State v. Carson

2024 Ohio 30

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 8, 2024
• Docket: CA2023-04-009
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Carson, 2024-Ohio-30.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

FAYETTE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, :

Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2023-04-009

: OPINION - vs - 1/8/2024 :

DONALD Z. CARSON, III, :

Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM FAYETTE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CRI 20220115

Jess C. Weade, Fayette County Prosecuting Attorney, and Rachel S. Martin, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Steven H. Eckstein, for appellant.

PIPER, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Donald Carson, was indicted on one count of aggravated

possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(1)(a), a fifth-degree felony.

Carson pled not guilty, and the case proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found Carson guilty,

and the trial court imposed a ten-month prison sentence.

{¶ 2} Lieutenant Derek Pfeifer and Officer Derek Marcum found Carson asleep Fayette CA2023-04-009

behind the wheel of his vehicle on South Hinde Street in Washington Court House. When

they approached, Lieutenant Pfeifer and Officer Marcum observed that Carson had

marijuana and a baggie containing an off-white substance in his lap. Officer Marcum

retrieved the baggie and woke up Carson. The off-white substance tested positive for

methamphetamine.

{¶ 3} During trial, the state presented testimony from Lieutenant Pfeiffer and Officer

Marcum. The state also presented evidence showing the off-white substance tested

positive for methamphetamine. Carson testified on his own behalf stating that he "did not

recall" having methamphetamine. He then accused law enforcement of planting the drugs

on him. The jury found Carson guilty, and the trial court imposed a prison sentence. Carson

timely appeals his conviction, raising two assignments of error for review:

{¶ 4} Assignment of Error No. 1:

{¶ 5} THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE DEFENDANT-

APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR AGGRAVATED POSSESSION OF DRUGS

(METHAMPHETAMINE)

{¶ 6} Assignment of Error No. 2:

{¶ 7} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ENTERED A JUDGMENT AGAINST

THE APPELLANT WHICH WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

{¶ 8} Carson's assignments of error challenge the sufficiency and weight of the

evidence. The concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence are

legally distinct. State v. Wright, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-08-152, 2014-Ohio-985, ¶ 10.

Nonetheless, as this court has observed, a finding that a conviction is supported by the

manifest weight of the evidence is also dispositive of the issue of sufficiency. State v. Jones,

12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-03-049, 2013-Ohio-150, ¶ 19. "Because sufficiency is

required to take a case to the jury, a finding that a conviction is supported by the weight of

-2- Fayette CA2023-04-009

the evidence must necessarily include a finding of sufficiency." State v. Hart, 12th Dist.

Brown No. CA2011-03-008, 2012-Ohio-1896, ¶ 43.

{¶ 9} A manifest weight challenge scrutinizes the proclivity of the greater amount of

credible evidence, offered at a trial, to support one side of the issue over another. State v.

Barnett, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-09-177, 2012-Ohio-2372, ¶ 14. In assessing whether

a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, a reviewing court examines the

entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility

of the witnesses, and determines 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. Morgan, 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2013-

08-146 and CA2013-08-147, 2014-Ohio-2472, ¶ 34.

{¶ 10} Carson was convicted of aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C.

2925.11(A) and (C)(1)(a), which provides that "[n]o person shall knowingly obtain, possess,

or use a controlled substance[.]" "A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when

the person is aware that the person's conduct will probably cause a certain result or will

probably be of a certain nature." R.C. 2901.22(B). "A person has knowledge of

circumstances when the person is aware that such circumstances probably exist." Id.

{¶ 11} Possession may be actual or constructive and is defined as "having control

over a thing or substance." R.C. 2925.01(K). Actual possession exists where

circumstances indicate that one has or had an item within his dominion or control. State v.

Hooks, 12th Dist. Warren Case No. CA2000-01-003, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4107, at *7

(Sep. 11, 2000). Constructive possession exists when one is conscious of the presence of

the object and able to exercise dominion and control over it, even if it is not within one's

immediate physical possession. State v. Graves, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-03-022,

2015-Ohio-3936, ¶ 22. Constructive possession may be proven by circumstantial evidence

-3- Fayette CA2023-04-009

alone. Id.

{¶ 12} In this case, Carson was in actual possession of the baggie of drugs.

Lieutenant Pfeiffer and Officer Marcum testified they observed Carson sleeping with the

baggie of drugs visible in his lap. The state introduced a photograph showing Carson

asleep behind the wheel of his car with the plastic baggie plainly visible in his lap. The fact

that Carson was asleep while the drugs were in his lap does not mean that he was not in

possession of drugs or that he lacked the mens rea for the offense. State v. Shelby, 6th

Dist. Wood No. WD-17-056, 2019-Ohio-1564, ¶ 26 (sleeping defendant was still in

possession of drugs). The jury heard the testimony presented at trial, including Carson's

claim that he did not "recall" having methamphetamine. The jury also heard Carson accuse

law enforcement of planting drugs on him. The jury determined that Carson lacked

credibility. A jury's verdict is not against the manifest weight of the evidence simply because

the jury believed the testimony offered by the state. State v. Lunsford, 12th Dist. Brown No.

CA2010-10-021, 2011-Ohio-6529, ¶ 17. This is because, as the trier of fact in this case,

"the jury was in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be

given to the evidence." State v. Johnson, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2019-07-076 and

CA2019-08-080, 2020-Ohio-3501, ¶ 24.

{¶ 13} The jury's verdict finding Carson guilty of aggravated possession of drugs was

supported by the evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Carson's two assignments of error are overruled.

{¶ 14} Judgment affirmed.

HENDRICKSON, P.J., and BYRNE, J., concur.

-4-