State v. Ewing

459 N.E.2d 1297, 9 Ohio App. 3d 285, 9 Ohio B. 500, 1983 Ohio App. LEXIS 11066
Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided March 22, 1983·No. 82AP-819·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Reilly, J.

Defendant, Fred Ewing, Sr., was charged with four counts of trafficking in drugs, violating R.C. 2925.03. The case was tried before a jury and defendant was found guilty on all four counts.

Defendant asserts two assignments of error:

1. ‘ ‘The trial court erred by failing to dismiss the indictment against appellant for noncompliance with Criminal Rule 7(B).”
2. “The jury’s verdict of guilty of four counts of trafficking in drugs was against the weight of the evidence.”

Defendant’s first assignment of error is not well-taken. Crim. R. 7(B) requires that an indictment be signed by the prosecuting attorney or by an assistant in his name. The prosecuting attorney’s name was typed in this case. Nonetheless, R.C. 2941.08, in pertinent part, reads as follows:

“An indictment or information is not made invalid, and the trial, judgment, or other proceedings stayed, arrested, or affected:
u* * *
“(K) For other defects or imperfections which do not tend to prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant upon the merits.”

There is no indication in this record that defendant’s substantial rights were prejudiced, and the indictment was sufficient to inform defendant of the charges against him.

Therefore, defendant’s first assignment of error is overruled.

Defendant’s second assignment of error is also not well-taken. There is sufficient evidence to support the verdict. Detective Edward Ryan testified that defendant directly sold him marijuana and placidyls on March 18,1980, and that defendant knowingly helped, assisted or directed his employee in the sale of drugs on March 6, as well as on March 26,1980. Defense witnesses testified that defendant was not involved in the sale of drugs to Ryan. Thus, the issue was credibility, which was for the proper determination of the jury.

Hence, defendant’s second assignment of error is overruled.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Whiteside, P.J., and Moyer, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Ewing, 459 N.E.2d 1297, 9 Ohio App. 3d 285, 9 Ohio B. 500, 1983 Ohio App. LEXIS 11066 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983).

459 N.E.2d 1297 (State v. Ewing) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Williams
2014 Ohio 5428 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2014)
City of Brooklyn v. Fouche, Unpublished Decision (1-19-2006)
2006 Ohio 169 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2006)
State v. Johnson
655 N.E.2d 208 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1995)
State v. Bunyan
555 N.E.2d 980 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1988)
Fred D. Ewing, Sr. v. Norris W. McMackin
799 F.2d 1143 (Sixth Circuit, 1986)