[Cite as State v. Whitt, 2025-Ohio-424.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT LOGAN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 8-24-31 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
BRANDON P. WHITT, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Logan County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. CR 23 05 0111
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: February 10, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Alison Boggs for Appellant
Stacia L. Rapp for Appellee Case No. 8-24-31
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Brandon P. Whitt (“Whitt”) appeals the judgment
of the Logan County Court of Common Pleas, arguing that 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} On September 5, 2022, Sergeant Earl Wisener (“Sergeant Wisener”) of
the Washington Township Police Department was in his cruiser when he observed
Whitt driving in a pickup truck with his girlfriend, Jessica Fuller (“Fuller”).
Sergeant Wisener performed a records check on Whitt and discovered that he was
driving under suspension. When Sergeant Wisener activated his lights to initiate a
traffic stop, Whitt “slow[ed] down a little bit” before he “t[ook] off.” (Tr. 111). In
response, Sergeant Wisener activated his siren and yelled “Brandon, stop” out of
the window of his cruiser. (Tr. 111).
{¶3} As he followed Whitt, Sergeant Wisener reached a speed of forty-five
miles per hour while driving across a gravel alleyway in a residential area. Whitt
eventually brought his vehicle to a stop when the alleyway ended at an intersection.
Sergeant Wisener approached Whitt and said, “[W]hat are you doing?” (Tr. 117).
Whitt replied, “I’m sorry man, I got scared * * *.” (Tr. 117).
-2- Case No. 8-24-31
{¶4} Whitt then consented to a search of his pickup truck. While searching
the vehicle, Sergeant Wisener located a blue latex glove that “was missing an index
finger” inside a black book bag. (Tr. 119). He then began to search the ground
along the roadway where he had followed Whitt’s vehicle in his cruiser. Around
forty feet away from the pickup truck, Sergeant Wisener discovered what looked
like a blue balloon in the grass.
{¶5} On further examination, Sergeant Wisener came to believe that this item
was the missing index finger from the blue latex glove that he had found in the black
book bag. The top of this portion of the latex glove had been tied into a knot and
contained “a white crystal substance” that appeared to be methamphetamine. (Tr.
128). After he was Mirandized, Whitt asked Sergeant Wisener whether he “f[ou]nd
a glove without a finger[.]” (Tr. 129). When Sergeant Wisener indicated that such
an item had been located, Whitt responded by saying, “well, I’ll let the courts handle
it then. I get it.” (Tr. 129).
{¶6} Law enforcement sent the suspected contraband to the Ohio Bureau of
Criminal Investigation for examination. Subsequent testing established that this
white crystalline substance was comprised of 0.69 grams of methamphetamine. On
May 10, 2023, Whitt was indicted on one count of failure to comply with an order
or signal of a police officer in violation of R.C. 2921.331(A), a first-degree
misdemeanor; one count of tampering with evidence in violation of R.C.
-3- Case No. 8-24-31
2921.12(A)(1), a third-degree felony; and one count of aggravated possession of
drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a fifth-degree felony.
{¶7} On April 22, 2024, a jury trial commenced on these charges. During
Sergeant Wisener’s trial testimony, footage from the dashboard camera in his police
cruiser was introduced for the jury to view. On April 23, 2024, the jury returned
verdicts of guilty on all three charges against Whitt. The trial court issued its
judgment entry of sentencing on June 5, 2024.
{¶8} Whitt filed his notice of appeal on June 10, 2024. On appeal, he raises
the following two assignments of error:
First Assignment of Error
The jury’s verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Second Assignment of Error
The trial court erred when it overruled Mr. Whitt’s motion for a Criminal Rule 29 acquittal on count II, nor was the evidence sufficient for a conviction for any of the counts.
We will examine these two assignments of error together in one analysis because
the arguments presented in each overlap.
First and Second Assignments of Error
{¶9} Whitt argues that his three convictions are not supported by sufficient
evidence and are against the manifest weight of the evidence.
-4- Case No. 8-24-31
Legal Analysis
{¶10} A sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis examines whether the State
has carried its burden of production at trial. State v. Richey, 2021-Ohio-1461, ¶ 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. Daniels, 2024-Ohio-1536, ¶ 13 (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. Reed, 2024-Ohio-4838, ¶ 30 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Plott, 2017-Ohio-
38, ¶ 62 (3d Dist.).
{¶11} In contrast “[a] manifest-weight analysis examines whether the State
has carried its burden of persuasion at trial.” State v. Carroll, 2024-Ohio-1626, ¶
58 (3d Dist.). On review, “an appellate court’s function * * * is to determine whether
the greater amount of credible evidence supports the verdict.” State v. Harvey,
2020-Ohio-329, ¶ 12 (3d Dist.), 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.’”
-5- Case No. 8-24-31
State v. Randle, 2018-Ohio-207, ¶ 36 (3d Dist.), quoting Plott at ¶ 73, quoting State
v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997).
{¶12} In this analysis, “the credibility of witnesses is primarily a
determination for the trier of fact.” State v. Morris, 2022-Ohio-3608, ¶ 41 (3d Dist.),
quoting State v. Banks, 2011-Ohio-5671, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.). For this reason, an
appellate court must “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, ¶ 38 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Coleman, 2014-Ohio-
5320, ¶ 7 (3d Dist.). “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, 2011-Ohio-6524, ¶ 119, quoting Thompkins at 387.
Legal Analysis:
{¶13} To establish a conviction for failure to comply with an order or signal
of a police officer in violation of R.C. 2921.331(A), the State must prove that the
defendant “fail[ed] to comply with any lawful order or direction of any police officer
invested with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic.” R.C. 2921.331(A).
On appeal, Whitt raises two main arguments to challenge this conviction.
{¶14} First, Whitt argues that, in the absence of introducing a certified copy
of his license suspension, the State could not establish that Sergeant Wisener gave
a lawful order because the records in the computer database he accessed in his
cruiser could have been inaccurate. However, he has not identified any legal
-6- Case No. 8-24-31
authority that would suggest that this conviction could only be established in this
case through the introduction of a certified copy of his license suspension.
{¶15} At trial, Sergeant Wisener testified that he had known Whitt for a
number of years; recognized Whitt as the driver of the pickup truck; and used
Whitt’s name to perform a records search on the computer in his police cruiser.
Sergeant Wisener testified that the records search indicated that Whitt was driving
under suspension. See State v. Jenkins, 2010-Ohio-5943, ¶ 14 (3d Dist.). From this
testimony, a reasonable finder of fact could conclude that Whitt had a legal basis to
initiate a traffic stop and that his order for Whitt to stop was, therefore, lawful.
{¶16} Turning to our manifest-weight analysis, no evidence in the record
suggests that Whitt’s license was not suspended at the time of the traffic stop. See
also State v. Woodfork, 2005-Ohio-2469, ¶ 18 (4th Dist.); State v. Wintermeyer,
2017-Ohio-5521, ¶ 38 (10th Dist.) (citing cases that hold a police officer can
reasonably rely on information in official computer databases in making decisions).
For this reason, Whitt’s arguments fail to establish that his conviction is against the
manifest weight of the evidence. Thus, we conclude that this first argument is
without merit.
{¶17} Second, Whitt argues that the State failed to carry the burden of
persuasion on the issue of whether he fled from the police. At trial, Sergeant
Wisener testified that, after he activated the lights on his police cruiser to initiate a
traffic stop, he saw Whitt accelerate and drive away, reaching a speed of roughly
-7- Case No. 8-24-31
forty-five miles per hour as he went through a residential area. See State v. Shafer,
2006-Ohio-4189, ¶ 7-8, 27 (3d Dist.). Sergeant Wisener then activated his siren and
continued to pursue Whitt until he brought his vehicle to a stop.
{¶18} While following the pickup truck, Sergeant Wisener could see that
Whitt was using his mirror to watch the police cruiser. For this reason, he concluded
that Whitt was aware that a police officer was attempting to effectuate a traffic stop.
Sergeant Wisener also testified that, once the stop had been effectuated, Whitt
explained his behavior by stating that he “got scared.” (Tr. 117). See also State v.
Millik, 2006-Ohio-202, ¶ 17 (11th Dist.).
{¶19} Further, in the dashboard camera footage introduced at trial, Whitt can
be seen driving away from Sergeant Wisener until the gravel alleyway ended at an
intersection. Given this evidence, the jury did not lose its way in concluding that
Whitt fled rather than submit to a lawful order to stop his vehicle. Thus, we
conclude that this second argument is without merit. Whitt has failed to establish
that his conviction for failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer is
not supported by sufficient evidence or is against the manifest weight of the
evidence.
{¶20} To establish a conviction for aggravated possession of drugs in
violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) as a fifth-degree felony, the State must prove that the
defendant “knowingly obtain[ed], possess[ed], or use[d] a controlled substance or
controlled substance analog” that is “included in schedule I or II * * *.” R.C.
-8- Case No. 8-24-31
2925.11(A), (C)(1)(a). Whitt raises three main arguments to challenge this
conviction.
{¶21} First, Whitt asserts that the State failed to produce evidence that
establishes that he was in possession of the methamphetamine located in this case.
At trial, Sergeant Wisener testified that he located a portion of a blue latex glove
that contained a white crystalline substance roughly forty feet away from where
Whitt stopped his pickup truck. The State also played a recording from Sergeant
Wisener’s dashboard camera. In this footage, an item can be seen coming out of the
driver’s side window of the pickup truck that Whitt was driving as the police cruiser
was following him. The video footage from the police cruiser’s dashboard camera
also indicates that Whitt chose to stop the vehicle that he was driving just after the
drugs had been thrown out of his window.
{¶22} Further, Sergeant Wisener testified that he located a blue latex glove
that was missing a finger inside a book bag that was in the bed of the pickup truck.
Sergeant Wisener affirmed that Whitt indicated that he owned the black book bag.
After his Miranda rights had been read to him, Whitt asked if the police had located
the latex glove that had a missing finger. Once he was told that this item had been
discovered, Whitt responded by saying, “well, I’ll let the courts handle it then. I get
it.” (Tr. 129). From this evidence, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that
Whitt was in possession of the methamphetamine that was located by Sergeant
Wisener. Thus, we conclude that this first argument is without merit.
-9- Case No. 8-24-31
{¶23} Second, Whitt argues that the drugs could have belonged to Fuller and
that this possibility was not fully investigated by the police. On cross-examination,
Sergeant Wisener testified that he never asked Fuller if the drugs belonged to her.
However, he then explained that he spoke with Fuller before the drugs had been
located. Sergeant Wisener also testified that the back window of the pickup truck
was open and that he would have been able to see if Fuller had reached across the
cab to throw the drugs out of the driver’s side window. He also pointed out that
Whitt was driving the pickup truck and that the drugs came out of the driver’s side
window of the vehicle. Thus, we conclude that this second argument is without
merit.
{¶24} Third, Whitt argues that the police did not conduct a thorough analysis
of the latex glove with the missing finger. As a part of this argument, he asserts that
the State did not carry its burden of persuasion because no fingerprint analysis was
conducted on the portion of the glove. This Court has previously held that the
absence of a fingerprint analysis in a case does not render a conviction against the
manifest weight of the evidence. State v. Reed, 2024-Ohio-4838, ¶ 51 (3d Dist.).
{¶25} Whitt also suggests that the latex finger containing the
methamphetamines may not have come from the blue glove with the missing finger.
However, Sergeant Wisener testified that the portion of the latex glove that was
found on the roadside was a “direct fit” for the glove that was in the book bag. (Tr.
128). The jury was also presented with pictures of these two portions of the glove
-10- Case No. 8-24-31
for comparison. Thus, we conclude that this third argument is without merit. Whitt
has failed to establish that his conviction for aggravated possession of drugs is not
supported by sufficient evidence or against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶26} 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 [wa]s in progress, or [wa]s about to be or likely
to be instituted * * * alter[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). Whitt raises two main
arguments to challenge this conviction.
{¶27} First, he asserts that the State failed to establish that he was the person
who threw the drugs out of the pickup truck. However, as we have noted previously,
the State presented video footage of this item coming out of the driver’s side window
of the vehicle that Whitt was operating. Sergeant Wisener testified that he was able
to see in the open back window of the pickup truck and did not observe Fuller make
any movements across the cab. We also note that Whitt brought his vehicle to a
stop shortly after the drugs had been tossed out of his window.
{¶28} Further, after the search of the vehicle, Whitt asked if the police had
located the latex glove with a missing finger and stated that the book bag in which
it was located belonged to him. From this evidence, a reasonable juror could
conclude that he was the occupant of the vehicle who was in possession of the
-11- Case No. 8-24-31
contraband and tossed the methamphetamine out of the driver’s side window. Thus,
we conclude that this first argument is without merit.
{¶29} Second, Whitt argues that the State failed to establish that an
investigation into whether he was in possession of drugs had been instituted or was
likely to be instituted at the time that the latex glove finger came out of the window
of his pickup truck. He points to the fact that Sergeant Wisener testified that he
initiated a traffic stop based on his license suspension and did not mention that he
had any suspicion of drug-related activities prior to activating the lights on his
cruiser. For this reason, Whitt asserts that any contraband in his vehicle was not
relevant to any likely or existing investigation.
{¶30} To prove that a defendant tampered with evidence, the State does have
to prove that the record, document, or thing identified as evidence was “related to
an existing or likely official investigation or proceeding.” State v. Straley, 2014-
Ohio-2139, ¶ 19. The “[l]ikelihood” of an official investigation was to be
“measured at the time of the act of the alleged tampering.” Id. See also State v.
Campbell, 2019-Ohio-583, ¶ 11 (9th Dist.) (holding that, in this analysis, the
defendant’s “knowledge of a likely investigation is the relevant factor” rather than
a police officer’s “basis for initiating the traffic stop”).
{¶31} At trial, Sergeant Wisener stated that he did not “know why he [Whitt]
was running” away from the traffic stop but noticed Whitt begin to make movements
in his vehicle as soon as the lights on the police cruiser had been activated. (Tr.
-12- Case No. 8-24-31
167). Sergeant Wisener testified that he could not focus too much on Whitt’s
movements because he was watching for children as he pursued the pickup truck
through this residential area. After Whitt stopped his vehicle, Sergeant Wisener’s
earlier observations of Whitt’s movements led him (Sergeant Wisener) to ask Fuller
if Whitt “was eating dope” while he sped away.
{¶32} Further, after searching the pickup truck, Sergeant Wisener walked
down the side of the roadway and located the contraband roughly forty feet from
where Whitt had stopped his vehicle. Sergeant Wisener explained that he examined
the roadway because “it’s common when somebody takes off like this, something
gets tossed out of a window * * *.” (Tr. 125). This testimony indicates that, after
he activated his traffic lights and observed Whitt begin to make movements while
driving away, Sergeant Wisener came to believe that Whitt may have been engaged
in criminal activities aside from driving with a suspended license and even came to
suspect that Whitt was in possession of illegal drugs.
{¶33} We find that the facts in the case before us present similar issues to
those raised in State v. Johnson, 2023-Ohio-30, ¶ 5 (6th Dist.). In that case, law
enforcement stopped Johnson after observing him commit a traffic violation. Id. at
¶ 5. Johnson parked on the side of the road until the officer got out of his cruiser.
Id. at ¶ 8. Johnson then drove away, resulting in a high speed chase that lasted for
roughly ninety seconds. Id. While this chase was occurring, another driver saw
-13- Case No. 8-24-31
Johnson throw a black box out of his window. Id. at ¶ 10. This other driver then
called the police to report what he had witnessed. Id.
{¶34} After coming to a stop, Johnson informed the police that he sped away
because his license was under suspension. Johnson at ¶ 13. While the black box
was never recovered, Johnson admitted that he threw narcotics out of his window
while being pursued by the police. Id. at ¶ 49. This act resulted in Johnson being
charged with and convicted of tampering with evidence. Id. at ¶ 1. The Sixth
District reached the following conclusion in deciding whether Johnson knew an
official investigation was likely or in progress:
[W]e measure the likelihood of an investigation ‘at the time of the alleged tampering,’ not at the time an officer initiates the stop. State v. Straley, 139 Ohio St.3d 339, 2014-Ohio-2139, 11 N.E.3d 1175, ¶ 19. Johnson’s alleged tampering occurred during the high-speed chase, after he fled from the initial investigatory traffic stop. Surely, a rational jury could find that Johnson was aware that he would probably be apprehended and that an investigation would likely occur, since he was immediately pursued by Sergeant Henn, with his lights and siren activated, and a reasonable person would not feel the need to toss the pills—while trying to elude police—if he did not believe an investigation was imminent.
Id. at ¶ 48. As in Johnson, Whitt sped away from the police for a period of time that
was just long enough to enable him to discard the illegal drugs in his possession
before he was detained in a traffic stop.
{¶35} Based on the evidence at trial, a reasonable jury could find that Whitt,
fearing apprehension for driving with a suspended license, removed this contraband
from his vehicle by throwing it out of his window for the purpose of making this
-14- Case No. 8-24-31
evidence unavailable during the police investigation into his activities at the traffic
stop. A jury could also find that, on observing Whitt speed away and engage in
frantic movements, Sergeant Wisener came to the reasonable conclusion that Whitt
was engaged in criminal activities aside from driving with a suspended license.
Thus, we conclude that this second argument is without merit. Accordingly, Whitt
has failed to establish that his conviction for tampering with evidence is not
supported by sufficient evidence or against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶36} In summary, a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the State
produced evidence at trial to substantiate each of the essential elements of the three
offenses for which Whitt received convictions. For this reason, we conclude that
Whitt’s three convictions are supported by sufficient evidence. Further, having
examined the evidence in the record, we find no indication that the jury lost its way
and returned verdicts that were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Accordingly, the first and second assignments of error are overruled.
Conclusion
{¶37} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, the judgment of the Logan County Court of Common Pleas is
affirmed.
WALDICK, P.J. and MILLER, J., concur.
/hls
-15-