State v. Daniels

2024 Ohio 1536

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Daniels, 2024-Ohio-1536.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT CRAWFORD COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 3-23-35 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

KENJI DANIELS, OPINION

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 22-CR-0030

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: April 22, 2024

APPEARANCES:

Tyler Naud Jechura for Appellant

Daniel J. Stanley for Appellee Case No. 3-23-35

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Kenji M. Daniels (“Daniels”) appeals the

judgment of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas, alleging his convictions

are not supported by sufficient evidence and are against the manifest weight of the

evidence. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} At 1:45 A.M. on January 29, 2022, Officer Devin Wireman (“Officer

Wireman”) of the Bucyrus Police Department observed a driver fail to comply with

a stop sign. Daniels was later identified as the driver of the vehicle. Officer

Wireman activated his lights to initiate a traffic stop, but the vehicle continued to

drive through several streets. Eventually, the vehicle slowed down, and Daniels

“bailed out.” (Tr. 99).

{¶3} However, without a driver, the vehicle continued to go down the road

towards some houses. While engaging in efforts to stop the vehicle, Officer

Wireman informed dispatch where the driver was headed on foot. After securing

the vehicle, Officer Wireman noticed “marijuana, blunt wrapping * * *,” and “a

large amount of cash over the seats and console area.” (Tr. 107).

{¶4} Patrolman Andey Plummer (“Patrolman Plummer”) was in the

vicinity and received Officer Wireman’s description of Daniels. Patrolman

Plummer testified that he observed Daniels walking in a wooded area; that he

-2- Case No. 3-23-35

ordered him to stop; but that Daniels began running in the opposite direction.

Patrolman Plummer then pursued Daniels on foot and was eventually able to bring

him into custody. Officer Wireman then arrived on the scene in addition to several

other officers.

{¶5} Patrolman Plummer testified that, while Daniels was being searched,

he “kept tensing up and would not allow [the police] * * * to search him properly.”

(Tr. 152). After Daniels was secured, Patrolman Plummer went to search the area

of the woods through which he had pursued Daniels. Because the ground was

covered with snow, he was able to retrace their footprints. In this process, he located

a package of marijuana near the footprints.

{¶6} Officer Wireman then transported Daniels to the Crawford County

Jail. On entering the facility, Daniels was subject to a “[p]at down procedure” in

which his clothes and person were searched for contraband. (Tr. 190). Daniels also

went through a body scanner. However, no contraband was located during these

preliminary examinations. Deputy Kevin Moser (“Deputy Moser”) of the Crawford

County Sheriff’s Office then brought Daniels to the shower room for a more

extensive search.

{¶7} Once in this room, Daniels removed his clothing, placing his

underwear, socks, and shirt onto a bench. At this time, Deputy Moser noticed a

piece of toilet paper stuck to Daniels above his anal cavity. The toilet paper fell

-3- Case No. 3-23-35

from Daniels to the ground. Shortly thereafter, Deputy Moser noticed a small

baggie on the floor and directed Daniels to move to the other side of the room. On

seeing the baggie, Daniels “reached down” and “grabbed the bag * * *.” (Tr. 181).

A struggle began as Deputy Moser tried to stop Daniels as he was reaching towards

the toilet in the room. Deputy Moser believed that the baggie went into the toilet.

Against efforts to restrain him, Daniels was able flush the toilet.

{¶8} Hearing the altercation, Deputy Brad Beebe (“Deputy Beebe”) and

Deputy Linda Butler (“Deputy Butler”) entered the shower room. Deputy Moser

informed them that he “believed that he seen him flush contraband * * *.” (Tr. 218).

While Deputy Beebe assisted with the process of handcuffing Daniels, Deputy

Butler checked the toilet but did not see any contraband in the water. She noticed

that the toilet had been flushed and was refilling.

{¶9} Deputy Butler also noticed a baggie that was located on top of

Daniels’s underwear and took this item to a secure location. The contents of the

baggie were later tested and found to contain 5.39 grams of para-fluorofentanyl.

Deputy Beebe testified that, when Daniels was asked to explain his actions, he said

“that he was trying to flush trash.” (Tr. 219).

{¶10} On February 1, 2022, Daniels was indicted on one count of illegal

conveyance of drugs of abuse onto grounds of a specified government facility in

violation of R.C. 2921.36(A)(2), a third-degree felony; one count of tampering with

-4- Case No. 3-23-35

evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), a third-degree felony; one count of

failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer in violation of R.C.

2921.331(B), a third-degree felony; and one count of resisting arrest in violation of

R.C. 2921.33(A), a second-degree misdemeanor.1 These charges formed the basis

of Case No. 22-CR-30.

{¶11} On April 12, 2022, Daniels was indicted on one count of possession

of a fentanyl-related compound in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(11)(c), a third-

degree felony. This charge became the basis of Case No. 22-CR-106. Since the

charges were related, the State filed a motion to consolidate these cases. The trial

court granted this motion, directing that further filings should be received in Case

No. 22-CR-30. A jury trial on these charges commenced on July 19, 2023. The

jury returned verdicts of guilty on all five counts against Daniels. The trial court

issued its judgment entry of sentencing on July 25, 2023.

Assignment of Error

{¶12} Daniels filed his notice of appeal on August 14, 2023. In his brief, he

raises the following assignment of error:

The trial court abused its discretion when it convicted Mr. Daniels. The conviction of Mr. Daniels was against the manifest

1 This indictment also charged Daniels with one count of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), a second-degree felony and one count of assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), a fifth-degree felony. However, on June 16, 2022, the trial court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the count of felonious assault. On June 1, 2023, the trial court granted Daniels’s motion to sever the count of assault for the purpose of allowing this charge to proceed in a separate case.

-5- Case No. 3-23-35

weight of the evidence introduced. Further, the evidence that was introduced was insufficient to support the conviction.

Daniels challenges his convictions for possession of a fentanyl-related compound;

illegal conveyance of drugs of abuse onto grounds of a specified government

facility; and tampering with evidence. For the sake of clarity, we will examine the

former two convictions in one analysis before we consider his conviction for

tampering with evidence under a separate analysis.

Legal Standard

{¶13} A sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis examines whether the State

has carried its burden of production at trial. State v. Richey, 2021-Ohio-1461, 170

N.E.3d 933, ¶ 16 (3d Dist.). On review, an appellate court is not to consider whether

the evidence at trial should be believed but whether the evidence, if believed, could

provide a legal basis for the finder of fact to conclude that the defendant is guilty of

the crime charged. State v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-3015, 223 N.E.3d 919, ¶ 19 (3d Dist.).

Accordingly, the applicable standard “is whether, after viewing the evidence in the

light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found

that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

State v. Plott, 2017-Ohio-38, 80 N.E.3d 1108, ¶ 62 (3d Dist.).

{¶14} In contrast, a manifest-weight analysis examines whether the State has

carried its burden of persuasion at trial. State v. Wilson, 2022-Ohio-504, 185 N.E.3d

176, ¶ 58 (3d Dist.). On review, “an appellate court’s function * * * is to determine

-6- Case No. 3-23-35

whether the greater amount of credible evidence supports the verdict.” State v.

Harvey, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-19-34, 2020-Ohio-329, ¶ 12, quoting Plott at ¶ 73.

Appellate courts “must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all of the reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the factfinder ‘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. Randle, 2018-Ohio-207, 104 N.E.3d 202, ¶ 36 (3d Dist.), quoting Plott at ¶

73, quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d

541 (1997).

{¶15} While an appellate court sits as a “thirteen juror” in this analysis, it

must still “allow the trier of fact appropriate discretion on matters relating to the

weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.” State v. Sullivan, 2017-

Ohio-8937, 102 N.E.3d 86, ¶ 37-38 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Coleman, 3d Dist.

Allen No. 1-13-53, 2014-Ohio-5320, ¶ 7. “Only in exceptional cases, where the

evidence ‘weighs heavily against the conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn

the trial court’s judgment.” State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524,

960 N.E.2d 955, ¶ 119, quoting Thompkins at 387.

Analysis for Possession and Illegal Conveyance Convictions

{¶16} To establish a conviction for possession of a fentanyl-related

compound as a third-degree felony, the State must prove that the defendant

“knowingly obtain[ed], possess[ed], or use[d] a controlled substance or a controlled

-7- Case No. 3-23-35

substance analog” in a quantity that “equals or exceeds five grams but is less than

ten grams.” R.C. 2925.11(A)(1), (C)(11)(c). To establish a conviction for illegal

conveyance of drugs of abuse onto grounds of a specified government facility, the

State must prove that the defendant “knowingly convey[ed] * * * onto the grounds

of a detention facility * * * any drug of abuse * * *.” R.C. 2921.36(A)(2).

{¶17} On appeal, Daniels challenges both of these convictions by arguing

that the State failed to establish that he was in possession of the contraband. He

asserts that no trial testimony established that he “was actually in possession of the

drugs * * *.” (Appellant’s Brief, 12). While direct evidence was not introduced to

substantiate this element, the State did produce circumstantial evidence to establish

that Daniels had been in possession of the contraband.

{¶18} “Circumstantial evidence is defined as ‘[t]estimony not based on

actual personal knowledge or observation of the facts in controversy, but of other

facts from which deductions are drawn, showing indirectly the facts sought to be

proved.’” State v. Nicely, 39 Ohio St.3d 147, 150, 529 N.E.2d 1236 (1988), quoting

Black’s Law Dictionary (5 Ed. 1979). “Circumstantial evidence has no less

probative value than direct evidence.” State v. Morrissey, 3d Dist. Hardin No. 6-

21-02, 2021-Ohio-4471, ¶ 19.

{¶19} In this case, Deputy Moser testified that he observed a piece of toilet

paper stuck to Daniels’s body above his anal cavity. For this reason, he had Daniels

-8- Case No. 3-23-35

perform a “squat and cough” exercise. (Tr. 179). This process relaxes the muscles

and will generally cause items in this area of the body to be released. At this time,

Deputy Moser only saw the toilet paper, but shortly thereafter, he noticed a baggie

on the floor of the shower room.

{¶20} Deputy Moser’s testimony indicates that, when he enters the shower

room, he “check[s] the floors making sure there is nothing on the floor * * *.” (Tr.

180). His testimony also indicates that this baggie was not present when he entered

the shower room and conducted his initial inspection of the floor. He stated that the

shower room is not a high traffic area. Further, when Daniels noticed the baggie on

the floor, he immediately grabbed this item. He then sought to flush this baggie

down the toilet while he was engaged in a struggle with Deputy Moser. The fact

that Daniels sought to dispose of the baggie strongly suggests that he was aware that

its contents were incriminating.

{¶21} Additionally, Deputy Butler located the baggie containing the

contraband on top of Daniels’s underwear. Deputy Moser had not searched

Daniels’s underwear, shirt, and socks before the baggie was discovered in that area.

Having reviewed the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we

conclude that this testimony provided sufficient evidence to establish the possession

element of these two challenged convictions. See also State v. Stringer, 4th Dist.

Scioto No. 97 CA 2506, 1997 WL 603389, *4 (Sept. 29, 1997).

-9- Case No. 3-23-35

{¶22} We turn now to examining Daniels’s manifest-weight challenges. At

trial, Deputy Moser testified that he was not sure where Daniels stored the drugs

prior to the baggie being on the floor. Deputy Beebe was presented with copies of

the body-scan images that were taken when Daniels entered the jail and identified

an abnormality that appeared as a white line in between Daniels’s legs. He stated

that this means that “objects” could be there. (Tr. 227). Since he could not recall

what Daniels was wearing that night, Deputy Beebe could not determine whether

this white line was a zipper or another object.

{¶23} On cross-examination, Deputy Beebe was asked about what happens

when a body-scan image indicates a person might have an object concealed on his

or her person. He indicated that such a person would be taken into a dry cell with

no toilet access for examination rather than into the shower room. Further, the

Defense called Sergeant Chris Eicher (“Sergeant Eicher”) as a witness. He testified

that he reviewed the body-scan images; concluded that no abnormalities were

visible; and testified that Daniels was wearing pants that had a zipper on the date of

his arrest. He also indicated that, in spite of the body scanning procedures, not all

contraband is kept out of the jail.

{¶24} Having examined the record, we find no indication that the jury lost

its way and returned verdicts on these two counts that were against the manifest

weight of the evidence. For this reason, Daniels has failed to establish that the

-10- Case No. 3-23-35

evidence presented at trial weighs heavily against his convictions for possession of

a fentanyl-related compound and for illegal conveyance of drugs of abuse onto

grounds of a specified government facility.

Analysis for Tampering with Evidence

{¶25} To establish a conviction for tampering with evidence in violation of

R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), the State must prove that the defendant, “knowing that an

official proceeding or investigation [was] * * * in progress, or is about to be or likely

to be instituted, * * * [a]lter[ed], destroy[ed], conceal[ed], or remove[d] any record,

document, or thing, with purpose to impair its value or availability as evidence in

such proceeding or investigation.” R.C. 2921.12(A)(1). On appeal, Daniels argues

that the State failed to establish that he altered or destroyed the contraband.

{¶26} At trial, Deputy Moser testified that Daniels picked up a baggie on the

floor and immediately went in the direction of the toilet. He further stated that they

struggled while Daniels had the baggie in his hand and reached to flush the toilet.

Deputy Moser testified that he was not sure “at what point [during the struggle] it

[the baggie] went into the toilet.” (Tr. 199). However, he affirmed that he “kn[e]w

if [Daniels] was successful in flushing bags” and that Daniels “g[ot] rid of that bag.”

(Tr. 205). Deputy Beebe testified that, when he entered the shower room, Deputy

Moser told him that “he seen him [Daniels] flush contra band [sic] at that time.”

(Tr. 218). Deputy Butler testified that she then checked the toilet bowl but could

-11- Case No. 3-23-35

not see any contraband in the toilet. Rather, the toilet had been recently flushed and

was refilling at that time.

{¶27} Having reviewed the evidence in a light most favorable to the

prosecution, we conclude that this testimony provided some evidence from which

the jurors could conclude that Daniels “[a]lter[ed], destroy[ed], conceal[ed], or

remove[d]” evidence within the meaning of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1). Daniels also

challenges his conviction for tampering with evidence by again arguing that the

State failed to establish that he was in possession of the drugs. However, we have

already addressed this issue in our prior analysis and, for the aforementioned

reasons, again find this argument to be without merit. For these reasons, we

conclude that Daniels has not demonstrated that his conviction for tampering with

evidence is unsupported by sufficient evidence.

{¶28} We turn now to examining Daniels’s manifest-weight challenge.

Sergeant Eicher affirmed that Deputy Moser had reportedly “smacked something

out of Mr. Daniels’ hands[.]” (Tr. 275). Deputy Moser testified that he could not

recall making this comment but stated that he was “sure that [he] * * * tried to”

smack the baggie out of Daniels’s hands as they were struggling above the toilet.

(Tr. 201). He also indicated that he was not certain whether the baggie he saw on

the floor “was the bag that was ultimately tested or [whether] the bag on the floor

was ultimately flushed[.]” (Tr. 187). Deputy Moser also testified that he was not

-12- Case No. 3-23-35

sure if Daniels had brought two separate baggies into the facility but affirmed that

he knew Daniels “was successful in flushing bags.” (Tr. 205).

{¶29} Having examined the record, we have found no indication that the jury

lost its way and returned a verdict on the count of tampering with evidence that was

against the manifest weight of the evidence. For this reason, Daniels has failed to

establish that the evidence presented at trial weighs heavily against his conviction

for tampering with evidence. Accordingly, his sole assignment of error is overruled.

Conclusion

{¶30} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars

assigned and argued, the judgment of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas

is affirmed.

WALDICK and MILLER, J.J., concur.

/jnc

-13-