{¶ 1} Appellant, William Pickett, appeals from his convictions and sentence in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
{¶ 3} As a result of the above, appellant was indicted on the following chаrges: one count of possession of drugs in violation of R.C.
{¶ 4} On August 18, 2006, a jury found appellant guilty of possession of drugs, tampering with evidence, and obstructing official business. Appellant was acquitted of the remaining charges. On August 22, 2006, the trial court sentenced appellant to five years incarceration for possession of drugs, two years incarceration for tampering with evidence, and one year incarceration for obstruсting official business. Appellant's sentences for possession of drugs and tampering with evidence were ordered to be served consecutively, causing appellant's aggregatе sentence to be seven years incarceration. Appellant timely *3 appealed his conviction for tampering with evidence, raising one assignment of error for review.
"THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR ACQUITAL PURSUANT TO RULE 29 WITH RESPECT TO THE TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE CHARGE; AND THE JURY VERDICT ON THAT CHARGE IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE."
{¶ 5} In his sole assignment of error, appellant asserts that the State produced insufficient evidence to support his conviction for tampering with evidence and that his conviction on thаt count was against the manifest weight of the evidence. This Court disagrees.
{¶ 6} A review of the sufficiency of the evidence and a review of the manifest weight of the evidence are separate and legally distinct determinations. State v. Gulley (Mar. 15, 2000), 9th Dist. No. 19600. "While the test for sufficiency requires a determination of whether the state has met its burden of production at trial, a manifest weight challenge questions whether the state has met its burden of persuasion." Id., citing State v. Thompkins (1997),
"An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminаl 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 elemеnts of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus; see, also, Thompkins,
. 78 Ohio St.3d at 386
In State v. Roberts, this Court explained:
"[Sufficiency is required to take a case to the jury[.] * * * Thus, a determination that [a] conviction is supported by the weight of the evidence will also be dispositive of the issue of sufficiency." State v. Roberts (Sept. 17, 1997), 9th Dist. No. 96CA006462. (Emphasis omitted).
Accordingly, we address appellant's challenge to the weight of the evidence first, as it is dispositive of his claim of sufficiency.
{¶ 7} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence an appellate court:
"[M]ust rеview 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 (1986),
, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 340 .
A weight of the evidence challеnge indicates that a greater amount of credible evidence supports one side of the issue than supports the other. Thompkins,
{¶ 8} Appellant was convicted of tampering with evidence in violation of R.C.
"No person, knowing that an official proceeding or investigation is in progress, or is about to be or likely to be instituted, shall * * * [a]ltеr, destroy, conceal, or remove any record, document, or thing, with purpose to impair its value or availability as evidence in such proceeding or investigation[.]"
On appеal, appellant concedes that he knew that an official proceeding or investigation was in progress when the alleged acts took place. Accordingly, the first elеment of tampering with evidence is not at issue.
{¶ 9} Appellant, however, asserts that the State failed to prove that he altered, destroyed, or removed something with the purpose to impair its availability as evidence. This Court disagrees.
{¶ 10} Officer Morris testified as follows with regards to the tampering with evidence charge. Officer Morris' partner, Officer Cresswell executed а traffic stop in North Akron. As soon as the suspect car came to stop, appellant emerged from the passenger's seat and fled the scene. Office Morris immediately begаn pursuing appellant, screaming for him to stop. During the chase, appellant began removing money from both of his pockets and throwing it on the ground. *6 Officer Morris also testified that he witnessed appellant throw "something" to the ground "just west of 37 Vesper" during the pursuit. Once appellant was apprehended, the resident of 37 Vesper pointed out a large bag of drugs that were in her yard that had not been there previously.
{¶ 11} On appeal, appellant asserts that his act of removing the evidence from his person does not support a tampering with evidеnce charge. Specifically, appellant asserts that there "is no indication that Appellant tried to throw evidence behind a bush, or even into tall grass in effort to concеal it." We find appellant's argument unpersuasive.
{¶ 12} Appellant removed evidence from his person over a several block area while attempting to elude the police. As such, Officer Morris was forced to walk the entire route of the pursuit after appellant's arrest in an effort to retrieve evidence. During this walk, Officer Morris had to inform local residents to avoid the crime scene so that all of the evidence, including the cash which appellant had scattered, could be retrieved.
{¶ 13} Like our sister courts, this Court finds that appellant's аctions constituted tampering with evidence. See State v. Salaam, 1st Dist. No. C-020324,
{¶ 14} Having disposed of appellant's challenge to the weight of the evidence, we similarly dispose of his sufficiency challenge. SeeRoberts, supra. Appellant's sole assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
The Court finds that there were reasonablе 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. *8 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk оf 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.
Costs taxed to appellant.
SLABY, P. J. BAIRD, J. CONCUR
(Baird, J., retired, of the Ninth District Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment pursuant to, § 6(C), Article IV, Constitution.) *1