2008 Ohio 6623 | Ohio Ct. App. | 2008
{¶ 3} When officers inventoried Painson's trunk, they discovered a large orange suitcase. The K-9 at the scene alerted on both Painson's trunk and the orange suitcase. Officers opened the suitcase and found a plastic bag containing a digital scale and a box of Ziploc baggies. They also found a pair of brown, high-top work boots in Painson's trunk, one of which contained a loaded 9 millimeter handgun, and a small amount of marijuana in the Taurus's center console.
{¶ 4} The matter proceeded to a bench trial, and the court found Painson guilty of the following crimes: (1) possession of criminal tools in violation of R.C.
"THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED RULE 29 OF THE OHIO RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY DENYING THE APPELLANT'S REQUEST TO DISMISS THE CRIMINAL CHARGE AGAINST HIM BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT HE POSSESSED CRIMINAL TOOLS AND/OR IMPROPERLY HANDLED A FIREARM IN A MOTOR VEHICLE."
{¶ 5} In his sole assignment of error, Painson argues that his convictions for possessing criminal tools and improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle are based on insufficient evidence. We disagree.
{¶ 6} "We must determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support a conviction." State v. Moneypenny, 9th Dist. No. 03CA0061,
"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." State v. Smith, 9th Dist. No. 23288,
2007-Ohio-1680 , at ¶3 , quoting State v. Galloway (Jan. 31, 2001), 9th Dist. No. 19752, at *3.
"In essence, sufficiency is a test of adequacy." State v. Thompkins
(1997),
Possession of Criminal Tools
{¶ 7} R.C. {¶ 8} Painson argues that his conviction for possession of criminal tools is based on insufficient evidence because the State failed to conduct a chemical analysis on the scale and/or baggies confiscated from Painson's vehicle. He argues that the State was required to show that the scale or baggies actually contained drug residue in order to prove that Painson possessed the items for a "criminal purpose." Yet, all of the cases Painson cites in support of this proposition involved crimes that depended upon the identification of a particular controlled substance. See State v. Maupin (1975),
{¶ 9} Officer Bastock testified that he discovered a plastic bag containing a digital scale and a box of Ziploc baggies in the trunk of Painson's vehicle. Officer Bastock, a nine year veteran of the Stow Police Department, testified that in his experience it is common practice for people dealing in illegal narcotics to use digital scales and plastic baggies. Specifically, he indicated that drug dealers usually weigh the amount of their product on such a scale and that marijuana is normally packed in small quantities and sealed in the type of small Ziploc baggies that he recovered from Painson's vehicle. Officer Robert Molody, the second officer on scene, corroborated Officer Bastock's testimony and testified that the presence of a digital scale and plastic baggies generally indicates that an individual intends to or is engaging in drug trafficking. Finally, Officer Ted Bell testified that his K-9 alerted as to the presence of a controlled substance when sniffing Painson's trunk and when sniffing the orange suitcase in which officers found the digital scale and Ziploc baggies. Officer Bell confirmed that digital scales and baggies are items commonly associated with the packaging of controlled substances. *5
{¶ 10} Based on the aforementioned testimony, we cannot conclude that the State failed to meet its burden of production as to Painson's possession of criminal tools charge. The State's evidence demonstrated that Painson possessed a digital scale and Ziploc baggies, both of which several officers testified are "commonly used for criminal purposes."Sanders at ¶ 13. Furthermore, Officer Bell's K-9 alerted to the presence of narcotics with regard to these items. It is inapposite that the State did not further corroborate the foregoing evidence by performing a chemical analysis on items recovered from Painson's vehicle.
Improperly Handling a Firearm in a Motor Vehicle
{¶ 11} R.C."No person shall knowingly transport or have a firearm in a motor vehicle, unless the person may lawfully possess that firearm under applicable law of this state or the United States, the firearm is unloaded, and the firearm is carried in one of the following ways:
"(1) In a closed package, box, or case;
"(2) In a compartment that can be reached only by leaving the vehicle;
"(3) In plain sight and secured in a rack or holder made for the purpose;
"(4) If the firearm is at least twenty-four inches in overall length as measured from the muzzle to the part of the stock furthest from the muzzle and if the barrel is at least eighteen inches in length, either in plain sight with the action open or the weapon stripped, or, if the firearm is of a type on which the action will not stay open or which cannot easily be stripped, in plain sight."
"A person acts knowingly, regardless of his purpose, when he is aware that his conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when he is aware that such circumstances probably exist." R.C.
{¶ 12} Painson argues that his conviction for improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle is based on insufficient evidence because officers found a firearm in his trunk. He argues that the State failed to introduce any evidence that he had access to his trunk from the inside of *6
the vehicle. See R.C.
Judgment affirmed.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, 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(E). 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.
*7Costs taxed to Appellant.
CARR, P. J., MOORE, J., CONCUR.
(Baird, J., retired, of the Ninth District Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment pursuant to, § 6(C), Article IV, Constitution.) *1