State v. Lipford

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Lipford

2014 Ohio 5730

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 22, 2014

Docket2014CA0004

StatusPublished

This text of 2014 Ohio 5730 (State v. Lipford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Lipford, 2014 Ohio 5730 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Lipford, 2014-Ohio-5730.]

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. -vs- Case No. 2014CA00004 JARED LIPFORD

Defendant-Appellant OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Common Pleas Court, Case No. 2013CR1337(A)

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 22, 2014

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

JOHN D. FERRERO, EARLE E. WISE, JR. Prosecuting Attorney, 122 Central Plaza, North Stark County, Ohio Canton, Ohio 44702

By: Renee M. Watson Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Appellate Section 110 Central Plaza, South - Suite 510 Canton, Ohio 44702-1413 Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00004 2

Hoffman, P.J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Jared Lipford appeals his conviction entered by the

Stark County Court of Common Pleas on one count of illegal assembly or possession of

chemicals for the manufacture of drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.041(A) and one count

of tampering with evidence, in violation R.C. 2921.12(A)(1). Plaintiff-appellee is the

state of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} In April of 2013, Appellant moved into a residence at 1422 Shriver Avenue

Northeast, Canton, Ohio. The night he moved in, Appellant brought with him a blue

Rubbermaid container. Matthew Pallaye, Ashley Stegeman, Alexandria Murphy, and

Murphy's minor son D.G. also lived at the house.

{¶3} On May 1, 2013, Canton Police Department officers were dispatched to

the residence for a child welfare check based upon suspicion of a methamphetamine

lab. An active lab was located in the attic of the home. Upon entering the attic, Officers

found a blue plastic Rubbermaid bin. The officers also found 20 2-liter bottles, several

20-ounce bottles, empty Sudafed boxes, coffee filters, cold packs, Coleman fuel, crystal

drain opener, lithium batteries and drug paraphernalia.

{¶4} Appellant was later charged with illegal assembly or possession of

chemicals for the manufacture of drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.041(A), and tampering

with evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1). Pallaye and Murphy were charged with

one count of illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs.

Murphy was also charged with one count of child endangering. Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00004 3

{¶5} Pallaye and Murphy entered into a plea agreement in exchange for their

testimony against Appellant.

{¶6} Prior to trial, Appellant moved the trial court to exclude evidence relative to

his use and sale of heroin and methamphetamines. The State in turn argued such

evidence should be allowed as Appellant traded both meth and heroin for the chemicals

needed to operate the methamphetamine lab. The trial court overruled the motion in

limine, but reserved a ruling should Appellant renew the motion at trial, if the testimony

became purely prejudicial.

{¶7} Following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the charges. The trial

court conducted a sentencing hearing, sentencing Appellant to seven years for illegal

assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs, and three years on

the tampering with evidence charge to run concurrent to the term imposed on the illegal

assembly of possession charge.

{¶8} Appellant appeals, assigning as error,

{¶9} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ALLOWED VARIOUS

WITNESSES TO TESTIFY TO IMPROPER CHARACTER EVIDENCE AND/OR

OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS OR ACTS EVIDENCE, IN VIOLATION OF EVIDENCE

RULE 404 RESULTING IN THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDNCE [SIC] WHICH WAS

UNFAIRLY PREJUDICIAL TO THE DEFENDANT DENYING HIM A FAIR TRIAL.

{¶10} "II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN

IT FAILDED [SIC] TO GIVE THE JURY A LIMITING INSTRUCTION RELATED TO THE

OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE JURY AT TRIAL. Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00004 4

{¶11} "III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION TO

THE PREJUDICE OF THE DEFENDANT BY ALLOWING IMPROPER TESTIMONY BY

SEVERAL WITNESSES INCLUDING STATEMENTS SUPPORTED BY NO

PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND HEARSAY STATEMENTS, IN VIOLATION OF

EVIDENCE RULES 602 AND 802.

{¶12} "IV. THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL WAS INSUFFICIENT TO

SUSTAIN THE CONVICTIONS AND THE VERDICTS ARE AGAINST THE MANIFEST

WEIGHT OF THE EVIENCE [SIC].

{¶13} "V. DEFENANT'S [SIC] TRIAL COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS TO A FAIR

TRIAL UNDER THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND SECTIONS 10 AND 16, ARTICLE I, OF THE

OHIO CONSTITUTION.

{¶14} "VI. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION TO

THE PREJUDICE OF THE DEFENDANT BY FAILING TO PREVENT CUMMULATIVE

[SIC] ERROR, WHICH PREVENTED DEFENDANT FROM RECEIVING A FAIR TRIAL.

I.

{¶15} In the first assignment of error, Appellant maintains the trial court erred in

allowing character evidence of other crimes or acts in violation of Evidence Rule 404.

{¶16} Evidence Rule 404 reads,

(B) Other crimes, wrongs or acts. Evidence of other crimes,

wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in

order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00004 5

admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent,

preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

In criminal cases, the proponent of evidence to be offered under this rule

shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial, if the

court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature

of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial.

Evid. R. Rule 404

{¶17} Appellant argues the trial court improperly allowed testimony relative to

Appellant's use, sale or purchase of heroin; the sale or trade of methamphetamine;

conduct leading to Appellant being chased by a person with a gun; and witness

statements Appellant had cooked meth in the past.

{¶18} We find the trial court did not err in finding some of the other acts evidence

was admissible to prove Appellant's intent to manufacture methamphetamine as intent

to manufacture is a specific element of the charged offense. Here, Appellant sold or

bartered meth to others, trading drugs for the chemicals needed to make additional

methamphetamine. Neither Appellant, nor his co-defendants, had a job or means of

income to purchase the materials needed to make the meth. Appellant used some of

the proceeds of selling meth or bartered meth to obtain heroin. Furthermore, evidence

introduced at trial established Appellant cooked or sold meth in the past and bartered

the finished product for chemicals to produce more meth, which demonstrated his intent

to manufacture methamphetamine with the chemicals.

{¶19} At trial Stegeman testified she gave Appellant a ride, believing he was

going to his dad's house. She testified, Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00004 6

Q. So what happens - - now, you mentioned a couple times about

the police coming to your house. What happens the day the police come

to your house?

A. Jared asked us for a ride to his dad's house to go get some of

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