State v. Woodford, 2017 Ohio 4288

Background

On Dec. 10, 2015 police responded to a report of a stolen truck at Ty Woodford’s residence and observed the truck inside a detached, doorless garage; Woodford consented to a search.
Officers smelled chemicals consistent with a methamphetamine “one-pot/shake-and-bake” lab and found reaction vessels containing meth oil and chemicals (batteries, muriatic acid, lye, cold packs, pseudoephedrine packaging, tubing).
Three men (including William Cool) were found in/near the garage; Cool testified he and others (including Woodford) were present while meth was being made and that Woodford bought/charged ingredients.
Lab expert confirmed active meth manufacture and chemical composition (26.4 grams of methamphetamine in a reaction vessel); task force neutralized the lab.
Woodford was indicted for complicity to manufacture meth (elevated to 1st-degree felony for being in the vicinity of juveniles), assembly/possession of chemicals to manufacture meth (2nd-degree felony alleged to be in vicinity of juveniles), and permitting drug abuse (misdemeanor).
A jury convicted Woodford on all counts; the trial court merged counts for sentencing and imposed 8 years’ imprisonment and a $20,000 fine. The court denied real-property forfeiture. Woodford appealed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Woodford's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for complicity in manufacturing meth	Evidence showed Woodford provided ingredients, allowed use of his garage, and was present during manufacture; circumstantial evidence supports intent and aiding/abetting	Police saw him outside garage, he consented to search, items have legitimate uses, no chemical odor on him when contacted — insufficient to prove complicity	Affirmed — sufficient evidence to support complicity and possession/assembly with intent when viewed in favor of prosecution
Sufficiency that offenses occurred "in the vicinity of a juvenile"	Juveniles (ages 15,16) were present in the house; garage was within ~75 feet and visible from the house; statute requires only within 100 feet or within view	Distance/location not proven precisely; back room lab may not have been visible; it was dark and garage unlit	Affirmed — evidence supported that garage was within 100 feet and/or within view of juveniles; actual viewing not required by statute
Weight of the evidence (manifest miscarriage of justice?)	Witness testimony (Cool, officers, expert) and physical evidence supported convictions; jury instructed on accomplice credibility	Challenges credibility of accomplice Cool and inconsistent officer statements; argues jury should have acquitted	Affirmed — appellate court declines to overturn jury credibility determinations; not an exceptional case to reverse on weight grounds
Forfeiture of real property	State sought forfeiture based on indictment specifications	Trial court refused to order real-property forfeiture	Not reversed on appeal (trial court denied forfeiture)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (legal standard for sufficiency and weight of evidence)
State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 (distinguishing sufficiency review from credibility assessment)
State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516 (sufficiency standard)
State v. Goff, 82 Ohio St.3d 123 (viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378 (complicity need not be separately charged)
State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240 (complicity by aiding and abetting; intent may be inferred)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (circumstantial evidence probative as direct evidence)
State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 (standard for manifest-weight review)
State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67 (deference to jury on credibility)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (trier of fact assesses weight and credibility)
Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (trial judge/jury best positioned to observe witness demeanor)
State v. Gore, 131 Ohio App.3d 197 (appellate caution in choosing between reasonable views of evidence)