State v. Jones , 2017 Ohio 7019 ( 2017 )

[Cite as State v. Jones, 2017-Ohio-7019.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2016-10-194
: OPINION
- vs - 7/31/2017
:
JAMAL V. JONES, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CR2015-11-1771
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Willa Concannon, Government
Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee
Christopher P. Frederick, 300 High Street, Suite 550, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendant-
appellant
PIPER, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Jamal Jones, appeals his convictions in the Butler County
Court of Common Pleas for possession of marijuana and forgery.
{¶ 2} A manager at a Family Dollar store accepted a $100 bill from a female and
male customer to pay for their collective purchase. The manager checked the authenticity of
the bill by drawing on it with a marker that indicates whether the currency is authentic. While
Butler CA2016-10-194
the marker indicated that the bill was legitimate, the store's bank later informed the manager
that the bill was counterfeit. The store manager contacted the police, and an officer reviewed
the store's video surveillance.
{¶ 3} A few days later, the same female customer returned to the Family Dollar store.
She attempted to pay for her items with a $100 bill, and this time, the manager refused to
accept it. After the female customer left the store, the manager followed her into the parking
lot and recorded the license plate number of the female customer's car. The manager
contacted police, and the same officer who had viewed the video ran the license plate
number. The car was licensed to Dena Acklin-Byrd Jones.
{¶ 4} A detective who investigated the matter obtained an address from the license
plate registration and matched the address with an apartment belonging to Dena and Jones.
Police later performed a stop of Dena's vehicle, in which Jones was a passenger, and
transported Jones and Dena to the Middletown Police Department. Jones then made a
statement to police that a customer had used counterfeit bills to pay for a drug purchase, and
that he and Dena were using the counterfeit bills to make up for the money they lost as a
result of the sale.
{¶ 5} Officers later conducted an inventory search of Dena's vehicle and located a
large bag of marijuana in a backpack in the back seat of the car. Police also located other
counterfeit bills in Dena's purse. A search warrant was executed in Jones' home, and police
located more marijuana. Jones and Dena were arrested, and Jones was indicted for forgery
and marijuana possession. Jones pled not guilty to the charges, and later filed a motion to
suppress his statements, as well as the evidence seized because of the stop and search
warrant. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court denied Jones' motion, and the matter
proceeded to a two-day trial.
{¶ 6} During the trial, Dena testified that Jones had no knowledge of the marijuana or
-2-
Butler CA2016-10-194
the counterfeit bills, and that she was holding the marijuana in hopes that Ohio would legalize
marijuana so she could operate a dispensary. Jones testified in his own defense, and
recanted the statement he made to police. Instead, Jones testified that he made up his
statement to protect Dena, and that he had no knowledge of the drugs or counterfeit money.
{¶ 7} The jury found Jones guilty of forgery and drug possession. The trial court
sentenced Jones to 11 months on the marijuana possession charge and nine months on the
forgery charge. The trial court ordered the sentences to run consecutively for an aggregate
sentence of 20 months. Jones now appeals his convictions, raising the following assignment
of error.
{¶ 8} MR. JONES' CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF
THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 9} Jones argues in his sole assignment of error that his convictions were against
the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 10} 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 rather
than the other." State v. Barnett, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-09-177, 2012-Ohio-2372, ¶
14. 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, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2008-07-095, 2009-Ohio-2814, ¶ 66.
{¶ 11} "While appellate review includes the responsibility to consider the credibility of
witnesses and weight given to the evidence, these issues are primarily matters for the trier of
fact to decide." State v. Barnes, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2010-06-009, 2011-Ohio-5226, ¶
-3-
Butler CA2016-10-194
81. An appellate court, therefore, will overturn a conviction due to the manifest weight of the
evidence only in extraordinary circumstances when the evidence presented at trial weighs
heavily in favor of acquittal. Id.{¶ 12} Jones was convicted of possession of marijuana in violation of R.C.
2925.11(A), which provides, "No person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use a controlled
substance or a controlled substance analog." According to R.C. 2925.01(K), possession
means "having control over a thing or substance, but may not be inferred solely from mere
access to the thing or substance through ownership or occupation of the premises upon
which the thing or substance is found." Possession includes actual or constructive
possession of the substance. State v. Williams, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-09-180, 2015-
Ohio-2010, ¶ 14.
{¶ 13} "An accused has 'constructive possession' of an item when the accused is
conscious of the item's presence and is able to exercise dominion and control over it, even if
the item is not within the accused's immediate physical possession." State v. Jester, 12th
Dist. Butler No. CA2010-10-264, 2012-Ohio-544, ¶ 25. A person may knowingly possess or
control property belonging to another, and the state need not establish ownership to prove
constructive possession. Williams at ¶ 14. Constructive possession may be proven by
circumstantial evidence alone. State v. Blair, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-01-023, 2015-
Ohio-818, ¶ 45. The discovery of readily accessible drugs in close proximity to the accused
constitutes circumstantial evidence that the accused was in constructive possession of the
drugs. Williams.
{¶ 14} Jones was also convicted of forgery in violation of R.C. 2913.31(A)(3), which
provides, "No person, with purpose to defraud, or knowing that the person is facilitating a
fraud, shall do any of the following: Utter, or possess with purpose to utter, any writing that
the person knows to have been forged." R.C. 2923.03(A)(2), Ohio's complicity statute,
-4-
Butler CA2016-10-194
criminalizes aiding or abetting another in committing an offense when that person acts with
the kind of culpability required for the commission of an offense.
{¶ 15} To be complicit to a crime by aiding and abetting, "the evidence must show
that the defendant supported, assisted, encouraged, cooperated with, advised, or incited the
principal in the commission of the crime, and that the defendant shared the criminal intent of
the principal." State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240, 2001-Ohio-1336, syllabus. "[A] person's
mere association with a principal offender is not enough to sustain a conviction based upon
aiding and abetting." State v. Coldiron, 12th Dist. Clermont Nos. CA2003-09-078 and
CA2003-09-079, 2004-Ohio-5651, ¶ 17. The accused "must actively participate in some way
and contribute to the unlawful act to aid or to abet." State v. Davis, 12th Dist. Madison No.
CA2015-05-015, 2016-Ohio-1166, ¶ 49. "Aiding and abetting may be shown through either
direct or circumstantial evidence, and participation in criminal intent may be inferred from the
presence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense is committed." State v.
Fletcher, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2016-08-016, 2017-Ohio-1006, ¶ 53.
{¶ 16} During the trial, the jury heard evidence that Jones possessed marijuana and
was complicit in defrauding the Family Dollar store by using a counterfeit bill to pay for his
and Dena's purchase. The state first presented testimony from the bank teller who testified
that she located the $100 counterfeit bill when she was processing the deposits from the
Family Dollar store. The teller testified that she noticed the bill was missing a security
marker, and that it seemed faded and off-color from the rest of the genuine $100 bills. Once
the teller informed her manager, the two ran the bill through a machine, which indicated that
it was counterfeit. The two then reported the incident to the Secret Service, as well as the
Family Dollar manager.
{¶ 17} The Family Dollar manager testified that when she accepted the bill from a
female and male customer, she felt that "something wasn't right," but that the counterfeit
-5-
Butler CA2016-10-194
marker she used to test the authenticity did not indicate that the bill was counterfeit. The
manager testified that after the bank informed her of the counterfeit bill, she reviewed
security footage from the store's camera, and verified that the only $100 bill she accepted
that day was from the female and male customer from whom she remembered taking the bill.
The manger testified that she then called the police department and reported the incident.
{¶ 18} The manager also testified that a few days after being informed by the bank of
the counterfeit bill, the same female customer returned to the store, and tried to use another
$100 bill for her purchase. The manager recognized the woman, told her that she would not
accept the bill, and called police to report that she obtained the woman's license plate
number after following her to the parking lot.
{¶ 19} The jury then viewed the store surveillance video taken on the day the
manager accepted the $100 bill, which showed the manager taking the $100 bill from the
female customer and returning the change to Jones.
{¶ 20} The jury also heard testimony from a police officer who went to the Family
Dollar store when the manager called police to report the counterfeit $100 bill. The officer
testified that he viewed the surveillance video, confirmed with the bank that the bill was
counterfeit, and that he ran the license plate number later given to him by the store manager.
The officer then turned over all information to a detective on the police force who continued
the investigation.
{¶ 21} The officer also testified that he was involved in the stop of Dena's car, and
that Jones was a passenger in the car at the time of the stop. The officer testified that he
helped perform an inventory of the car, and that officers found a backpack in the back seat
that contained almost a pound of marijuana. Another officer was called to testify for the state
and indicated that more counterfeit bills were discovered in Dena's purse during the
inventory.
-6-
Butler CA2016-10-194
{¶ 22} The detective who investigated the counterfeit bill also testified, and indicated
that a search warrant was executed at the home of Dena and Jones and that police found
large quantities of marijuana in the home, including compressed bags of marijuana in pillows
on Dena and Jones' bed and a jar of marijuana on a shelf in an alcove area leading into the
bathroom.
{¶ 23} The detective then interviewed Jones as part of the investigation, and a
recording of the interview was played to the jury. On the recording, Jones told police that he
wanted to be straightforward with them, and that he and Dena had sold marijuana and
received the counterfeit bills as payment. Jones then told police that he and Dena used the
counterfeit bills because they had to earn their money back from the marijuana sale. The
state rested its case.
{¶ 24} Dena testified on behalf of Jones, and stated that she kept large amounts of
marijuana in her home because she was hoping to open a medical marijuana dispensary
once it became legal in Ohio. Dena testified that Jones did not know about the marijuana,
that she hid various bags and containers of marijuana in her home, and that Jones never
noticed the marijuana or knew it was there. Dena also testified that she, not Jones,
possessed the counterfeit bills.
{¶ 25} Jones testified in his own defense, and claimed that he did not have any
knowledge that the $100 bill was counterfeit. Jones also testified that he had no knowledge
of the marijuana in his home or car, and that he had only moved in with Dena 30 days before
his arrest. He also testified that the statement he made to police was an attempt to protect
Dena and also to try and avoid incarceration by cooperating with police.
{¶ 26} After hearing the evidence and considering the testimony, the jury found Jones
guilty of possession of marijuana and forgery. While Dena and Jones both indicated that
only Dena possessed the marijuana and used the counterfeit bill, the jury was in the best
-7-
Butler CA2016-10-194
position to judge the credibility of the witnesses, and we will not disturb the jury's finding that
Dena and Jones lacked credibility.
{¶ 27} Based on the evidence and testimony, we cannot say that the jury clearly lost
its way or created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that Jones' convictions must be
reversed and a new trial ordered. Instead, the video taken from the Family Dollar, Jones'
confession, as well as testimony from the state's witnesses demonstrate that Jones
possessed marijuana given that the marijuana was located within pillows on his bed, within
the alcove leading to the bathroom, and in the back seat of the car. Jones had dominion and
control over these areas, and the circumstantial evidence demonstrates Jones' knowledge of
the drugs in his home and in the car. Jones thus maintained constructive possession of the
marijuana.
{¶ 28} Jones was also complicit in defrauding Family Dollar by using the counterfeit
$100 bill. Jones shopping with Dena, being at the register when the bill was exchanged, and
accepting the change from the manager demonstrated his participation in the transaction,
which was more than mere association with Dena. As such, Jones' convictions were not
against the manifest weight of the evidence, and his assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 29} Judgment affirmed.
S. POWELL, P.J., and RINGLAND, J., concur.
-8-