State v. McClain

153 N.E.3d 854

2020 Ohio 1436

STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Nolan E. MCCLAIN, Defendant-Appellant.

NO. 5-19-19

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Hancock County.

Date of Decision: April 13, 2020

William T. Cramer, Westerville, for Appellant

Phillip A. Riegle for Appellee

PRESTON, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Nolan E. McClain ("McClain"), appeals the June 6, 2019 judgment of sentence of the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

{¶2} The case arises from an October 26, 2018 incident in which McClain was a passenger in a taxi cab when the vehicle was pulled over in Findlay, Ohio for minor traffic violations. The vehicle was searched by the police who found a plastic bag containing cocaine in the map pocket on the back of the front passenger-side seat, immediately in front of the right-rear seat where McClain was seated.

{¶3} On November 6, 2018, the Hancock County Grand Jury indicted McClain on one count of possession of cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a third-degree felony. (Doc. No. 1). On November 7, 2018, McClain appeared for arraignment and entered a plea of not guilty. (Doc. No. 6).

{¶4} A jury trial was held on May 13-14, 2019. (Doc. No. 56). At the close of the State's case, McClain made a motion for acquittal under Crim.R. 29, which the trial court denied. (May 13-14, 2019 Tr., Vol. III, at 469-470). On May 14, 2019, the jury found McClain guilty. (Doc. Nos. 45, 56).

{¶5} On May 14, 2019, immediately following the jury trial, the trial court sentenced McClain to 30 months in prison. (Doc. No. 56). On June 6, 2019, the trial court filed its judgment entry of conviction and sentence. (Id. ).

{¶6} On June 13, 2019, McClain filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 57). He raises two assignments of error, which we will address together.

Assignment of Error No. I

Appellant's right to due process under the state and federal constitutions was violated by a conviction for possession of cocaine that was not supported by sufficient evidence.

Assignment of Error No. II

Appellant's conviction for possession of cocaine was against the weight of the evidence.

{¶7} In his assignments of error, McClain argues that his possession-of-cocaine conviction is based on insufficient evidence and against the manifest weight of the evidence.

{¶8} Manifest "weight of the evidence and sufficiency of the evidence are clearly different legal concepts." State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 389, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). Accordingly, we address each legal concept individually.

{¶9} "An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Jenks , 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by state constitutional amendment on other grounds , State v. Smith , 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997). Accordingly, "[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." Id. "In deciding if the evidence was sufficient, we neither resolve evidentiary conflicts nor assess the credibility of witnesses, as both are functions reserved for the trier of fact." State v. Jones , 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-120570 and C-120571, 2013-Ohio-4775, 2013 WL 5864591, ¶ 33, citing State v. Williams , 197 Ohio App.3d 505, 2011-Ohio-6267, 968 N.E.2d 27, ¶ 25 (1st Dist.). See also State v. Berry , 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-12-03, 2013-Ohio-2380, 2013 WL 2638704, ¶ 19 ("Sufficiency of the evidence is a test of adequacy rather than credibility or weight of the evidence."), citing Thompkins at 386, 678 N.E.2d 541.

{¶10} On the other hand, in determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, a reviewing court must examine the entire record, " ‘weigh[ ] the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider[ ] the credibility of witnesses and determine[ ] whether in resolving 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.’ " Thompkins at 387, 678 N.E.2d 541, quoting State v. Martin , 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). A reviewing court must, however, allow the trier of fact appropriate discretion on matters relating to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. State v. DeHass , 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967). When applying the manifest-weight standard "[o]nly in exceptional cases, where the evidence ‘weighs heavily against the conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn the trial court's judgment." State v. Haller , 3d Dist. Allen, 2012-Ohio-5233, 982 N.E.2d 111, ¶ 9, quoting State v. Hunter , 131 Ohio St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, 960 N.E.2d 955, ¶ 119.

{¶11} At trial, the State offered the testimony of F. Scott Rothlisberger ("Rothlisberger"), a taxicab driver for Trinity Cab in Findlay, Ohio. (May 13-14, 2019 Tr., Vol. II, at 263, 265-266). Rothlisberger testified that he was working a 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift on October 25-26, 2018. (Id. at 266). As part of his job, Rothlisberger kept a log of his fares. (Id. at 267). He identified State's Exhibit 1 as a composite of two pages of photographs, including several photos of the log from his shift on October 25-26, 2018. (Id. at 275-276). (See State's Ex. 1). Rothlisberger testified that he had a total of six taxi fares that evening, including McClain, who was his final fare of the shift. (May 13-14, 2019 Tr., Vol. II, at 276-278).

{¶12} Rothlisberger testified that his first fare of the evening occurred at 10 p.m. when he drove a regular customer to work. (Id. at 278-279). Rothlisberger stated that the customer called him back shortly after he dropped her off to inform him that she lost her cell phone and asked him to search his taxi for the missing phone. (Id. at 279). Rothlisberger testified that he pulled over his cab on Pearl Street and searched the entire vehicle, including the map pocket attached to the back of the front passenger seat. (Id. at 279-280). According to Rothlisberger, during his search he did not locate either the first passenger's cell phone or anything that looked like it could be illegal drugs. (Id. at 280).

{¶13} Rothlisberger's second fare was a single passenger that Rothlisberger drove to a bar in downtown Findlay. (Id. at 281). The customer sat in the front seat and Rothlisberger testified that he did not observe the customer access the map pocket behind the passenger seat. (Id. ). Rothlisberger's third customer was a regular passenger that Rothlisberger drove home from work nearly every weekday. (Id. at 282). Rothlisberger testified that the passenger sat in the front passenger seat, and he did not observe the passenger access the pocket behind the passenger seat. (Id. ).

{¶14} The fourth fare of the evening was two regular customers that Rothlisberger drove home from work several times a week. (Id. at 283). Rothlisberger testified that one passenger sat in the front passenger seat and the other passenger sat in the back seat on the passenger side. (Id. at 283-284). Rothlisberger stated that he regularly picks up the two passengers from work and drives them home. (Id. at 284). He further stated that he has never had any problems with these passengers. (Id. ). Rothlisberger's fifth fare of the evening was a regular customer that he drove from work to Grace Boulevard. (Id. at 285). The single passenger sat in the front passenger seat, and Rothlisberger testified that he did not observe the customer get in the back or access the pocket on the back of the passenger seat. (Id. at 285-286).

{¶15} Finally, Rothlisberger received a call from McClain requesting to be picked up from the 300-block of Clinton Street in Findlay, Ohio. (Id. at 267-268). Rothlisberger stated that when he pulled up to the residence to pick up McClain, he observed a police officer drive past the taxi. (Id. at 268-269). Rothlisberger then observed the officer make a turn and drive down an alley next to the taxi's location. (Id. at 269). Rothlisberger identified McClain as the customer that he picked up on Clinton Street. (Id. at 269-271). Rothlisberger stated that McClain sat down in the right rear seat, directly behind the front passenger seat. (Id. at 271). Rothlisberger testified that McClain requested that he drive him to the 500-block of Allen Street in Findlay, Ohio. (Id. ). Rothlisberger testified that he began to drive in the direction of Allen Street; however, shortly thereafter, a police officer initiated a traffic stop of the taxi. (Id. at 271-272).

{¶16} Rothlisberger stated that the police officer indicated that the vehicle was stopped for a potential moving violation. (Id. at 273-274). Rothlisberger testified that after he and McClain gave the police officer their identifications, the officer requested that Rothlisberger get out of the taxi. (Id. at 272). Rothlisberger stated that he and the police officer stood behind the police vehicle and spoke about his taxi fares that evening, including how many people had been in the vehicle. (Id. at 272-273). Rothlisberger also told the officer that he searched the vehicle earlier in the evening after his first passenger lost her phone. (Id. at 273, 278-279). Rothlisberger also shared his log from the evening with the officer. (Id. at 274). Rothlisberger stated that he gave the police officer permission to search the taxi. (Id. at 288-289).

{¶17} Rothlisberger identified several other photos in State's Exhibit 1 as photos of his taxi and a photo of the substance the officers removed from the vehicle. (Id. at 287-288). (See State's Ex. 1). Rothlisberger denied seeing the...