State v. WilliamsState v. Williams
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 24, 2025
Appearances:
Michael C. O‘Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Chauncey Keller, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Michael V. Wilhelm, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:
{¶ 1} Appellant Kenneth Q. Williams (“Williams“) appeals his convictions for three counts of drug possession, two of which were fifth-degree felonies and one
I. Procedural History
{¶ 2} Williams and his codefendants were indicted in August 2022 and charged with trafficking, three counts of drug possession, fifth-degree felonies, one count of drug possession, a first-degree misdemeanor, and possessing criminal tools. All of the charges except for the misdemeanor drug possession had forfeiture specifications for (1) money, in the amount of $4,835; (2) five cell phones; and (3) five electronic storage devices.
{¶ 3} The case proceeded to a bench trial after which the court found Williams guilty of two counts of fifth-degree felony drug possession and guilty of first-degree misdemeanor drug possession (Counts 2, 4, and 5). Williams was acquitted of thе remaining counts.
{¶ 4} After post-trial motion practice and continuances, the court sentenced Williams to community-control sanctions and Williams timely appealed. However, this court remanded the matter for a ruling on the forfeiture specifications. The trial court found that the State failed to prove that the property specified in Counts 2 and 4 was subject to forfeiture and thus ruled in Williams‘s favor.
{¶ 5} Williams‘s case is now properly before us, and he raises three assignments of error for our review:
Mr. Williams convictions in Count 2, Count 4, and Count 5 were not proven by sufficient evidence. - Mr. Williams‘s convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The trial court abused its discretion by allowing in and considering improper hearsay evidence.
II. Factual History
{¶ 6} On June 28, 2022, Cleveland detectives executed a search warrant at 3581 East 76th Street, a multifamily home where surveillance officers had seen Williams coming and going throughout their investigation. In the home, detectives found Williams‘s codefendants, as well as crack cocaine, crack pipes, digital scales with residue, bags of powder, sandwich bags, two driver‘s licenses that did not belong to any of the defendants, Ohio Direction cards, fentanyl, approximately $4,500 in cash, and multiple cell phones and electronic storage devices. Williams was not inside of the house at the time that the warrant was executed.
{¶ 7} Detective Mathew Pollack (“Det. Pollack“) of the Cleveland Division of Police testified that he was one of the detectives who executed the search warrant. He testified that he found and collected two bags of drugs рlaced near a tree in the backyard of the home. The report containing the chemical testing results of the substances was later admitted into evidence without objection as exhibit No. 1 and indicated that the bags collected from under the tree contained fentanyl, 4-ANPP, cocaine, and Tramadol.
{¶ 9} Detective Daniel Dickens (“Det. Dickens“) of the Cleveland Division of Police testified that he also executed the search warrant of the home. He described finding and collecting: (1) a bag of powder inside of the refrigerator, (2) an open box of sandwich bags, (3) an expired driver‘s license and school I.D. belonging to Kenneth Williams, (4) six Narcan nаsal sprays, (5) an Ohio Direction card, which he described as a “[w]elfare food stamp card,” issued to an individual who was not a defendant, (5) a Visa credit card and a Social Security card belonging to an individual who was not a defendant, (6) five electronic storage devices, (7) miscellaneous pieces of mail addressed to Kenneth Williams and bearing the address of the location that thе search warrant occurred, and (7) two cell phones. (Tr. 95.)
{¶ 10} Det. Dickens, using the photo on the driver‘s license that he recovered from the home, made an in-court identification of Williams as the defendant.
{¶ 11} Sergeant Jarrod Durichko (“Sgt. Durichko“) of the Cleveland Division of Police testified that he also participated in executing the search warrant. As with
{¶ 12} Regarding items that he personally seized, Sgt. Durichko described finding and collecting: (1) tear-offs with residue found in a makeup bag, (2) two motion alert monitors located on the exterior of the home, (3) two boxes of sandwich bags, (4) a Narcan spray, and (5) a fentanyl test strip.
{¶ 13} Finally, Sgt. Durichko testified that he spoke to Williams‘s mother, who was at the property at the time of the search. According to Sgt. Durichko, Williams‘s mother informed him that “Kenneth Williams primarily lived in the upstairs of the unit, and was in some way connected to Odyssey Heefner who primarily lived in the downstairs of the unit[.]” (Tr. 134.)
{¶ 14} Sergeant Cody Sheets (“Sgt. Sheets“) of the Cleveland Division of Police testified that he also executed the search warrant at the subject property. Sgt. Sheets specifically testified that he recovered currency in this matter, particularly $4,500 in U.S. currency in “a hidden drawer underneath the top of the dresser.” (Tr. 158.) He also found a $50 bill, two $20 bills, a $5 bill, and five $1 bills, which he
{¶ 15} Detective Daniel Hourihan (“Det. Hourihan“) of the Cleveland Division of Police testified that he was assigned to this case, which first cаme to his attention via citizen complaints. He stated that he began conducting surveillance on the subject property and saw Williams coming and going from this property “on many occasions.” (Tr. 169.) Det. Hourihan described completing a “trash pull”1 that was sent for testing and came back positive for cocaine residue.
{¶ 16} Det. Hourihan described finding and collecting from the scene baggie teаr-offs containing residue. He also testified that the cell phones and electronic storage devices were not searched, noting that the Human Trafficking Unit was going to check the electronic storage devices, but never did. Nonetheless, he was not sure that the electronic storage devices even belonged to Williams.
{¶ 17} The State‘s final witness, Detective Christopher Musson (“Det. Musson“) of the Cleveland Division of Police testified that he also executed the subject search warrant. Det. Musson described finding and collecting the following evidence: (1) a digital scale with residue, (2) a spoon with drug residue, (3) tear-offs with residue, (4) a Newport box containing a crack pipe, (5) three unknown pills, (6) two crack pipes with residue found in a purse on the living room sofa, and (7) mail
III. Law and Analysis
{¶ 18} In his first two assignments of error, Williams contends that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence and based on insufficient evidence.
{¶ 19} In his argument that the convictions were based on insufficient evidence, Williams argues that the State (1) did not prove that he had “constructive control over drugs found in a house with known drug users,” (2) did not offer sufficient evidence tying any cocaine residue to him, and (3) did not establish that he had control over the rooms where cocaine residue was found.
{¶ 20} The test for sufficiency determines whether the prosecution met its burden of production at trial. State v. Cottingham, 2020-Ohio-4220, ¶ 32 (8th Dist.). An appellate court‘s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the еvidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). 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. Proof of guilt may be supported “by circumstantial evidence, real evidence, and direct evidence, or any combination of the three, and all three have equal probative value.”
{¶ 21} To convict Williams of Counts 2, 4, and 5, the State was required to prove that Williams “knowingly obtain[ed], possess[ed], or use[d] a control substance.”
{¶ 22} Williams claims that methamphetamine and Tramadol were only found in “communal spaces” — methamphetamine was found in a makeup bag and Tramadol under a tree in the backyard. Regarding cocaine, Williams acknowledges that cocaine residue was found within a glass pipe, on digital scales, and within several bag tear-offs, but argues that the State did not meet its burden in demonstrating that Williams had actual or constructive possession of the aforementioned drugs. We disagree.
{¶ 23} “Constructive possession exists when an individual exercises dominion and control over an object, even though that object may not be within his immediate physical possession.” State v. Wolery, 46 Ohio St.2d 316, 329 (1976). “[T]he mere fact that the property is located within the premises under one‘s control does not, of itself, cоnstitute constructive possession. It must also be shown that the
{¶ 24} Here, sufficient evidence supports a finding that Williams had knowledge that methamphetamine, Tramadol, and cocaine were found within or on the grounds of property over which he had dominion or control. Testimony was received that Williams had access to all portions of the multifamily home, because he was seen going in different doors while being surveilled and that he was “in some way connected” to the tеnant of the downstairs unit. Moreover, pieces of mail addressed to Williams and bearing the address of the home were found in both the upstairs and downstairs portions of the home. A driver‘s license and school I.D. card belonging to Williams were also recovered from the upstairs of the home.
{¶ 26} In his second assignment of error, Williams challenges his convictions as against the manifest weight of the evidence, arguing that these convictions created a manifest injustice because of “how fundamentally flawed the investigation and prosecution of this case was.” Williams also takes issue with the trial court‘s “inconsistent” verdict, acquitting him of one of the substances found in the bag under the tree while convicting him of another and urges us to “commit fully to the fact that this is not a case that deserved any convictions.”
{¶ 27} In contrast to a challenge based on sufficiency of the evidence, “[w]eight of the еvidence concerns ‘the inclination of the greater amount of credible
{¶ 28} We do not agree that this is the exceptional case where the evidence weighs heavily against conviction. As already discussed, a conviction for drug possession may rest on constructive possession, so long as knowledge of the substances and dominion or control over the premises where the substances are found can be inferred from the evidence presented.
{¶ 30} Accordingly, we overrule Williams‘s second assignment of error.
{¶ 31} In his third assignment of error, Williams argues that the trial court committed an abuse of discretion by “overrul[ing] defense counsels objections to testimony that was either hearsay, more prejudicial than probative, or both.” He specifically cites to the following portion of the transcript:
[THE STATE]: When you were executing this search warrant, did you perform any other responsibilities with regard to execution of the search warrant?
[SGT. DURICHKO]: So aside from checking over the inventory, when things are complete on this day I spoke with a female on scene who identified theirself [sic] as the mother of Kenneth Williams.
[THE STATE]: What did you learn from interaction [sic] from this person?
[WILLIAMS‘S COUNSEL]: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
[SGT. DURICHKO]: I learned that Kenneth Williams primarily lived in the upstairs of the unit, and was in some way connected to Odyssey Heefner who primarily lived in the downstairs of the unit, and that there was a familiarity with Kenneth‘s mother and the property we were at that day.
(Tr. 134.)
{¶ 32} Williams speculates that this objection was ovеrruled because it is a statement offered to explain an officer‘s conduct while investigating a crime, which is a known hearsay exception. See State v. Blevins, 36 Ohio App.3d 147, 149 (10th Dist. 1987). Williams argues that “there is nothing in either the question or the answer that explains how the investigation proceeded as a result of the information received.” Notwithstanding the fact that Williams is speculating as to the trial court‘s ruling, even if we assumed that this statement did constitute improper hearsay, the trial court was capable of distinguishing such testimony. During a bench trial, we presume that the trial court disregards improper hearsay evidence unless there is affirmative evidence in the record to the contrary. State v. Crawford, 2013-Ohio-1659, ¶ 61 (8th Dist.).
{¶ 33} While Williams argues that the alleged hearsay from Sgt. Durichko is the only testimony linking him to the upstairs of the home, we disagree and again, reitеrate that sufficient evidence exists upon which a trier of fact could find that Williams resided in the upstairs unit even without his mother‘s statements. Mail, a driver‘s license, and a school ID belonging to Williams were found in the upstairs
{¶ 34} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this сourt directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant‘s convictions having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and
DEENA R. CALABRESE, J., CONCUR