State v. Harris , 2021 Ohio 2639 ( 2021 )

[Cite as State v. Harris, 2021-Ohio-2639.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
MARION COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 9-21-01
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
PETER LLOYD HARRIS, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 20-CR288
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: August 2, 2021
APPEARANCES:
W. Joseph Edwards for Appellant
Nathan R. Heiser for Appellee
Case No. 9-21-01
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Peter Harris (“Harris”) brings this appeal from the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Marion County finding him guilty of
one count of possession of fentanyl and sentencing him to prison. Harris claims on
appeal that the conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence. For the reasons
set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} On July 13, 2020, Officer Dylan Reece (“Reece”) of the Marion Police
Department attempted to stop a four-door red vehicle at the request of the drug task
force. Tr. 5-8. Once Reece’s emergency lights were activated, the vehicle sped
away and was pursued by Reece. Tr. 7-8. Eventually, a person fled the vehicle
wearing dark pants and a white shirt. Tr. 8-9. Reece gave chase, but the person
managed to evade Reece. Tr. 8-10. Deputy Keith Griffin (“Griffin”) also heard the
description of the man and observed one fitting the description in the area. Tr. 71-
74. Griffin apprehended him and noted that he appeared “exhausted.” Tr. 71-74.
Griffin noted that the person, later identified as Harris, was the only one in the area
matching the description given. Tr. 71-74. Reece identified Harris as the person he
had been chasing. Tr. 38.
{¶3} Major Christy Utley (“Utley”) was in the area and heard the description
of the person. Tr. 46-58. Soon after, Utley observed a person matching the
-2-
Case No. 9-21-01
description come round a corner and discard an object. Tr. 46-58. Utley then exited
her vehicle in order to monitor the item that had been discarded. Tr. 62-63.
{¶4} On July 22, 2020, the Marion County Grand Jury indicted Harris on one
count of Possession of Fentanyl in violation of R.C. 2925.11(C)(11), (F), a felony
of the first degree. Doc. 1. A bench trial was held on November 24, 2020. Doc.
48. Following the trial, the trial court found Harris guilty of the offense charged.
Id. On December 10, a sentencing hearing was held. Id. The trial court sentenced
Harris to a prison term of 11 to 16 ½ years. Id. Harris filed a timely notice of
appeal. Doc. 54. On appeal, Harris raises the following assignment of error.
The evidence in this case was insufficient as a matter of law to
support the conviction of [Harris] and as such [Harris’] rights
under the fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and
Article 1, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution were violated.
{¶5} Harris’ sole assignment of error alleges that the evidence was
insufficient to support the conviction. The question of whether the evidence
presented at trial is legally sufficient to support a verdict is a question of law. State
v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541. Sufficiency
is basically a term of adequacy. Id.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. * * * 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
-3-
Case No. 9-21-01
have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.” * * * “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. Adkins, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-19-71, 2020-Ohio-6799, ¶ 37 (citations
omitted).
{¶6} Harris argues that the evidence of identity was insufficient because
Reece could not make a facial recognition of Harris as the person he was chasing
and that Utley could not make a facial recognition of Harris as the person who tossed
the drugs. Although Reece did not see the suspect’s face, he was able to describe
the person as an African-American male wearing dark “running or sweat style
pants” and a white t-shirt. Tr. 9, 30. When Harris, an African-American male, was
apprehended in the area, he was wearing the same clothes as the suspect, was the
same height, weight, and build as the suspect, and was “drenched in sweat and out
of breath”. Tr. 39-40.
{¶7} Utley testified that she saw an African-American male run out of an
alley near where Reece was chasing the suspect. Tr. 46. The man she observed was
wearing dark colored pants and a white t-shirt. Tr. 58.
{¶8} Griffin testified that he heard from dispatch that the suspect was fleeing
in his direction and a description of him. Tr. 73. Griffin then saw Harris, who
matched the description of the suspect, running in his direction appearing exhausted.
-4-
Case No. 9-21-01
Tr. 73-74. Griffin also noted that he saw no one else in the area matching the
description of the suspect. Tr. 74-75.
{¶9} Although there was no testimony regarding the facial features of the
suspect, officers testified as to the clothing of the suspect. Officers also testified to
the location where the suspect was and at what times. The defendant was found in
that vicinity, tired and breathing hard from running, and wearing clothing similar to
that identified by the prior officers. No other person matching the suspects
description was seen in the area. Importantly, circumstantial evidence can be used
to prove the identity of an offender. State v. Irby, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 03 MA
54, 2004-Ohio-5929. Viewing all of this evidence in a light most favorable to the
State, a rational trier of fact could reach the conclusion that Harris was the suspect
observed running away from Reece and observed tossing the drugs by Utley. See
State v. Golden, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 88651, 2007-Ohio-3536 (holding that the
evidence was sufficient to identify the defendant when the victim testified to the
shirt worn by the offender and there was other circumstantial evidence to support
the identification). Since a reasonable trier of fact could determine that Harris was
the offender in question, the evidence is sufficient to support the identification and
the assignment of error is overruled.
-5-
Case No. 9-21-01
{¶10} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Marion County
is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
ZIMMERMAN and MILLER, J.J., concur.
/hls
-6-