State v. Brown ( 2024 )

[Cite as State v. Brown, 2024-Ohio-627.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
HENRY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 7-23-05
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
KENNETH BROWN, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Henry County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 21 CR 0163
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: February 20, 2024
APPEARANCES:
Stephen P. Hardwick for Appellant
Gwen Howe-Gebers for Appellee
Case No. 7-23-05
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Kenneth Brown (“Brown”) appeals the judgment
of the Henry County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that his conviction for
engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity is not supported by sufficient evidence and
that the finding of venue is 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} Special Agent Brad Doolittle (“Agent Doolittle”) is assigned to a Drug
Enforcement Agency task force that conducts investigations in northwestern Ohio.
In March of 2019, a confidential source gave information to the task force that
indicated the 800 block of Tecumseh Street in Toledo, Ohio was functioning as a
center of various drug-related activities. In response, the task force began an
investigation into what was believed to be a “drug trafficking organization” that was
operating out of this location. (Tr. 133).
{¶3} The confidential informant who had notified the task force of the drug
activity on Tecumseh Street also identified Alexandria Armijo (“Armijo”) as “a
distributor of cocaine * * *.” (Tr. 134). The task force then organized a controlled
buy in which the confidential informant purchased cocaine from Armijo at her house
in Toledo, Ohio. After this controlled buy, the confidential informant moved to
Napoleon, Ohio in Henry County.
-2-
Case No. 7-23-05
{¶4} The task force then sought to arrange another controlled buy. During
this process, Armijo “offered to deliver cocaine to the confidential [informant] * *
* in Napoleon” so that he would not have to drive to Toledo. (Tr. 135). The task
force observed Armijo drive to Tecumseh Street where she obtained cocaine from
Anthony Lawrence (“Anthony”). She then drove to Napoleon where she sold the
cocaine to the confidential informant in the parking lot of a local plaza.
{¶5} After the third controlled buy in Napoleon, the task force agents stopped
Armijo’s vehicle.1 At this time, she reported that “every time that she had brought
the cocaine out * * * to Henry County, she received it from Anthony and at the 800
block of Tecumseh” Street. (Tr. 137). She also indicated that she “gets it [the drugs]
on the front,” meaning that she did not pay Anthony when she obtained the cocaine
from him. (Tr. 137). Rather, under this arrangement, she paid him for the cocaine
after she sold the drugs with the funds she obtained from her buyer in Henry County.
{¶6} At the time of the traffic stop, Armijo agreed to cooperate with law
enforcement. The officers then issued Armijo confidential funds for her to use to
repay Anthony for the cocaine that he had fronted her. Armijo returned to Toledo
where she met Anthony and gave him $1,550.00 for the drugs that she had sold in
Henry County. She then participated in “two or three” more controlled buys in
coordination with law enforcement. (Tr. 260).
1
There were a total of four controlled buys between the confidential informant and Armijo, but the first
controlled buy occurred in Lucas County. The remaining three occurred in Henry County.
-3-
Case No. 7-23-05
{¶7} The task force continued to investigate the drug trafficking activities on
the 800 block of Tecumseh Street and to identify the people involved in this
operation. This investigation came to focus on three houses located at 807, 808, and
827 Tecumseh Street that were owned by Anthony or members of his family. Agent
Doolittle testified that the “three primary people that were involved in this
organization” were “Anthony, Kenneth [Brown,] and Michael [Lawrence
(“Michael”).]” (Tr. 195). Michael and Anthony were brothers, and Brown was their
uncle.
{¶8} While conducting surveillance, law enforcement observed a number of
hand-to-hand transactions that occurred in the vicinity of three houses on the 800
block of Tecumseh Street. Calling this area “an open air drug market,” Agent
Doolittle described what transpired on a typical day at this location as follows:
Mr. Brown and Michael Lawrence, they ran and operated this 808
Tecumseh Street as if going to work, often getting there in the
mornings, 8 or 9 o’clock in the morning, they would stay there,
actually come and go throughout the day but sell drugs from there for
the day, ending their shift anywhere from 7:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m.
at night, they shut up shop and go to their primary residences.
(Tr. 145). Law enforcement recorded video footage of numerous exchanges
involving Brown, Michael, or Anthony and their customers.
{¶9} During these transactions, a vehicle would drive up to the house on
Tecumseh Street; a person from the house—Brown, Anthony, or Michael—would
make contact with the occupant of the vehicle; Brown, Anthony, or Michael would
-4-
Case No. 7-23-05
then go to a location where the illegal drugs were stashed before returning to the
vehicle; and the vehicle would then drive away from the premises. On at least one
occasion, the task force was able to record Brown at this location while he was
armed and carrying “a stack of cash.” (Tr. 398).
{¶10} Agent Doolittle testified that they were able to determine the uses of
the three houses on the 800 block of Tecumseh Street during their investigation:
808 was identified as a primary distribution point so the customers
would come visit 808, get their drugs and leave. 828 * * * and 807
across the street were identified as stash locations where they would
keep extra drugs and get what they need. Customers would come to
808 regularly, they would not go to 828, it was mainly the Lawrences
or Mr. Brown that would visit 828 and 807.
(Tr. 146). The task force was able to record Brown accessing drugs from a stash
point on the outside of one of these houses.
{¶11} Further, James Long (“Long”), who had bought drugs from Brown,
provided information to the Drug Enforcement Agency. Long testified that, over a
period of roughly three years, he routinely purchased cocaine from Anthony,
Michael, and Brown at a house on Tecumseh Street. He stated that he would give
money or perform services in exchange for these illegal drugs. Long indicated that
Brown would often retrieve drugs from various stashes around the house or in the
backyard during these transactions.
{¶12} Law enforcement also examined various social media postings that
were made by Brown, Anthony, and Michael. A number of these posts contained
-5-
Case No. 7-23-05
the acronym “TSG.” Sergeant Mel Statura (“Sergeant Statura”) works on the gang
task force at the Toledo Police Department and testified that “TSG” stood for the
“Tecumseh Street Gang.” (Tr. 370). He testified that the “TSG” drug trafficking
operation on the 800 block of Tecumseh Street was connected to the Southside
Gangster Disciples in Toledo.
{¶13} Agent Doolittle testified that Toledo would function as a “hub” for
drug trafficking, serving as the source of illegal drugs for surrounding communities.
As “a street level drug trafficking organization” in Toledo, the Tecumseh Street
Gang “ha[d] an entire block” and, for this reason, could be “secure[]” in its
activities. (Tr. 434). As part of this organization, Brown “manufactured crack
cocaine” and “provided security” in addition to selling drugs. (Tr. 435).
{¶14} On July 21, 2021, law enforcement executed a warrant for 807, 808,
and 828 Tecumseh Street in addition to Brown, Anthony, and Michael’s primary
residences at other nearby locations. A stash of fentanyl was located in the house
at 828 Tecumseh Street. The police discovered cocaine inside of Brown’s residence
in addition to items that are associated with manufacturing crack cocaine. Agent
Doolittle noted that “the one location” where the police “found material showing
and revealing [the] cooking process of cocaine to crack cocaine was at Mr.
Brown[’]s residence.” (Tr. 195).
{¶15} On November 24, 2021, Brown was indicted on one count of engaging
in a pattern of corrupt activity in violation of R.C. 2923.32(A)(1), a first-degree
-6-
Case No. 7-23-05
felony. A jury trial was held on this charge from January 9 to January 12, 2023 in
Henry County, Ohio. At trial, the Defense made and renewed a Crim.R. 29 motion,
arguing that the State had failed to establish venue. However, the trial court denied
these motions. The jury was presented with twelve incidents that formed the alleged
pattern of corrupt activity. These incidents involved drug trafficking and drug
possession. The jury then returned a verdict of guilty on the charge against Brown.
On February 21, 2023, the trial court issued its judgment entry of sentencing.
{¶16} Brown filed his notice of appeal on March 23, 2023. On appeal, he
raises the following two assignments of error:
First Assignment of Error
The evidence was insufficient to show that Kenneth Brown was
part of an ‘enterprise’ that engaged in a pattern of corrupt
activities in Henry County, Ohio. R.C. 2901.12 and 2923.32;
Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution; T.P. 477-484, 523.
Second Assignment of Error
The finding of venue was against the manifest weight of the
evidence because all actions in Henry County were not part of an
enterprise to which Kenneth Brown belonged. R.C. 2901.12 and
2923.32; Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution; T.P. 477-
478, 523.
First Assignment of Error
{¶17} Brown asserts that the State did not produce evidence that was
sufficient to establish venue. Specifically, he argues that the State failed to
demonstrate he was part of an enterprise that conducted activities in Henry County.
-7-
Case No. 7-23-05
Standard of Review
{¶18} The sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis examines whether the State
has carried its burden of production at trial. State v. Morris, 3d Dist. Hardin No. 6-
23-04, 2023-Ohio-4021, ¶ 10. A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence asserts
that the State failed to present evidence that could legally support a verdict. State
v. Barga, 3d Dist. Shelby No. 17-17-14, 2018-Ohio-2804, ¶ 8. Thus, an appellate
court is not to decide whether the evidence presented at trial should be believed but
should “rather * * * decide whether, if believed, the evidence can sustain the verdict
as a matter of law.” State v. Richardson, 150 Ohio St.3d 554, 2016-Ohio-8448, 84
N.E.3d 993, ¶ 13. The applicable standard on appeal “is whether, after viewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have
concluded that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable
doubt.” State v. Plott, 2017-Ohio-38, 80 N.E.3d 1008, ¶ 62 (3d Dist.).
Legal Standard
{¶19} R.C. 2923.32 contains Ohio’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (“RICO”) statute. To establish the offense of engaging in a pattern
of corrupt activity in violation of R.C. 2923.32(A)(1), the State must prove that the
defendant was “[1] employed by, or associated with, any enterprise” and “[2]
conduct[ed] or participate[d] in, directly or indirectly, the affairs of the enterprise
[3] through a pattern of corrupt activity * * *.” R.C. 2923.31(C) defines “enterprise”
-8-
Case No. 7-23-05
as including “any organization, association, or group of persons associated in fact
although not a legal entity. ‘Enterprise’ includes illicit as well as licit enterprises.”
{¶20} “An association-in-fact enterprise has been defined as ‘a group of
persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of
conduct.’” State v. Beverly, 143 Ohio St.3d 258, 2015-Ohio-219, 37 N.E.3d 116, ¶
9, quoting U.S. v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 69 L.Ed.2d 246(1981).
an association-in-fact enterprise need not have a formal structure, but
must have at least the following features: ‘a purpose, relationships
among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient
to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise’s purpose.’
State v. Dent, 163 Ohio St.3d 390, 2020-Ohio-6670, 170 N.E.3d 816, ¶ 19, quoting
Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938, 129 S.Ct. 2237, 173 L.Ed.2d 1265 (2009).
{¶21} R.C. 2923.31(E) defines a “pattern of corrupt activity” as “two or more
incidents of corrupt activity * * * that are related to the affairs of the same enterprise,
are not isolated, and are not so closely related to each other and connected in time
and place that they constitute a single event.” Under R.C. 2923.31(I)(2)(c), “corrupt
activity” includes “engaging in, attempting to engage in, conspiring to engage in, or
soliciting, coercing, or intimidating another person to engage in * * * [c]onduct”
that constitutes drug trafficking offenses under 2925.03 and drug possession
offenses that are first, second, third, or fourth-degree felonies under R.C. 2925.11.
-9-
Case No. 7-23-05
{¶22} The intent behind R.C. 2923.32 is “to criminalize the pattern of
criminal activity, not the underlying predicate acts.” State v. Thomas, 3d Dist. Allen
Nos. 1-11-25, 1-11-26, 2012-Ohio-5577, ¶ 61, quoting State v. Dodson, 12th Dist.
Butler No. CA2010-08-191, 2011-Ohio-6222, ¶ 68. RICO statutes also exist to
provide “enhanced sanctions * * * to deal with the unlawful activities of those
engaged in organized crime.” State v. Miranda, 138 Ohio St.3d 184, 2014-Ohio-
451, 5 N.E.3d 603, ¶ 14, quoting the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970,
Statement of Findings and Purpose, 84 Stat. 922. Thus, “[t]he RICO statute was
designed to impose cumulative liability for the criminal enterprise.” State v.
Schlosser, 79 Ohio St.3d 329, 335, 1998-Ohio-716, 681 N.E.2d 911 (1998).
{¶23} Further, venue “refers to the appropriate place of trial for a criminal
prosecution within a state.” State v. Stone, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2007-11-132,
2008-Ohio-5671, ¶ 16. “Although venue is not a material element of any criminal
offense, it must nevertheless be proven at trial beyond a reasonable doubt, unless
waived.” State v. Patterson, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-11-15, 2012-Ohio-2839, ¶ 73.
However, venue need not “be proven in express terms” as long as it can “be
established by all the facts and circumstances in the case * * *.” State v. Brentlinger,
2017-Ohio-2588, 90 N.E.3d 200, ¶ 57 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Dickerson, 77
Ohio St. 34, 82 N.E. 969 (1907), at the syllabus.
-10-
Case No. 7-23-05
{¶24} “Ohio’s criminal venue statute, R.C. 2901.12(H), is broad.” State v.
Yavorcik, 2018-Ohio-1824, 113 N.E.3d 100, ¶ 110 (8th Dist.). This provision reads,
in its relevant part, as follows:
(H) When an offender, as part of a course of criminal conduct,
commits offenses in different jurisdictions, the offender may be tried
for all of those offenses in any jurisdiction in which one of those
offenses or any element of one of those offenses occurred. Without
limitation on the evidence that may be used to establish the course of
criminal conduct, any of the following is prima-facie evidence of a
course of criminal conduct:
(1) The offenses involved the same victim, or victims of the same type
or from the same group.
(2) The offenses were committed by the offender in the offender’s
same employment, or capacity, or relationship to another.
(3) The offenses were committed as part of the same transaction or
chain of events, or in furtherance of the same purpose or objective.
(4) The offenses were committed in furtherance of the same
conspiracy.
(5) The offenses involved the same or a similar modus operandi.
(6) The offenses were committed along the offender’s line of travel in
this state, regardless of the offender’s point of origin or destination.
R.C. 2901.12. The question of proper venue is ultimately resolved by determining
whether the defendant had a “significant nexus” with the jurisdiction in which he
was tried. State v. Carpenter, 2019-Ohio-58, 128 N.E.3d 857, ¶ 89 (3d Dist.).
-11-
Case No. 7-23-05
{¶25} Since R.C. 2923.32 was “loosely patterned after the Federal RICO
legislation,” the resolution of venue issues in federal RICO cases can provide useful
guidance. State v. Giffin, 62 Ohio App.3d 396, 401, 575 N.E.2d 887 (10th Dist.).
The Ohio statute, like its federal counterpart, was designed to cast a
broad net over those who conduct organized criminal activities
spanning a number of jurisdictions. * * * Under federal law,
substantive RICO violations are properly tried in any district where
the ‘enterprise’ conducted business. * * * Drawing an analogy to
conspiracy prosecutions, federal courts have found it immaterial that
an individual defendant was not physically present in the [jurisdiction]
so long as it can be established that the defendant participated in an
enterprise that conducted illegal activities in that [jurisdiction]. * * *.
(Citations omitted.) Id. Thus, pursuant to R.C. 2901.12(H),
a prosecution for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity in violation
of R.C. 2923.32(A)(1) is properly venued in any county in which a
portion of the corrupt activity occurred or in which an organization
formed for the purpose of engaging in corrupt activity is based.
State v. Kozic, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 11 MA 135, 2014-Ohio-3807, ¶ 98, quoting
State v. Haddix, 93 Ohio App.3d 470, 479, 638 N.E.2d 1096 (12th Dist. 1994). See
also State v. Woods, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-950954, 1997 WL 602963, *8 (Sept.
5, 1997).
Legal Analysis
{¶26} Brown begins by arguing that he was not in an enterprise with
Anthony or Michael. However, the State produced evidence that Brown was
involved in a local drug trafficking organization that was known as the Tecumseh
Street Gang and that was connected to the Southside Gangster Disciples. On social
-12-
Case No. 7-23-05
media, Brown referred to himself as “Kenneth Stashboy Brown.” (Tr. 369).
Sergeant Stachura testified that, in the Southside Gangster Disciples, the name
“Stashboy represents that you’re active in drug trafficking.” (Tr. 369). Agent John
Dreskler (“Agent Dreskler”) of the Drug Enforcement Agency testified that, based
on his examination of the online postings of these individuals, this particular
association appeared to have begun as early as 2013 or 2016.
{¶27} The trial testimony indicates that Brown participated in this operation
by manufacturing crack cocaine, assisting in the distribution of drugs from the
houses on the 800 block of Tecumseh Street, and providing security. Agent
Doolittle testified that, based on the surveillance conducted on the 800 block of
Tecumseh Street, the primary members of this local drug trafficking organization
were Anthony, Michael, and Brown.
{¶28} Agent Doolittle further testified that he observed these individuals
routinely engage in hand-to-hand transactions with people who came to the 800
block. Brown was seen engaging in these types of transactions multiple times a day.
Agent Doolittle described Brown as working a “shift,” arriving on Tecumseh Street
in the morning and leaving in the evening. (Tr. 145). Throughout the day, buyers
“would come visit * * *, get their drugs and leave.” (Tr. 146). Video footage of
these transactions was introduced by the State at trial.
{¶29} Long’s trial testimony indicated that he purchased drugs from the 800
block of Tecumseh Street over a three-year period of time, purchasing $50.00 to
-13-
Case No. 7-23-05
$60.00 of cocaine a week. His testimony indicates that he would go to Tecumseh
Street to purchase drugs variously from Michael, Anthony, or Brown, depending on
who was available. During these transactions, Michael, Anthony, or Brown would
access the stashes of illegal drugs and take payment from Long.
{¶30} This operation appears to have been primarily conducted out of the
houses at 807, 808, and 828 Tecumseh Street rather than the personal residences of
Brown, Michael, or Anthony. While the house at 808 Tecumseh Street was the
“distribution point” where buyers would obtain their drugs, the houses at 807 and
828 were “stash locations where they would keep extra drugs.” (Tr. 146). Brown,
Anthony, and Michael would regularly access these “stash locations,” suggesting
that they had a common store of illegal drugs. From the evidence produced by the
State at trial, a reasonable finder of fact could find that Brown was involved in an
enterprise with Anthony and Michael.
{¶31} Further, the trial testimony from Agent Doolittle and Armijo indicates
that the activity of this enterprise eventually reached into Henry County. This
process began when Armijo offered to sell illegal drugs to one of her buyers in
Henry County after he had moved to Napoleon. Armijo’s testimony indicates that
she obtained cocaine from the enterprise on Tecumseh Street, travelled into Henry
County, and sold the drugs to her buyer in Napoleon, Ohio.
{¶32} Over time, Armijo purchased larger amounts of cocaine to distribute
to her buyer in Henry County. On at least one occasion, Armijo indicated that she
-14-
Case No. 7-23-05
sought to obtain one and a half ounces of cocaine from the enterprise at a cost of
$1,550.00. Because she did not have the funds to finance this purchase, Armijo was
“fronted” the requested quantity of cocaine. (Tr. 199). At trial, Agent Doolittle
described this process as follows:
She [Armijo] detailed how every time that she had brought the cocaine
out here to Henry County, she received from Anthony and at the 800
block of Tecumseh. * * * [S]he told us that she get it [the drugs] on
the front, so on the front means that you don’t pay for it up front so,
um, your source gives you the drugs and then you sell it and then you
use that money then to repay your source and you keep your profits.
(Tr. 137). Armijo affirmed that she was “trusted” enough to take these drugs from
the enterprise without paying up front with the understanding that she would return
with the funds that she owed the enterprise after the sale. (Tr. 258).
{¶33} After the sale, Armijo returned from Henry County to Lucas County
with the funds she received from her buyer. She then paid the enterprise for the
drugs that had been “fronted” to her. (Tr. 199). See State v. Nelms, 5th Dist.
Delaware No. 13 CAA 07 0055, 2014-Ohio-3316, ¶ 9; State v. Sandoval, 9th Dist.
Lorain No. 95CA006150, 1996 WL 107002, *5 (Mar. 13, 1996) (concluding that
“receiving payment for the goods” was “participat[ion] in their sale” for purposes
of venue).
{¶34} In the process described by Agent Doolittle, Armijo was essentially
earning money for the enterprise through this sale in Henry County. See State v.
Kruse, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-05-001, 2006-Ohio-3179, ¶ 22. By fronting to
-15-
Case No. 7-23-05
Armijo, the enterprise came to have a direct interest in the proceeds from the drugs
sold to the buyer in Napoleon and was, therefore, invested in the outcome of the
transaction in Henry County. Through this arrangement, the corrupt activity of the
Tecumseh Street Gang reached into Henry County. See State v. Mielke, 12th Dist.
Warren No. CA2012-08-079, 2013-Ohio-1612, ¶ 22 (holding that venue was proper
“where the tentacles of the criminal enterprise touched”); State v. Yates, 5th Dist.
Licking No. 2009 CA 00529, 2009-Ohio-6622, ¶ 62 (finding venue was proper
because the enterprise’s activities extended into the county where the trial was held).
{¶35} In conclusion, “a prosecution for engaging in a pattern of corrupt
activity is properly venued in any county in which a portion of the corrupt activity
occurred.” Haddix, supra, at *8. At trial, the State produced some evidence
establishing that Brown was part of an enterprise and that a portion of that
enterprise’s corrupt activities reached into Henry County. Based on the identified
evidence, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that venue was proper in Henry
County. Accordingly, the first assignment of error is overruled.
Second Assignment of Error
{¶36} Brown argues that a finding of venue in Henry County is against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
Standard of Review
{¶37} The manifest-weight-of-the-evidence analysis examines whether the
State has carried its burden of persuasion at trial. State v. Wilson, 2022-Ohio-504,
-16-
Case No. 7-23-05
185 N.E.3d 176, ¶ 58 (3d Dist.). A manifest-weight challenge asserts that the verdict
is not supported by the greater amount of credible evidence. State v. Harvey, 3d
Dist. Marion No. 9-19-34, 2020-Ohio-329, ¶ 12.
On appeal, 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.’”
State v. Randle, 2018-Ohio-207, 104 N.E.3d 202, ¶ 36 (3d Dist.), quoting Plott,
supra, at ¶ 73, quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 1997-Ohio-52,
678 N.E.2d 541 (1997).
{¶38} “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. Sullivan, 2017-Ohio-8937, 102 N.E.3d 86, ¶ 38 (3d Dist.),
quoting State v. Coleman, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-13-53, 2014-Ohio-5320, ¶ 7. “Only
in exceptional cases, where the evidence ‘weighs heavily against the conviction,’
should an appellate court overturn the trial court’s judgment.” State v. Little, 2016-
Ohio-8398, 78 N.E.3d 323, ¶ 27 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d
67, 2011-Ohio-6524, 960 N.E.2d 955, ¶ 119.
Legal Standard
{¶39} We reincorporate the standard for venue in cases where a defendant is
charged with engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity as set forth above.
-17-
Case No. 7-23-05
Legal Analysis
{¶40} Brown makes several arguments to establish that the finding of venue
in this case is against the manifest weight of the evidence. First, Brown argues that
Armijo’s testimony only establishes that she sold illegal drugs independently of the
enterprise. At trial, Armijo testified that she purchased cocaine from Anthony and
sold them to customers. After obtaining these illegal drugs, she would then
determine what she needed to distribute to her customers and cut the cocaine with
baking soda to obtain this desired amount. On several occasions, she sold these
drugs in Henry County and retained the profits from these sales.
{¶41} Armijo testified that she did not obtain directives from the enterprise
on cutting the drugs; the prices she charged; or the customers with whom she did
business. She further stated that her objective was to make money for herself; that
she kept her profits; and that she did not work for Anthony or Brown. Armijo also
testified that she had not interacted with Brown during her transactions at Tecumseh
Street.
{¶42} While this testimony establishes that not all of the drug sales she
engaged in were conducted on behalf of the enterprise, the State still established that
Armijo was fronted the illegal drugs she sold in Henry County on at least one
occasion. By fronting this cocaine, the enterprise became interested in the outcome
of this transaction and in the profits generated by this sale. Through this
arrangement, the enterprise drew Armijo into their operation and reached into Henry
-18-
Case No. 7-23-05
County with its pattern of corrupt activity. The existence of the other transactions
mentioned by Armijo does not negate this fact and does not render the finding of
venue as being against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶43} Second, Brown argues that the testimony of Michael Nelson
(“Nelson”) does not establish venue because he only purchased illegal drugs in
Lucas County for his personal use. At trial, Nelson testified that he regularly bought
cocaine from the enterprise in Toledo and travelled back to Henry County where he
lived with these drugs. No evidence establishes that he sold these drugs on behalf
of the enterprise after he entered Henry County. While a finder of fact could not
conclude venue was proper on this evidence alone, Nelson’s testimony does not
render the finding of venue on the other evidence in this case as being against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶44} Third, Brown argues that the texts between him and Jessica Carroll
(“Carroll”) do not establish venue because these communications indicated only that
she travelled through Henry County. Carroll was found in possession of contraband
during a traffic stop in Henry County after having travelled to the 800 block of
Tecumseh Street in Toledo, Ohio. Again, a finder of fact could not conclude that
venue was proper from this evidence alone, but these texts do not render the finding
of venue on the other evidence in the case as being against the manifest weight of
the evidence.
-19-
Case No. 7-23-05
{¶45} Having reviewed the evidence presented at trial on the basis of its
weight and credibility, we conclude that the record does not contain any indication
that the jury lost its way in determining that venue was proper in this case. Thus,
Brown’s arguments have failed to establish that his conviction is against the
manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the second assignment of error is
overruled.
Conclusion
{¶46} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, the judgment of Henry County Court of Common Pleas is
affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
WALDICK and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur.
/hls
-20-