeds)
State v. Hall, 2010-Ohio-1665 (8th Dist. 2010) (standard of review for forfeiture; substantial competent evidence standard)
State v. Doss, 2005-Ohio-775 (8th Dist. 2005) (invited error doctrine and ineffective assistance considerations)