STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANTONIO MCINTOSH, Defendant-Appellant.
Case No. 17CA14
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GALLIA COUNTY
12-17-18
2018-Ohio-5343
ABELE, J.
CRIMINAL CASE FROM COMMON PLEAS COURT DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Samuel H. Shamansky, Donald L. Regensburger, and Colin E. Peters, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.1
Jason Holdren, Gallia County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jeremy Fisher, Gallia County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Gallipolis, Ohio, for Appellee.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a Gallia County Common Pleas Court judgment of conviction and sentence. A jury found Antonio McIntosh, defendant below and appellant herein, guilty of nine drug-related offenses and engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. The trial court sentenced appellant to serve thirty-three years in prison. Appellant assigns the following errors for review:
“THE INTRODUCTION OF UNFAIRLY PREJUDICIAL HEARSAY STATEMENTS DURING APPELLANT‘S TRIAL VIOLATED HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION AND DUE PROCESS AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTH, FIFTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND WAS CONTRARY TO THE OHIO RULES OF EVIDENCE.”
SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
“APPELLANT‘S CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AS GUARANTEED BY THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.”
THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
“THE TRIAL COURT‘S FAILURE TO PROPERLY INSTRUCT THE JURY AS TO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF CONSTITUTED PLAIN ERROR, PREJUDICED APPELLANT, AND VIOLATED HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AS GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES AND OHIO CONSTITUTIONS.”
FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
“THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO MERGE APPELLANT‘S CONVICTIONS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE ALLIED OFFENSES OF SIMILAR IMPORT, IN VIOLATION OF BOTH OHIO LAW AND HIS RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY AS GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.”
FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
“THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT WAS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL, IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT‘S RIGHTS AS GUARANTEED BY THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 9 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.”
{¶ 3} At trial, a confidential informant, Joshua Edwards, testified that on two dates in September 2015, he made controlled buys at the pool hall. Edwards described the procedure he followed during the controlled buys and stated that he learned the procedure during a prior uncontrolled buy. Edwards explained that when he entered the pool hall, he placed $40 in a “football bowl.” Edwards stated that an unknown person had “told [Edwards] that that‘s where
{¶ 4} Edwards further testified that on September 10, 2015, he engaged in a controlled buy at the pool hall. Edwards explained that when he arrived, appellant offered to pay Edwards “three fifty” to “[c]lean[] out a house.” Edwards indicated that the payment would be in “[c]rack, drugs.” Edwards returned to the pool hall the next day to “make a controlled buy,” and explained the circumstances surrounding the controlled buy as follows: Edwards placed the money in the bowl and “the woman working behind the desk at the counter had grabbed the money out and reached it to [appellant].” Edwards related that “Stan” then “went in the backroom, weighed out the dope, whatever he done back there, had got it, whatever, brought it
{¶ 5} Edwards indicated that the same series of events occurred during his previous buy on September 10, 2015. Edwards testified that he made seven to eight controlled buys in total, and never deviated from the procedure. He explained: “there‘s wasn‘t no way to [sic].” Edwards stated that if he did not place the money in the bowl, he could not get drugs.
{¶ 6} Edwards additionally stated that he had followed the same procedure to purchase drugs outside of the controlled buys, and that appellant was present almost every time. The prosecutor asked Edwards if appellant took the money on the other occasions that Edwards had bought drugs at the pool hall, and Edwards responded: “No, that was just an accidental, them two [sic] incidents. * * * * He just happened to take it[;], I don‘t know why. I never seen [sic] him do it before.” Edwards related that although he only purchased “crack,” “[t]hey” also sold heroin and methamphetamine.
{¶ 7} Edwards testified that shortly after the last controlled buy, he returned to the pool hall to purchase drugs. Appellant, however, told Edwards “it wasn‘t that kind of party.” Edwards explained that appellant appeared to have become suspicious of Edwards working as a confidential informant. Edwards stated that during a prior visit, appellant had ordered Stan to pat down Edwards and found a cell phone. Edwards stated that the next time he returned to the pool hall, he placed $1000 in the bowl, but when he “looked over to say what [he] wanted or motioned what [he] wanted, there was just a bunch of looks.” Edwards explained: “Stan looking back at uh, or [appellant] looked at Stan, Stan looked at [an unidentified female] and she
{¶ 8} On cross-examination, Edwards stated that of the approximately seven controlled buys he conducted, appellant twice received money either by removing it from the bowl or by someone else handing appellant the money. Edwards explained that appellant never retrieved the drugs, but instead, Stan “always went and got” the drugs.
{¶ 9} Gallipolis Police Detective Sergeant Justin Rice testified that he debriefed Edwards after the two controlled buys at the pool hall. Rice stated that after the September 10, 2015 buy, Edwards stated that he had placed $100 “in the football bowl on the bar, which was a common, the common way to do that and um, Stan Helms went outside to get the product, came back inside placed the product on the speaker and [appellant] had placed the money in his pocket.” Rice stated that the following day, Edwards made another controlled buy and the same events occurred. Rice explained that Edwards indicated that appellant placed the money in appellant‘s pocket.
{¶ 10} Sergeant Rice related that, after a lengthy investigation into drug activity, law enforcement officers executed multiple search warrants, including against property that Stan Helms and a female occupied. That search uncovered four guns, a small amount of marijuana, two sets of digital scales, and a little over $200.
{¶ 11} Sergeant Rice also assisted in a search of appellant‘s residence. Rice stated that officers had received information that Stan Helms was selling drugs out of the pool hall and that appellant “was basically running the show.” Rice testified that officers searched outside
{¶ 12} Gallia-Meigs County Major Crimes Task Force Agent Seth Argabright testified that after he searched the pool hall, he discovered paraphernalia and a ceramic bowl that looked like a football. Argabright additionally indicated that officers searched appellant‘s residence, as well as the exterior because they had “been given intelligence by Heather Nicole Gibson who was present upon execution of the search warrant at 249 State Route 7 North that [appellant] is not known to keep any illegal narcotics or illegal drugs of any kind inside either of the structures.” At this juncture, appellant‘s counsel objected on the basis of hearsay. The prosecutor argued, however, that the statement was being “[o]ffered in to further his investigation, what places the officers in the field outside and searching all in between.” The court stated that it would “allow it with that limited use,” but gave no limiting instruction.
{¶ 13} Agent Argabright testified that the search of appellant‘s residence uncovered a little more than $2,000, prepaid debit cards, and cell phones. He further stated that outside appellant‘s residence, officers discovered “[t]hree tied off plastic bags containing a tan and white substance” stuffed inside a sock. Subsequent testing showed the substances to be 35.26 grams of cocaine, 25.24 grams of heroin, and 10.44 grams of methamphetamine.
{¶ 14} Gallia-Meigs Major Crimes Task Force Agent Frank Stewart testified that the task force “had received intel” that appellant “had taken over a business” at the pool hall and “the
{¶ 15} Agent Stewart also explained that when the officers executed the search warrants, he passed by the SWAT officers who were walking appellant to the cruiser. Stewart related that he heard appellant state, unsolicited, “you all will never find it.” Stewart could not explain the basis for appellant‘s comment and he did not notice whether any of the SWAT officers had been talking to appellant.
{¶ 16} Agent Stewart further testified that the officers searched outside appellant‘s residence after Heather Gibson informed the officers “that [appellant] uh, would be the one to have the drugs if there was any drugs that we didn‘t locate at 141 Hubbard Avenue and that we would not locate the drugs inside of 141 Hubbard Avenue, that they would be somewhere hidden outside, probably in a wood line between the pool hall and 141 Hubbard Avenue. She also indicated that it would probably be somewhere close to the alleyway because when he walks home that‘s the route he typically takes would be the alleyway.” Appellant did not object to this testimony.
{¶ 17} In his defense, appellant presented testimony from Brittany Helms, Stan‘s wife. Brittany claimed that Stan sold drugs. She further testified that appellant did not use drugs, but lived with his girlfriend, a drug addict. Brittany attested that two other drug addicts also had access to appellant‘s property and claimed that they hid the drugs that the officers located outside appellant‘s residence.
{¶ 19} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court merged the possession and trafficking offenses that involved the same type and quantity of drug and sentenced appellant to serve the following terms of imprisonment: (1) twelve months on count one; (2) twelve months on count two; (3) eleven years on count seven; (4) eight years on count eight; (5) thirty-six months on count nine; and (6) eleven years on count ten. The court further ordered (1) the sentences imposed for counts seven, eight, nine, and ten to be served consecutively to one another, and (2)
I
{¶ 20} In his first assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court improperly allowed the state to introduce out-of-court testimonial statements in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. In particular, appellant contends that the trial court allowed the state to present Heather Gibson‘s statements that appellant did not keep any drugs inside his residence, but instead kept drugs outside of the residence. Appellant asserts that Gibson‘s statements do not qualify as nonhearsay and that none of the hearsay exceptions apply. Appellant additionally claims that Gibson‘s statements are testimonial. Appellant points out that at the time Gibson made the statements, officers were in the process of executing a search warrant at Gibson‘s residence and had provided her with Miranda3 warnings. Thus, appellant asserts, the “statements bolstered the State‘s circumstantial case against Appellant for drugs found adjacent to his property line and for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity.”
{¶ 21} The state responds that any error that the court may have committed concerning Gibson‘s statements constitutes harmless error. With alarmingly little analysis, the state contends that the record contains “plenty of evidence pertaining to Appellant‘s guilt in this case.” The state then points to the informant‘s testimony that appellant committed the fifth-degree felony trafficking offenses, and that four to five yards from appellant‘s residence law enforcement officers found a sock that contained appellant‘s DNA and contained more than 50
{¶ 22} Appellant responds that the state, by failing to challenge appellant‘s assertion that Gibson‘s testimony violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause, essentially concedes the issue. Appellant also disputes the state‘s claim that the error is harmless. Appellant asserts that the state‘s case rested largely upon circumstantial evidence, supposition, and innuendo, and that without Gibson‘s statements, the remaining evidence does not constitute overwhelming proof of appellant‘s guilt.
A
{¶ 23} Appellate courts review alleged violations of a criminal defendant‘s confrontation rights under a de novo standard. State v. Hedges, 4th Dist. Hocking No. 15CA21, 2016-Ohio-5038, 2016 WL 3919844, ¶ 12; State v. Thompson, 4th Dist. Washington No. 13CA41, 2014-Ohio-4665, ¶ 11, citing State v. Smith, 162 Ohio App.3d 208, 2005-Ohio-3579, 832 N.E.2d 1286 (8th Dist.), and United States v. Robinson, (C.A.6, 2004), 389 F.3d 582, 592. In the case at bar, however, appellant did not raise a Confrontation Clause objection before the trial court. Instead, appellant simply asserted that Gibson‘s statements constituted inadmissible hearsay. Appellant thus raises the Confrontation Clause issue for the first time on appeal.
{¶ 24} Generally a defendant who fails to raise a Confrontation Clause issue during the trial court proceedings forfeits the right to present it for the first time on appeal. State v. Arnold, 147 Ohio St.3d 138, 2016-Ohio-1595, 62 N.E.3d 153, ¶ 65; State v. Louis, 2016-Ohio-7596, 73 N.E.3d 917 (4th Dist.), ¶ 46; State v. Smith, 2016-Ohio-5062, 70 N.E.3d 150 (4th Dist.), ¶ 74; see State v. Anderson, 151 Ohio St.3d 212, 2017-Ohio-5656, 87 N.E.3d 1203, ¶ 44. Additionally,
{¶ 25}
B
{¶ 26} The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”4 In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), the United States Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause guarantees a defendant‘s right to confront those “who ‘bear testimony‘” against him. Id. at 51. A testimonial out-of-court statement of a witness who does not appear at trial thus is inadmissible unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 309, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009), citing Crawford, 541 U.S. at 54. However, “[t]he Clause * * * does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter
{¶ 27} In the case sub judice, we therefore must initially determine whether Gibson‘s out-of-court statements are hearsay, or nonhearsay. If nonhearsay, we need not consider whether they are also testimonial and, thus, barred under the Confrontation Clause.
C
{¶ 28} Under
{¶ 29} “Law-enforcement officers may testify to out-of-court statements for the nonhearsay purpose of explaining the next investigatory step.” State v. Beasley, — Ohio St.3d —, 2018-Ohio-493, — N.E.3d —, ¶ 172, citing McKelton at ¶ 186. Admissibility of investigatory-step statements is limited, however, due to “‘the great potential for abuse and potential confusion to the trial of fact.‘” State v. Ricks, 136 Ohio St.3d 356, 2013-Ohio-3712, 995 N.E.2d 1181, ¶ 24, quoting State v. Humphrey, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-837, 2008-Ohio-6302, ¶ 11. In order to prevent abuse and limit potential confusion, “[t]estimony offered to explain police conduct is admissible as nonhearsay only if it satisfies three criteria: (1) ‘the conduct to be explained [is] relevant, equivocal, and contemporaneous with the statements,’ (2) the probative value of the statements is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and (3) ‘the statements do not connect the accused with the crime charged.‘” McKelton at ¶ 186, quoting Ricks at ¶ 27. Consequently, an investigatory-step statement “is not permitted if the statement in question ‘connect[s] the accused with the crime charged.‘” State v. Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422, 2017-Ohio-9423, 108 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 136, quoting Ricks at ¶ 27.
{¶ 30} For example, in Ricks the court determined that out-of-court statements ostensibly offered to show an officer‘s next investigatory step constituted inadmissible hearsay when the statements implicated the defendant in the crime charged. In Ricks, a law enforcement officer testified that one of the defendant‘s acquaintances, and a suspected accomplice, gave the officer statements that led the officer to identify the defendant as an individual suspected of murder. The officer explained that he had learned from another law enforcement agency that the acquaintance and an individual named “Peanut” had been involved in a murder. The acquaintance gave the officer a description of Peanut and accompanied the officer to Peanut‘s house. When they arrived at the defendant‘s house, the acquaintance stated, “That‘s Peanut.” The officer later showed the acquaintance a photograph of “Peanut,” and the acquaintance positively identified him as “Peanut.” Other evidence indicated that “Peanut” was the nickname of the defendant on trial for murder. The defendant objected to the officer‘s testimony, and the trial court gave the jury a limiting instruction that the state introduced the statements, not for the
{¶ 31} On appeal, the defendant asserted a violation of his right to confront the witness who provided the officer with out-of-court statements that identified the defendant as Peanut. The appellate court disagreed, and the defendant appealed.
{¶ 32} The Ohio Supreme Court determined, however, that the acquaintance‘s out-of-court statements had the effect of implicating the defendant in the murder. The court noted that some of the officer‘s testimony did show the reason why he pursued certain investigatory steps, but found that “key parts” of the officer‘s testimony regarding the acquaintance‘s statements were “a pretext” for connecting the defendant to the crime. Id. at ¶ 29 and ¶ 34. The court further concluded that the statements (emanating from an alleged accomplice in the murder) are “‘particularly deserving of cross-examination.‘” Id. at ¶ 36, quoting State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49, 60, 752 N.E.2d 904 (2001). The court concluded that the jury likely interpreted the acquaintance‘s statement identifying Peanut “as a statement identifying who had been [the acquaintance‘s] accomplice in the murder rather than as evidence to explain why the police had obtained a photograph of [the defendant] to show to other witnesses.” Id. at ¶ 39. The court thus ruled that the acquaintance‘s out-of-court statements constituted inadmissible hearsay.
{¶ 33} The Ohio Supreme Court likewise determined in another decision that admitting out-of-court statements that implicated the defendant in the crime charged are not admissible as nonhearsay investigatory-step statements. In Clinton, the officer testified that, based upon his
{¶ 34} In the case sub judice, it appears that the state attempted to justify admitting into evidence Gibson‘s out-of-court statements for the nonhearsay purpose of explaining the reasons why law enforcement officers searched the exterior of appellant‘s residence. Gibson‘s statements, however, “went beyond the nonhearsay purpose of explaining how officers came to” search the exterior of appellant‘s residence. State v. Montgomery, 148 Ohio St.3d 347, 2016-Ohio-5487, 71 N.E.3d 180, ¶ 90. Instead, Gibson‘s statements, like the statements in Ricks and Clinton, directly connected appellant with the crimes charged. Gibson‘s statements informed the officers where appellant hid drugs and directly implicated appellant in drug activity. Gibson‘s statements, therefore, do not constitute nonhearsay.
{¶ 35} Accordingly, we must next consider whether Gibson‘s statements are testimonial.
D
{¶ 36} “Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency.” Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006). Statements “are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is [not an] ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.” Id. However, “the existence vel non of an ongoing emergency is not the touchstone of the testimonial inquiry.” Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 374, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011). Instead, the inquiry focuses on whether the primary purpose of the statement was testimonial. Ohio v. Clark, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2174, 2180, 192 L.Ed.2d 306 (2015) (stating that “a statement cannot fall within the Confrontation Clause unless its primary purpose was testimonial“). Thus, “whether an ongoing emergency exists is simply one factor * * * that informs the ultimate inquiry regarding the ‘primary purpose’ of an interrogation.” Bryant, 562 U.S. at 366.
{¶ 37} When determining whether statements are testimonial or nontestimonial, courts must consider “all of the relevant circumstances.” Id. at 369. A court that is examining whether the primary purpose of a statement is testimonial or nontestimonial thus may consider “the informality of the situation and the interrogation.” Id. at 377. A “‘formal station-house interrogation,‘” for instance, “is more likely to provoke testimonial statements, while less formal questioning is less likely to reflect a primary purpose aimed at obtaining testimonial evidence against the accused.” Clark, 135 S.Ct. at 2180, quoting Bryant, 562 U.S. at 377. “In the end, the question is whether, in light of all the circumstances, viewed objectively, the ‘primary purpose’ of the conversation was to ‘creat[e] an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.‘” Id., quoting Bryant, 562 U.S. at 358. If the primary purpose of the statement is not testimonial, then “the admissibility of a statement is the concern of state and federal rules of evidence, not the Confrontation Clause.” Bryant, 562 U.S. at 359. A court that is evaluating the primary purpose of an out-of-court statement must apply an objective test. Id. at 359-360. “We look for the primary purpose that a reasonable person would have ascribed to the statement, taking into
{¶ 38} In the case at bar, our review of the record reveals that Gibson‘s statements are, in fact, testimonial statements. First, we observe that the state‘s appellate brief does not challenge appellant‘s assertion that Gibson‘s statements are testimonial. Additionally, Gibson made the statements at the time law enforcement officers executed a search warrant against her property, after the officers asked if she was willing to talk to them, and after the officers gave her Miranda warnings. Gibson did not provide statements to the law enforcement officers in an effort to quell an ongoing emergency. Rather, she made the statements while the officers investigated various individuals’ involvement in a purported drug trafficking enterprise. Under these circumstances, a reasonable person would believe that officers were attempting to obtain statements from Gibson that they could later use at trial.
{¶ 39} Consequently, for the foregoing reasons, we believe that Gibson‘s out-of-court statements constitute hearsay testimonial statements that the trial court should have excluded, unless Gibson was unavailable and unless appellant previously had an opportunity to cross-examine her. Nothing in the record suggests that appellant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine Gibson. Therefore, the admission of Gibson‘s statements violated appellant‘s right to confront the witness against him.
{¶ 40} Next, we must consider whether the Confrontation Clause violation requires us to reverse the trial court‘s judgment. First, as we stated above, an error occurred. Second, we believe the error is obvious. A review of Agent Argabright‘s testimony shows that when he obtained Gibson‘s statement, the officers had been searching her property for evidence of a
{¶ 41} Additionally, we believe that a reasonable probability exists that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. Gibson‘s hearsay statement directly connected appellant to the large quantity of drugs that the officers discovered outside appellant‘s residence. Without Gibson‘s statements, the state‘s evidence that connects appellant to possessing or trafficking in the large quantity of drugs found outside his residence consists of the following: (1) appellant‘s DNA matched the DNA found on the sock that contained the drugs; (2) the drugs were located four to five yards from appellant‘s house; (3) officers found slightly more than $2,000 in cash inside appellant‘s residence; and (4) appellant stated, to no one in particular, “you will never find it.” Although we recognize that the jury could have arguably determined that this evidence adduced at trial established that appellant is the person responsible for the drugs found in the sock, we do not find the state‘s evidence so overwhelming that Gibson‘s hearsay testimony unlikely influenced the jury‘s decision. Rather, Gibson‘s hearsay testimony seems to provide a direct link among the state‘s evidence that appellant is, in fact, the person responsible for possessing the large quantity of drugs and that he trafficked in those drugs. Consequently, without Gibson‘s hearsay testimony, we believe that a reasonable probability exists that the jury would have been unable to find appellant guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the possession and trafficking offenses involving the large quantity of drugs located near
{¶ 42} Consequently, we believe that the error that occurred by allowing the officers to testify concerning Gibson‘s statements affected appellant‘s substantial rights regarding (1) the possession and trafficking offenses involving the drugs found in the sock, and (2) the engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. But for the error, a reasonable probability arguably exists that the jury would have found appellant not guilty of those offenses. We do not, however, believe that a reasonable probability exists that, but for Gibson‘s statements, the outcome of the proceedings regarding the fifth-degree felony trafficking and complicity to trafficking offenses would have
{¶ 43} Accordingly, based upon the foregoing reasons, we sustain appellant‘s first assignment of error and reverse the trial court‘s judgment as it pertains to counts four through ten. On remand, appellant is entitled to a new trial, free of the Confrontation Clause violation identified herein. Additionally, we (1) vacate the sentences imposed for counts seven, eight, nine, and ten; and (2) overrule appellant‘s first assignment of error regarding his convictions on counts one and two.
II
{¶ 44} In his second assignment of error, appellant asserts that his convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence. In particular, appellant argues that the weight of the evidence fails to support his convictions for trafficking and complicity to trafficking in cocaine arising out of the September 10 and 11, 2015 controlled buys at the pool hall (counts one and
{¶ 45} Appellant also argues that the weight of the evidence fails to support the jury‘s guilty verdicts regarding counts four through ten. In light of our disposition of appellant‘s first assignment of error, however, we find this portion of appellant‘s second assignment of error moot.
A
{¶ 46} When an appellate court considers a claim that a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the court must dutifully examine the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, and consider witness credibility. State v. Dean, 146 Ohio St.3d 106, 2015-Ohio-4347, 54 N.E.3d 80, ¶ 151, citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). A reviewing court must bear in mind, however, that credibility
“‘[I]n determining whether the judgment below is manifestly against the weight of the evidence, every reasonable intendment must be made in favor of the judgment and the finding of facts. * * *
If the evidence is susceptible of more than one construction, the reviewing court is bound to give it that interpretation which is consistent with the verdict and judgment, most favorable to sustaining the verdict and judgment.‘”
Id. at ¶ 21, quoting Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984), fn.3, quoting 5 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d, Appellate Review, Section 60, at 191–192 (1978). Thus, an appellate court will leave the issues of weight and credibility of the evidence to the fact-finder, as long as a rational basis exists in the record for its decision. State v. Picklesimer, 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 11CA9, 2012-Ohio-1282, ¶ 24; accord State v. Howard, 4th Dist. Ross No. 07CA2948, 2007-Ohio-6331, ¶ 6 (“We will not intercede as long as the trier of fact has some factual and rational basis for its determination of credibility and weight.“).
{¶ 47} Once the reviewing court finishes its examination, the court may reverse the judgment of conviction only if it appears that the fact-finder, when resolving the conflicts in
{¶ 48} In the case sub judice, as we explain below, we believe that the state presented substantial competent and credible evidence to support appellant‘s convictions for trafficking and complicity to trafficking in cocaine.
B
{¶ 49}
(A) No person shall knowingly do any of the following:
(1) Sell or offer to sell a controlled substance or a controlled substance analog[.]
{¶ 51} “Furthermore, the issue of whether a defendant has knowingly made an offer to sell a controlled substance in any given case must be determined by examining the totality of the circumstances, including ‘the dialogue and course of conduct of the accused.‘” State v. Burton, 2d Dist. Greene No. 94–CA–13, *2 (Mar. 31, 1995), quoting State v. Patterson, 69 Ohio St.2d 445, 447, 432 N.E.2d 802 (1982).
{¶ 52} After our review of the evidence in the case sub judice, we believe that substantial competent and credible evidence supports the jury‘s verdict for the September 10, 2015 trafficking offense. The informant testified that on September 10, 2015 appellant offered to pay him $350 in drugs if the informant helped appellant “clean[] out a house.” The informant‘s testimony thus shows that appellant offered to give the informant drugs in exchange for the informant‘s help. The informant‘s testimony if believed, shows that appellant offered to sell drugs to the informant.
{¶ 53} While we recognize appellant‘s concern that the informant is not a credible witness, we again emphasize that credibility determinations are within the fact finder‘s province. See State v. Braun, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91131, 2009-Ohio-4875, 2009 WL 2963759, ¶¶ 156-157 (disagreeing that defendant‘s convictions against manifest weight of the evidence when most of “state‘s lay witnesses were drug users, felons, and jailhouse snitches“). In the case sub judice, the jury heard and considered evidence regarding the informant‘s past drug use, criminal behavior, and potential motivation to lie in order to help his mother avoid a drug charge. Obviously, the jury was in the best position to weigh the informant‘s circumstances when it
{¶ 54} Consequently, we reject appellant‘s argument that his drug-trafficking conviction on count one of the indictment is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
C
{¶ 55}
No person, acting with the kind of culpability required for the commission of an offense, shall do any of the following:
* * * *
(2) Aid or abet another in committing the offense;
* * * *.
{¶ 56} In the case at bar, after our review of the evidence we do not believe that appellant‘s conviction for complicity to drug trafficking, arising out of the September 11, 2015 controlled purchase, is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Even though the informant did not see appellant physically handle the drugs, the informant testified about the protocol that the informant had to follow to purchase drugs. Moreover, the informant stated that during his last attempted controlled purchase, appellant advised the informant that it was not “that kind of party.” While this statement might appear to be innocuous in isolation, the informant explained that appellant‘s statement implied that the informant would no longer be welcome to purchase drugs at the pool hall due to fear that he was just that - an informant. Given this context, appellant‘s statement advising the informant that it was not “that kind of party” illustrates
{¶ 57} Accordingly, based upon the foregoing reasons, we overrule appellant‘s second assignment of error.
III
{¶ 58} In his third assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court gave the jury an incorrect circumstantial evidence instruction. Appellant claims that the trial court relied upon an outdated jury instruction that misstates current law. In particular, appellant contends that the circumstantial evidence instruction incorrectly relied upon State v. Kulig, 37 Ohio St.2d 157, 309 N.E.2d 897 (1974), which the Ohio Supreme Court overruled in State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 1991.
{¶ 59} We initially note that appellant did not object to the trial court‘s circumstantial-evidence jury instruction.
On appeal, a party may not assign as error the giving or the failure to give any instructions unless the party objects before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating specifically the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection.
Thus, a defendant‘s failure to object to the challenged instruction forfeits all but plain error. State v. White, 142 Ohio St.3d 277, 2015–Ohio–492, 29 N.E.3d 939, ¶ 57, citing State v. Davis, 127 Ohio St.3d 268, 2010–Ohio–5706, 939 N.E.2d 147, ¶ 24; State v. Steele, 138 Ohio St.3d 1, 2013–Ohio–2470, 3 N.E.2d 135, ¶¶ 29–30; State v. Eafford, 132 Ohio St.3d 159, 2012–Ohio–2224, 970 N.E.2d 891, ¶ 11; State v. Bundy, 2012–Ohio–3934, 974 N.E.2d 139, ¶ 65
{¶ 60} In the case sub judice, even though the jury received an outdated circumstantial evidence instruction, we do not believe that the error requires a reversal of the trial court‘s judgment. Instead, because appellant did not timely object to the jury instruction, we in the exercise of “the utmost caution,” conclude that appellant should not be permitted to take advantage of the error on appeal. Moreover, as Jenks points out, if the jury is properly and adequately instructed as to the standards for reasonable doubt, a special circumstantial evidence instruction is not required. Jenks also informs us that no need exists for circumstantial evidence to be irreconcilable with any theory of innocence. Additionally, because the jury instructions mirrored the instructions used prior to Jenks, any prejudice resulting from the erroneous instruction was, in fact, against the state. State v. Smith, 3rd District Union No. 14-01-28, 2002-Ohio-5051. Consequently, any error would constitute harmless error as it relates to the appellant and, in view of our disposition of appellant‘s first and second assignments of error, we cannot state that failing to recognize the jury instruction error would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice.
IV
{¶ 62} For ease of discussion, we combine our review of appellant‘s fourth and fifth assignments of error.
{¶ 63} In his fourth assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred by failing to merge his drug possession and drug trafficking offenses (counts four through nine) with the engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity offense (count ten). In his fifth assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court‘s thirty-three year prison sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. However, in view of our disposition of appellant‘s first assignment of error, appellant‘s fourth and fifth assignments of error have been rendered moot. We, therefore, do not address them, and overrule them as moot.
V
{¶ 64} Accordingly, based upon the foregoing reasons, we (1) reverse the trial court‘s judgment as it relates to counts four through ten and remand for a new trial, (2) vacate the sentences the trial court imposed on counts seven, eight, nine, and ten, and (3) affirm the trial court‘s judgment of conviction and sentence as it relates to counts one and two.5
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART,
REVERSED IN PART AND CAUSE
REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH
THIS OPINION.
JUDGMENT ENTRY
It is ordered that the judgment be affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. We further order that certain sentences be vacated in part, in accordance with this opinion. Appellant shall recover of appellee the costs herein taxed.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Gallia County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
If a stay of execution of sentence and release upon bail has been previously granted by the trial court or this court, it is temporarily continued for a period not to exceed sixty days upon the bail previously posted. The purpose of a continued stay is to allow appellant to file with the Supreme Court of Ohio an application for a stay during the pendency of proceedings in that court. If a stay is continued by this entry, it will terminate at the earlier of the expiration of the sixty day period, or the failure of the appellant to file a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio in the forty-five day appeal period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Additionally, if the Supreme Court of Ohio dismisses the appeal prior to expiration of sixty days, the stay will terminate as of the date of such dismissal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute that mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Hoover, P.J. & Harsha, J.: Concur in Judgment & Opinion
For the Court
BY: ________________________
Peter B. Abele, Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.
Notes
Count one: trafficking in cocaine (less than 5 grams), in violation of
Count two: complicity to trafficking in cocaine (.25 grams), in violation of
Count three: possession of cocaine (.25 grams), in violation of
Count four: possession of cocaine (35.26 grams), in violation of
Count five: possession of heroin (25.24 grams), in violation of
Count six: aggravated possession of drugs (10.44 grams), in violation of
Count seven: trafficking in cocaine (35.26 grams), in violation of
Count eight: trafficking in heroin (25.24 grams), in violation of
Count nine: aggravated trafficking in drugs (10.44 grams), in violation of
Count ten: engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, in violation of