[Cite as State v. Madden, 2024-Ohio-2851.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2023-10-117
: OPINION - vs - 7/29/2024 :
TOBY L. MADDEN, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2022-10-1423
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and John C. Heinkel, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Michele Temmel, for appellant.
BYRNE, J.
{¶ 1} Toby Madden appeals from his conviction for aggravated possession of
drugs in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons discussed below,
we affirm Madden's conviction. Butler CA2023-10-117
I. Factual and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} In November 2022, a Butler County grand jury indicted Madden on one
count of aggravated possession of drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a first-degree
felony. The indictment arose after Madden entered the public lobby of the Butler County
Jail with two suitcases and told deputies that he knew where a large quantity of drugs
was located. However, Madden would not reveal the location of the drugs. Eventually,
the deputies asked for Madden's consent to search one of his suitcases, which he
granted. In that suitcase, the deputies recovered over 300 grams of methamphetamine.
{¶ 3} The deputies confiscated the methamphetamine but did not arrest Madden
in the hopes that he would work with them as a confidential informant and eventually tell
them how he obtained the drugs. However, he never contacted them again and they
eventually charged him with possessing the drugs.
{¶ 4} The matter proceeded to a jury trial. We will summarize the key trial
testimony below.
A. State's Case
1. Specialist Donald Shackelford's Testimony
{¶ 5} Specialist Donald Shackelford testified that he worked for the Butler County
Sheriff's Office, and that on September 23, 2021, he was at the Butler County Jail. He
was leaving for the day when a man—Madden—approached him in the jail's public lobby.
{¶ 6} Madden had two rolling "carry-on" suitcases with him. Madden started
talking excitedly to Specialist Shackelford; he was "rambling." Madden told Specialist
Shackelford that there were people out to "get him" and that he had been walking around
for several hours and decided to come to the jail. Madden told Specialist Shackelford
that he wanted to talk to someone at the sheriff's office because he had information on
"big-time players" involved in drug trafficking.
-2- Butler CA2023-10-117
{¶ 7} After speaking with Madden, Specialist Shackelford placed a call to the
sheriff's office "BURN" unit, which oversees drug investigations. A BURN unit employee
informed him that the unit would send someone over. Ten minutes later, two officers from
the BURN unit, Deputy Rhoads and Detective McGuire, appeared and took over the
investigation.
{¶ 8} Specialist Shackelford stated that his conversation with Madden lasted five
to ten minutes and that Madden was "a hundred miles an hour, rambling about a bunch
of different stuff." He was talking "really fast," was fidgety, and paranoid. Shackelford
stated that he had observed this kind of behavior throughout his law enforcement career
and that it appeared to him that Madden was under the influence of methamphetamine.
2. Detective Michael McGuire's Testimony
{¶ 9} Detective Michael McGuire testified that he worked for the Butler County
Sheriff's Office's BURN unit, which is the regional undercover narcotics task force.
Detective McGuire explained that the BURN unit uses confidential informants ("C.I.s") to
help in their drug trafficking investigations. Detective McGuire explained that they would
sometimes not charge a person with a lower-level drug offense. Instead, they would offer
that person an opportunity to become a C.I. and "work off" the charge by making
controlled purchases from drug traffickers. But if the potential C.I. refused to cooperate
with the BURN unit, then they would charge the person.
{¶ 10} Detective McGuire testified that he was working on September 23, 2021
when Deputy Rhoads was informed that there was someone in the jail lobby who claimed
to have information on drugs and a possible drug dealer.
{¶ 11} Detective McGuire and Deputy Rhoads then met with Madden in the lobby
and observed that he had two suitcases with him. Madden told them that people were
out to get him and that he was scared for his life. Madden was "very paranoid." Madden
-3- Butler CA2023-10-117
told them that he knew where a "large amount" of drugs was located. However, he would
not answer their questions about the location of the drugs. He would only say, "I can't tell
you."
{¶ 12} But several times, while telling the deputies that he could not tell them where
the drugs were located, he simultaneously looked down toward one of the suitcases, and
then back at the investigators. He would also grab the handle of that suitcase or take his
hand off the handle while denying he knew the location of the drugs. It was "very
apparent" to the deputies that there was something in the suitcase and Madden's body
language was a "big tell."
{¶ 13} Eventually, the deputies asked Madden to come with them to a secure room
within the jail and continue answering questions. He agreed. While in the secure room,
Madden continued to talk to them in a rambling manner, jumping from one subject to
another, and never answering their questions about why he claimed his life was in danger
or where the drugs were located.
{¶ 14} After some time, Deputy Rhoads asked Madden if he would consent to a
search of the suitcase he had been gesturing towards. Madden agreed. After opening
the suitcase, the deputies observed a heat-sealed plastic bag containing a crystal
substance. Without testing the substance, Detective McGuire was certain the bag
contained methamphetamine. The bag had also been partially opened. The investigators
conducted a field test on the contents of the package and it returned positive for
methamphetamine.1 Detective McGuire noted that the suitcase also contained clothing
and various items that Madden indicated he would be selling on eBay.
{¶ 15} Detective McGuire testified that the amount of methamphetamine contained
1. The drugs were later tested by a chemist at a forensic laboratory and it was confirmed as methamphetamine. The chemist testified at trial. -4- Butler CA2023-10-117
in the package was 315.8 grams, or about 11 ounces. The package containing the
methamphetamine was one that typically would contain one pound of methamphetamine.
Thus, the fact that the package was open indicated to Detective McGuire that a portion
of the methamphetamine had been removed. Detective McGuire believed that in
September 2021, the methamphetamine remaining in the package would have been
worth between $2,000 and $2,500.
{¶ 16} Detective McGuire stated that he and Deputy Rhoads tried to recruit
Madden to work for them as a C.I. However, "the conversations [with Madden] were so
far all over the place." They decided to give Madden a "couple days" to "come down,
possibly off his high" so that they could then obtain more accurate answers to their
questions about where the drugs came from. And so they decided against arresting
Madden. Their hope was they would later meet with him, find out where the drugs came
from, and see if he would be willing to "work off" the possession charge.
{¶ 17} They exchanged contact information with Madden. Then, Deputy Rhoads
gave Madden a ride to a location of his choosing, which was a hotel in Fairfield, Ohio.
After dropping off Madden in Fairfield, they never heard from him again.
B. Defense Case
{¶ 18} Madden testified in his defense.2 Madden stated that in June 2021, two and
a half months prior to his appearance at the Butler County Jail, he was living in Covington,
Kentucky. One day, he entered his home and was shot by an unknown home intruder.
He survived and after he was released from the hospital, he and his "wife," Rachelle,
discussed their mutual concerns about him being in danger.3 They agreed he should go
2. Madden's attorney placed on the record that he advised Madden against testifying, but Madden insisted.
3. Madden referred to Rachelle as his wife but also as his girlfriend. He claimed that they were together for 27 years. -5- Butler CA2023-10-117
into "hiding" after a vehicle with tinted windows pulled up in front of their home and a gun
barrel was stuck outside the window. Madden never explained why he was in danger or
who was trying to cause him harm.
{¶ 19} Madden testified that he left their home in Covington carrying only a gym
bag. Subsequently, he called Rachelle and asked her to let him borrow her two travel
suitcases. He asked her to pack some of his clothing in the suitcases and bring those
suitcases to his "friend's place." She packed the suitcases and delivered them to his
cousin's porch. The cousin lived in Hamilton, Ohio. The suitcases remained on the porch
overnight.
{¶ 20} Madden explained that when he eventually retrieved the suitcases, he
opened one so that he could change clothes. He then saw a "bag" that had been wrapped
in a shirt. He did not recognize the bag. From the "looks" of the bag, "something wasn't
right." His immediate thought was that he should contact the "Butler County Task Force"
because he had seen them on the news. He thought that the safest thing to do would be
to involve the "experts" (referring to the Butler County Task Force).
{¶ 21} So Madden placed a call to the Butler County Jail. Someone there gave
him Deputy Rhoads' number. He called that number and spoke with Deputy Rhoads and
explained that he was in danger and had found this bag, which he thought might contain
drugs. Deputy Rhoads told him to bring the drugs to the jail and to contact him once he
arrived.
{¶ 22} Madden stated that when he got to the jail, he spoke with an officer who
tried to get him to explain the situation. Madden admitted that he might have appeared
to be "rambling" but this was because he has a nervous condition that was maybe caused
by post-traumatic stress disorder. He denied that he was under the influence of drugs
and asserted that it was this "nervous condition" that the officer observed.
-6- Butler CA2023-10-117
{¶ 23} Madden stated that he then met with Detective McGuire and Deputy
Rhoads in the jail lobby and told them there that there were drugs in the suitcase. He
testified that he showed them the drugs in the suitcase while still in the lobby. Then they
took him to the secure room. He told the officers how the suitcases had sat on a porch
overnight. They congratulated him on turning in the drugs and then drove him to in
Fairfield, Ohio. Deputy Rhoads gave him a card and he gave Deputy Rhoads his brother's
address and a phone number. But they never contacted him again. Madden denied that
he ever agreed to work as a C.I. for the BURN unit.
{¶ 24} On cross-examination, Madden denied knowing that the bag contained
methamphetamine, but admitted he suspected the bag might contain drugs. Madden
also clarified that he did not pick up the suitcases from his cousin's porch in Hamilton.
Instead, he stated that Rachelle first left the suitcases there overnight. Then, the next
day, she picked up the suitcases and brought them to him. He could not state with
certainty where he was located when Rachelle allegedly delivered the suitcases. He
thought it could be at "Seven Mile" at his aunt and uncle's house. Or it could have been
in "New Miami."
{¶ 25} As to his claim that Deputy Rhoads told him to bring the drugs to the jail,
Madden was adamant that Deputy Rhoads refused to come to him to retrieve the drugs.
He explained that Deputy Rhoads "didn't seem like . . . he believed that I had this big
amount of . . . drugs and that I was wanting to turn them in."
{¶ 26} Madden also denied that Deputy Shackelford was the first deputy he met
when he got to the jail. He said he spoke to a different deputy and told that person to
contact Deputy Rhoads.
{¶ 27} Madden confirmed that the suitcase had been packed by Rachelle, his
girlfriend of 27 years. He stated that "some" of the clothes in the suitcase were his, but
-7- Butler CA2023-10-117
some were not. He did not clarify which clothes were not or why some of the clothes
would not have been his.
C. Jury Verdict and Appeal
{¶ 28} The jury found Madden guilty of aggravated possession of drugs. The court
accepted and entered the verdict. The court sentenced Madden to a prison term.
Madden appealed, raising one assignment of error.
II. Law and Analysis – Sufficiency and Weight of the Evidence
{¶ 29} Madden's sole assignment of error states:
THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR AGGRAVATED POSSESSION OF DRUGS AND THE VERDICT OF GUILTY WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 30} Madden collectively challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the
weight of the evidence supporting his conviction. Madden's only argument is that the
state failed to prove that he "knowingly" possessed methamphetamine.
A. Applicable Law
{¶ 31} When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence underlying a conviction, an
appellate court examines the evidence to determine whether such evidence, if believed,
would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Paul, 2012-Ohio-3205, ¶ 9 (12th Dist.). Therefore, "[t]he 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." State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the
syllabus.
{¶ 32} A manifest weight of the evidence challenge examines the "inclination of the
greater amount of credible evidence, offered at a trial, to support one side of the issue
-8- Butler CA2023-10-117
rather than the other." State v. Barnett, 2012-Ohio-2372, ¶ 14 (12th Dist.). To determine
whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the reviewing court
must look at the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider
the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether in resolving the 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. Graham,
2009-Ohio-2814, ¶ 66 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 33} In reviewing the evidence, an appellate court must be mindful that the
original trier of fact was in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses and
determine the weight to be given to the evidence. State v. Blankenburg, 2012-Ohio-1289,
¶ 114 (12th Dist.). An appellate court will overturn a conviction due to the manifest weight
of the evidence only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against
the conviction. State v. Zitney, 2021-Ohio-466, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 34} "Although the legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of
the evidence are both quantitatively and qualitatively different, '[a] determination that a
conviction is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence will also be dispositive of
the issue of sufficiency.'" State v. Billingsley, 2020-Ohio-2673, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.), quoting
State v. Jones, 2013-Ohio-150, ¶ 19 (12th Dist.).
B. Analysis
{¶ 35} Madden argues that there was no evidence presented at trial to
demonstrate that he knowingly possessed methamphetamine. He points to his trial
testimony that he found something that did not belong in his suitcase and suspected it
could be drugs or something illegal, and then took it to the sheriff's office. He emphasizes
that he never acknowledged to any of the deputies his awareness that the plastic bag
contained methamphetamine. He notes that police did not recover his fingerprints on the
-9- Butler CA2023-10-117
plastic bag (and did not attempt to). He argues that he was never tested for being under
the influence of methamphetamine. And he underscores the fact that the deputies did not
immediately arrest him and instead gave him a ride.
{¶ 36} The jury found Madden guilty of aggravated possession of drugs
(methamphetamine), in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A). In relevant part, that statute
provides that no person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use a controlled substance.
{¶ 37} As stated above, the only element of the state's proof challenged by
Madden is whether the state demonstrated that he knowingly possessed
methamphetamine.
{¶ 38} Pursuant to R.C. 2901.22(B),
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. A person has knowledge of circumstances when the person is aware that such circumstances probably exist. When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person subjectively believes that there is a high probability of its existence and fails to make inquiry or acts with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the fact.
{¶ 39} "Absent a defendant's admission regarding his knowledge, whether a
person acts knowingly can only be determined from all the surrounding facts and
circumstances, including the doing of the act itself." State v. Hilton, 2015-Ohio-5198, ¶
20 (12th Dist.). "[T]he state can prove knowledge through either direct or circumstantial
evidence." State v. Jordan, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3800, ¶ 26. Circumstantial
evidence is "'proof of facts by direct evidence from which the trier of fact may infer or
derive by reasoning other facts.'" State v. Raleigh, 2010-Ohio-2966, ¶ 46 (12th Dist.),
quoting State v. Wells, 2007-Ohio-1362, ¶ 11 (12th Dist.).
1. Sufficiency of the Evidence
- 10 - Butler CA2023-10-117
{¶ 40} Upon review, we find that the state submitted sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that Madden had knowledge, as defined in R.C. 2901.22(B), that he
possessed a controlled substance. The state's evidence was that Madden appeared at
the Butler County Jail with two suitcases and began rambling to Specialist Shackelford
about being in danger and claiming to have information on drug traffickers. Based on his
years of experience as a law enforcement officer, Deputy Shackelford believed that
Madden was under the influence of methamphetamine. Madden did not tell Specialist
Shackelford anything about being instructed to bring a large quantity of suspected drugs
to the Butler County Jail.
{¶ 41} When Madden was later questioned by the two BURN officers, he informed
them that he knew where a large quantity of drugs was located. However, he refused to
provide them any information about the location of these drugs. But while discussing his
alleged lack of knowledge of the location of the drugs, Madden's body language revealed
to the two officers that the drugs were likely in one of the suitcases. He repeatedly looked
at this suitcase, or grabbed the suitcase, while refusing to answer their questions about
the drug's location. Detective McGuire was certain there was something in the suitcase
based on Madden's body language. In his words, Madden's body language was a "big
tell."
{¶ 42} Subsequently, Madden allowed the officers to search his suitcase, and sure
enough, the deputies found a bulk quantity of methamphetamine. The suitcase was also
full of Madden's clothing as well as items that he indicated he intended to sell on eBay.
The fact that the drugs were found in Madden's suitcase (which also contained his
clothing), and his gesturing towards the suitcase while disclaiming knowledge of where
the large quantity of drugs was located, would lead a reasonable fact finder to conclude
that Madden knew that he a possessed a controlled substance.
- 11 - Butler CA2023-10-117
{¶ 43} It is also relevant to knowledge that Madden was behaving in a manner that
suggested he was high on methamphetamine. The package was not sealed and had
been opened. It is not much of a stretch to conclude that Madden was high on
methamphetamine that had previously been in the package and thus would have had
knowledge that he possessed methamphetamine.
{¶ 44} Based on the "surrounding facts and circumstances," there was more than
sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable factfinder to find, beyond a reasonable doubt,
that Madden knowingly possessed a controlled substance. See Hilton, 2015-Ohio-5198
at ¶ 20.
2. Manifest Weight of the Evidence
{¶ 45} Madden's argument as to the weight of the evidence assumes that the jury
was required to credit his trial testimony that he had no knowledge of what was in the
plastic bag in his suitcase and that he simply went to the Butler County Jail to turn over
the suspected drugs to the "experts." However, the jury was free to believe some, all, or
none of Madden's testimony. State v. Tenbrook, 2020-Ohio-5227, ¶ 26. A conviction is
not against the manifest weight of the evidence simply because the jury believed the
state's witnesses and did not find the defendant credible. See id. at ¶ 25.
{¶ 46} It is apparent that the jury rejected Madden's version of events. This is not
surprising. We have reviewed Madden's testimony and find that much of it lacks
credibility. In Madden's version of events, he spoke with Deputy Rhoads on the phone
and informed him of the large quantity of suspected drugs. But this is inconsistent with
Specialist Shackelford's testimony that Madden appeared at the jail and asked to speak
to someone about "big-time players" and never mentioned having previously spoken to
Deputy Rhoads. To explain this inconsistency, Madden testified that he spoke with
another deputy before speaking to Specialist Shackelford. And Madden told that deputy
- 12 - Butler CA2023-10-117
to summon Deputy Rhoads. But if any of this were true, one would assume that Madden
could have easily subpoenaed Deputy Rhoads to confirm it. Moreover, one would think
that Specialist Shackelford would have heard from the BURN unit that they were
expecting Madden and that Deputy Rhoads had already been summoned by a different
deputy. Finally, one would assume that Detective McGuire would have been aware that
his investigating partner had already talked to Madden on the phone.
{¶ 47} In Madden's version of events, he opened the suitcase and showed the
drugs to the deputies while in the jail lobby. But of course, this was inconsistent with
Detective McGuire's testimony that Madden repeatedly refused to reveal the location of
the drugs and they only recovered the drugs after acquiring Madden's consent to search
the suitcase in the secure room. Madden apparently felt the need to interject this
inconsistency to prop up his claim that he entered the jail in order to comply with Deputy
Rhoads' request that he come to the jail and turn in the drugs.
{¶ 48} Madden's narrative of the events leading up to his decision to enter the jail
lobby was also not credible. Madden claimed that he was shot by an unknown person
and was in danger. But he could never articulate why he was in danger or from whom he
was in danger. And it was not believable that a bulk quantity of methamphetamine would
randomly appear in Madden's suitcase, which suitcase was allegedly filled with his
clothing and other personal items by his long-term girlfriend. If we assume that it is true
that Rachelle left the suitcase overnight on a porch, it is not believable or sensical that
some unknown individual would place a bulk quantity of methamphetamine in the suitcase
for no reason.
{¶ 49} In sum, while Madden's motivations for entering the jail that day are not
exactly clear (perhaps owing to his being under the influence at the time), what is clear is
that he knew he possessed a large quantity of a controlled substance in a suitcase. This
- 13 - Butler CA2023-10-117
is not one of the exceptional cases where the jury's verdict weighed heavily against the
evidence. Zitney, 2021-Ohio-466 at ¶ 15. We overrule Madden's sole assignment of
error.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 50} Madden's conviction for aggravated possession of drugs was supported by
sufficient evidence of his knowledge. And the state's proof of knowledge was supported
by the greater weight of the evidence.
{¶ 51} Judgment affirmed.
S. POWELL, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.
- 14 -