State v. DanielsState v. Daniels
APPEARANCES:
Tyler Naud Jechura for Appellant
Daniel J. Stanley for Appellee
{1} Defendant-appellant Kenji M. Daniels (“Daniels“) appeals the judgment of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas, alleging his convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence and are against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Facts and Procedural History
{2} At 1:45 A.M. on January 29, 2022, Officer Devin Wireman (“Officer Wireman“) of the Bucyrus Police Department observed a driver fail to comply with a stop sign. Daniels was later identified as the driver of the vehicle. Officer Wireman activated his lights to initiate a traffic stop, but the vehicle continued to drive through several streets. Eventually, the vehicle slowed down, and Daniels “bailed out.” (Tr. 99).
{3} However, without a driver, the vehicle continued to go down the road towards some houses. While engaging in efforts to stop the vehicle, Officer Wireman informed dispatch where the driver was headed on foot. After securing the vehicle, Officer Wireman noticed “marijuana, blunt wrapping * * *,” and “a large amount of cash over the seats and console area.” (Tr. 107).
{4} Patrolman Andey Plummer (“Patrolman Plummer“) was in the vicinity and received Officer Wireman‘s description of Daniels. Patrolman Plummer testified that he observed Daniels walking in a wooded area; that he
{5} Patrolman Plummer testified that, while Daniels was being searched, he “kept tensing up and would not allow [the police] * * * to search him properly.” (Tr. 152). After Daniels was secured, Patrolman Plummer went to search the area of the woods through which he had pursued Daniels. Because the ground was covered with snow, he was able to retrace their footprints. In this process, he located a package of marijuana near the footprints.
{6} Officer Wireman then transported Daniels to the Crawford County Jail. On entering the facility, Daniels was subject to a “[p]at down procedure” in which his clothes and person were searched for contraband. (Tr. 190). Daniels also went through a body scanner. However, no contraband was located during these preliminary examinations. Deputy Kevin Moser (“Deputy Moser“) of the Crawford County Sheriff‘s Office then brought Daniels to the shower room for a more extensive search.
{7} Once in this room, Daniels removed his clothing, placing his underwear, socks, and shirt onto a bench. At this time, Deputy Moser noticed a piece of toilet paper stuck to Daniels above his anal cavity. The toilet paper fell
{8} Hearing the altercation, Deputy Brad Beebe (“Deputy Beebe“) and Deputy Linda Butler (“Deputy Butler“) entered the shower room. Deputy Moser informed them that he “believed that he seen him flush contraband * * *.” (Tr. 218). While Deputy Beebe assisted with the process of handcuffing Daniels, Deputy Butler checked the toilet but did not see any contraband in the water. She noticed that the toilet had been flushed and was refilling.
{9} Deputy Butler also noticed a baggie that was located on top of Daniels‘s underwear and took this item to a secure location. The contents of the baggie were later tested and found to contain 5.39 grams of para-fluorofentanyl. Deputy Beebe testified that, when Daniels was asked to explain his actions, he said “that he was trying to flush trash.” (Tr. 219).
{10} On February 1, 2022, Daniels was indicted on one count of illegal conveyance of drugs of abuse onto grounds of a specified government facility in violation of
{11} On April 12, 2022, Daniels was indicted on one count of possession of a fentanyl-related compound in violation of
Assignment of Error
{12} Daniels filed his notice of appeal on August 14, 2023. In his brief, he raises the following assignment of error:
The trial court abused its discretion when it convicted Mr. Daniels. The conviction of Mr. Daniels was against the manifest
Daniels challenges his convictions for possession of a fentanyl-related compound; illegal conveyance of drugs of abuse onto grounds of a specified government facility; and tampering with evidence. For the sake of clarity, we will examine the former two convictions in one analysis before we consider his conviction for tampering with evidence under a separate analysis.
Legal Standard
{13} A sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis examines whether the State has carried its burden of production at trial. State v. Richey, 2021-Ohio-1461, 170 N.E.3d 933, 16 (3d Dist.). On review, an appellate court is not to consider whether the evidence at trial should be believed but whether the evidence, if believed, could provide a legal basis for the finder of fact to conclude that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. State v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-3015, 223 N.E.3d 919, ¶ 19 (3d Dist.). Accordingly, the applicable standard “is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Plott, 2017-Ohio-38, 80 N.E.3d 1108, ¶ 62 (3d Dist.).
{14} In contrast, a manifest-weight analysis examines whether the State has carried its burden of persuasion at trial. State v. Wilson, 2022-Ohio-504, 185 N.E.3d 176, ¶ 58 (3d Dist.). On review, “an appellate court‘s function * * * is to determine
Appellate courts “must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all of the reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the factfinder ‘clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.‘”
State v. Randle, 2018-Ohio-207, 104 N.E.3d 202, ¶ 36 (3d Dist.), quoting Plott at ¶ 73, quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St. 3d 380, 387, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997).
{15} While an appellate court sits as a “thirteen juror” in this analysis, it must still “allow the trier of fact appropriate discretion on matters relating to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.” State v. Sullivan, 2017-Ohio-8937, 102 N.E.3d 86, ¶ 37-38 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Coleman, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-13-53, 2014-Ohio-5320, ¶ 7. “Only in exceptional cases, where the evidence ‘weighs heavily against the conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn the trial court‘s judgment.” State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St. 3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, 960 N.E.2d 955, ¶ 119, quoting Thompkins at 387.
Analysis for Possession and Illegal Conveyance Convictions
{16} To establish a conviction for possession of a fentanyl-related compound as a third-degree felony, the State must prove that the defendant “knowingly obtain[ed], possess[ed], or use[d] a controlled substance or a controlled
{17} On appeal, Daniels challenges both of these convictions by arguing that the State failed to establish that he was in possession of the contraband. He asserts that no trial testimony established that he “was actually in possession of the drugs * * *” (Appellant‘s Brief, 12). While direct evidence was not introduced to substantiate this element, the State did produce circumstantial evidence to establish that Daniels had been in possession of the contraband.
{18} “Circumstantial evidence is defined as ‘[t]estimony not based on actual personal knowledge or observation of the facts in controversy, but of other facts from which deductions are drawn, showing indirectly the facts sought to be proved.‘” State v. Nicely, 39 Ohio St. 3d 147, 150, 529 N.E.2d 1236 (1988), quoting Black‘s Law Dictionary (5 Ed. 1979). “Circumstantial evidence has no less probative value than direct evidence.” State v. Morrissey, 3d Dist. Hardin No. 6-21-02, 2021-Ohio-4471, ¶ 19.
{19} In this case, Deputy Moser testified that he observed a piece of toilet paper stuck to Daniels‘s body above his anal cavity. For this reason, he had Daniels
{20} Deputy Moser‘s testimony indicates that, when he enters the shower room, he “check[s] the floors making sure there is nothing on the floor * * *.” (Tr. 180). His testimony also indicates that this baggie was not present when he entered the shower room and conducted his initial inspection of the floor. He stated that the shower room is not a high traffic area. Further, when Daniels noticed the baggie on the floor, he immediately grabbed this item. He then sought to flush this baggie down the toilet while he was engaged in a struggle with Deputy Moser. The fact that Daniels sought to dispose of the baggie strongly suggests that he was aware that its contents were incriminating.
{21} Additionally, Deputy Butler located the baggie containing the contraband on top of Daniels‘s underwear. Deputy Moser had not searched Daniels‘s underwear, shirt, and socks before the baggie was discovered in that area. Having reviewed the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that this testimony provided sufficient evidence to establish the possession element of these two challenged convictions. See also State v. Stringer, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 97 CA 2506, 1997 WL 603389, *4 (Sept. 29, 1997).
{23} On cross-examination, Deputy Beebe was asked about what happens when a body-scan image indicates a person might have an object concealed on his or her person. He indicated that such a person would be taken into a dry cell with no toilet access for examination rather than into the shower room. Further, the Defense called Sergeant Chris Eicher (“Sergeant Eicher“) as a witness. He testified that he reviewed the body-scan images; concluded that no abnormalities were visible; and testified that Daniels was wearing pants that had a zipper on the date of his arrest. He also indicated that, in spite of the body scanning procedures, not all contraband is kept out of the jail.
{24} Having examined the record, we find no indication that the jury lost its way and returned verdicts on these two counts that were against the manifest weight of the evidence. For this reason, Daniels has failed to establish that the
Analysis for Tampering with Evidence
{25} To establish a conviction for tampering with evidence in violation of
{26} At trial, Deputy Moser testified that Daniels picked up a baggie on the floor and immediately went in the direction of the toilet. He further stated that they struggled while Daniels had the baggie in his hand and reached to flush the toilet. Deputy Moser testified that he was not sure “at what point [during the struggle] it [the baggie] went into the toilet.” (Tr. 199). However, he affirmed that he “kn[e]w if [Daniels] was successful in flushing bags” and that Daniels “g[ot] rid of that bag.” (Tr. 205). Deputy Beebe testified that, when he entered the shower room, Deputy Moser told him that “he seen him [Daniels] flush contra band [sic] at that time.” (Tr. 218). Deputy Butler testified that she then checked the toilet bowl but could
{27} Having reviewed the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that this testimony provided some evidence from which the jurors could conclude that Daniels “[a]lter[ed], destroy[ed], conceal[ed], or remove[d]” evidence within the meaning of
{28} We turn now to examining Daniels‘s manifest-weight challenge. Sergeant Eicher affirmed that Deputy Moser had reportedly “smacked something out of Mr. Daniels’ hands[.]” (Tr. 275). Deputy Moser testified that he could not recall making this comment but stated that he was “sure that [he] * * * tried to” smack the baggie out of Daniels‘s hands as they were struggling above the toilet. (Tr. 201). He also indicated that he was not certain whether the baggie he saw on the floor “was the bag that was ultimately tested or [whether] the bag on the floor was ultimately flushed[.]” (Tr. 187). Deputy Moser also testified that he was not
{29} Having examined the record, we have found no indication that the jury lost its way and returned a verdict on the count of tampering with evidence that was against the manifest weight of the evidence. For this reason, Daniels has failed to establish that the evidence presented at trial weighs heavily against his conviction for tampering with evidence. Accordingly, his sole assignment of error is overruled.
Conclusion
{30} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars assigned and argued, the judgment of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
WALDICK and MILLER, J.J., concur.
/jnc
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.