STATE OF OHIO v. ALEXANDER A. EUTIN
C.A. No. 14AP0021
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
March 16, 2015
[Cite as State v. Eutin, 2015-Ohio-924.]
STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF WAYNE ss: APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE WAYNE COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO CASE No. 2014 CRB 000643
Dated: March 16, 2015
CARR, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Alexander Eutin, appeals the judgment of the Wayne County Municipal Court. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} This matter arises out of an encounter between Alexander Eutin and a Wooster police officer on April 19, 2014. Eutin was charged with one count of possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of
{¶3} Eutin filed a timely notice of appeal. Now before this Court, Eutin raises two assignments of error.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
MR. EUTIN’S CONVICTION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
MR. EUTIN’S CONVICTION IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶4} In his first assignment of error, Eutin argues that his conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia was not supported by sufficient evidence. In his second assignment of error, Eutin contends that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. This Court disagrees with both propositions.
{¶5} Both of Eutin’s assignments of error pertain to his conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia under
[A]ny equipment, product, or material of any kind that is used by the offender, intended by the offender for use, or designed for use, in propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body, a controlled substance in violation of this chapter. “Drug
paraphernalia” includes, but is not limited to, any of the following equipment, products, or materials that are used by the offender, intended by the offender for use, or designed by the offender for use, in any of the following manners: * * *
(12) A hypodermic syringe, needle, or instrument for parenterally injecting a controlled substance into the human body[.]
Sufficiency of the Evidence
{¶6} In support of his first assignment of error, Eutin contends that the State never demonstrated that he intended to use the needle discovered by Officer Waddell as drug paraphernalia. Eutin places particular emphasis on his statement to the officer that he intended to throw the needle away.
{¶7} A review of the sufficiency of the State’s evidence and the manifest weight of the evidence adduced at trial are separate and legally distinct determinations. State v. Gulley, 9th Dist. Summit No. 19600, 2000 WL 277908, *1 (Mar. 15, 2000). When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must review the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether the evidence before the trial court was sufficient to sustain a conviction. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 279 (1991).
An appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶8} Officer Brian Waddell was the only witness to testify at trial. On April 19, 2014, Officer Waddell was sitting in his patrol car watching an area known for drug activity located at 1131 East Bowman Street, in Wooster, Ohio. Officer Waddell observed Eutin sitting outside
{¶9} Officer Waddell drove south on Palmer Street and was able to locate Eutin at a Goodwill store. Officer Waddell asked Eutin if he had a moment to talk. Eutin responded in the affirmative and got off of his bicycle. Upon request, Eutin handed over his state identification card. Officer Waddell then inquired as to whether Eutin had any dangerous items on his person such as knives or guns. When Eutin responded that he did not, Officer Waddell asked if he could search Eutin. Eutin stated that he did not care and he placed his hands on the hood of the cruiser. At that point, Officer Waddell attempted to confirm that he had consent to search, and Eutin “vehemently said yes.” During the ensuing search, Officer Waddell found a hypodermic needle in Eutin’s back pocket. Officer Waddell was familiar with needles due to his work on narcotics cases. Officer Waddell testified that the needle he found on Eutin clearly had been used as the numbers were worn off the “plunger” portion and the needle appeared to be shorter than it should have been. Officer Waddell further testified that such needles are often used to inject heroin, methamphetamines, and cocaine. Upon noticing that Officer Waddell had recovered the needle, Eutin exclaimed, “Oh shoot, I forgot that was in there.”
{¶10} Officer Waddell read Eutin his Miranda rights and proceeded to ask him about his use of the needle. Eutin initially stated that he merely found the needle two days earlier and that
{¶11} The evidence presented at trial, when construed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to convict Eutin of possession of drug paraphernalia. After witnessing Eutin engage in a short-term exchange that his experience lead him to believe was indicative of drug activity, Officer Waddell was able to catch up with Eutin just moments later. After obtaining consent to search, Officer Waddell found a needle in Eutin’s back pocket. Eutin admitted that he had used the needle to inject heroin. A hypodermic syringe used for the purpose of injecting heroin constitutes drug paraphernalia pursuant to
{¶12} The first assignment of error is overruled.
Manifest Weight of the Evidence
{¶13} In support of his second assignment of error, Eutin argues that the condition of the needle, as well as his statements that he found the needle two days earlier and intended to throw it away, weighed heavily against his conviction. Eutin further argues that Officer Waddell’s testimony that the apartment was a known drug location is inconsistent with the testimony that the man and woman were known for selling drugs, as the drug dealers clearly did not reside at the drug location.
In determining whether a criminal conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact 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. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.1986). “When a court of appeals reverses a judgment of a trial court on the basis that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the appellate court sits as a ‘thirteenth juror’ and disagrees with the fact[-]finder’s resolution of the conflicting testimony.” Thompkins at 387, quoting Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42 (1982). An appellate court should exercise the power to reverse a judgment as against the manifest weight of the evidence only in exceptional cases. Otten at 340.
{¶15} The arguments advanced by Eutin in support of his manifest weight challenge are without merit. While Eutin initially told Officer Waddell that he found the needle two days prior and intended to discard it, he subsequently contradicted that statement when he told Officer Waddell that he had previously used the needle to inject heroin. Moreover, the needle found in Eutin’s pocket was shorter than normal and the numbers on the “plunger” portion had worn away, evidencing that the needle had been used. Officer Waddell specifically testified that the needle “looked like there had been a lot of use [on] it.” Thus, the condition of the needle did not weigh against Eutin’s conviction. Finally, while Eutin challenges the credibility of Officer Waddell’s testimony regarding the “known drug house” and that the two individuals who spoke briefly with Eutin at the apartment were known as drug dealers, we note that the trial court was in the best position to observe the demeanor of the witness, weigh his credibility, and resolve any
{¶16} The second assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶17} Eutin’s first and second assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Wayne County Municipal Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Wayne County Municipal Court, County of Wayne, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, P. J.
MOORE, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
BRADLEY R. HARP, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
DANIEL R. LUTZ, Prosecuting Attorney, and NATHAN R. SHAKER, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.