State v. Janson , 2023 Ohio 3125 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Janson, 2023-Ohio-3125.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ASHTABULA COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2023-A-0007
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Criminal Appeal from the
- vs - Court of Common Pleas
JOSEPH R. JANSON,
Trial Court No. 2022 CR 0390
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION
Decided: September 5, 2023
Judgment: Affirmed
Colleen M. O’Toole, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Daniel F. Maynard, Assistant
Prosecutor, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Margaret Brunarski, Ashtabula County Public Defender, and Michael J. Ledenko and
Jeffrey R. Davis, Assistant Public Defenders, 22 East Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH
44047 (For Defendant-Appellant).
ROBERT J. PATTON, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Joseph R. Janson (“Mr. Janson”), appeals his conviction for
aggravated trafficking of drugs, a second-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2)
and (C)(1)(d), following a jury trial in the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas. At
issue is whether Janson’s conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶2} On December 20, 2021, between 1:30 and 2:00 a.m., Patrolman Aaron
McCracken of the Ashtabula City Police Department initiated the traffic stop of a Ford
Mustang for a nonworking license plate light. Officer McCracken had previously observed
the vehicle and two individuals inside of it parked for approximately forty minutes at a gas
station in what he testified to be a “high narcotics trafficking area.” After initiating the stop,
the vehicle did not immediately stop, but continued for several blocks, turning down a side
street and into a private drive. When the vehicle did eventually stop, Officer McCracken
called for back-up.
{¶3} While waiting for back-up to arrive, Officer McCracken observed the
occupants of the vehicle moving around inside and could see arms “reaching around.”
Once back-up arrived, Officer McCracken ordered the driver, Mr. Janson, out of the
vehicle and detained him, and Officer Mark Allen, who had arrived on the scene, removed
the passenger, Steven Smith (“Mr. Smith”), from the vehicle. In plain view, officers found
what was identified as a meth pipe on the passenger seat of the car. On Mr. Smith’s
person, officers found a couple of baggies containing suspected drug residue and a small
amount of unidentified pills. Additionally, after a search inside the vehicle, a box
containing two baggies of methamphetamine in the center console, along with another
baggie of suspected heroin, a small baggie of marijuana, a glass smoking pipe, and a
scale were discovered. A box found behind the driver’s seat contained a small bag of
hallucinogenic mushrooms and more than 70 new small plastic Ziploc baggies. The
baggies of methamphetamine found in the vehicle were tested by the Ohio Attorney
General’s Bureau of Criminal Investigation and came back at a combined weight of
approximately 19.59 grams. The mushrooms found in the vehicle were tested and came
back as psilocin, at a weight of approximately 2.44 grams.
{¶4} Mr. Janson was indicted for aggravated trafficking in drugs, a felony of the
second-degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and (C)(1)(d), and aggravated
2
Case No. 2023-A-0007
possession of drugs, a felony of the fifth-degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), and
(C)(1)(a). Mr. Janson’s case was tried to a jury on December 12, 2022. After a one-and-
a-half day trial, Mr. Janson was convicted of aggravated trafficking in drugs and acquitted
of aggravated possession of drugs.
{¶5} Mr. Janson appeals and raises the following assignment of error: “the trial
court erred to the prejudice of the [a]ppellant when it returned a verdict of guilty of
aggravated trafficking in drugs against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
{¶6} “[W]eight of the evidence addresses the evidence’s effect of inducing
belief.” State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382, 2007-Ohio-2202, 865 N.E.2d 1264, ¶ 25. “In
other words, a reviewing court asks whose evidence is more persuasive—the state’s or
the defendant’s?” Id. “‘The court, reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and
all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether
in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury [or 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. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997),
quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983).
{¶7} “When a court of appeals reverses a judgment of a trial court on the basis
that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the appellate court sits as a
‘thirteenth juror’ and disagrees with the factfinder’s resolution of the conflicting testimony.”
Id., quoting Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1981).
“‘The discretionary power to grant a new trial should be exercised only in the exceptional
case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.’” Id., quoting Martin at
3
Case No. 2023-A-0007
175. The vehicle driven by Mr. Janson was earlier determined to be registered to his
father, and none of the items found in the vehicle were tested for fingerprints or DNA.
{¶8} Mr. Janson was convicted of aggravated trafficking in drugs in violation of
R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and (C)(1)(d).
{¶9} R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) provides:
No person shall knowingly * * * [p]repare for shipment, ship,
transport, deliver, prepare for distribution, or distribute a
controlled substance or a controlled substance analog, when
the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that
the controlled substance or a controlled substance analog is
intended for sale or resale by the offender or another person.”
{¶10} R.C. 2901.22(B) provides:
(B) A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the
person is aware that the person's conduct will probably cause
a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature. A person
has knowledge of circumstances when the person is aware
that such circumstances probably exist. When knowledge of
the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense,
such knowledge is established if a person subjectively
believes that there is a high probability of its existence and
fails to make inquiry or acts with a conscious purpose to avoid
learning the fact.
{¶11} In support of his argument, Mr. Janson notes that his passenger, Mr. Smith,
spent time alone in the vehicle while the police officer’s attention was focused on Mr.
Janson. During that time Mr. Smith had access to the center console of the vehicle where
methamphetamine and a scale were found and to the area in the back of the vehicle
behind the driver’s seat where the psilocin and small baggies were found. Mr. Janson
contends that the narcotics found within the vehicle belonged to Mr. Smith and not to Mr.
Janson and notes that no contraband was found on Mr. Janson’s person, while Mr. Smith
had several empty baggies with suspected drug residue on them and a small quantity of
4
Case No. 2023-A-0007
unidentified pills on his person. Officer McCracken testified that the box containing
methamphetamine appeared to have been placed in the console last atop other items in
the center console. Mr. Janson argues that the evidence presented at trial did not support
the “knowingly” mental state required for conviction and defined under R.C. 2901.22(B),
which states, in relevant part, “knowledge is established if a person subjectively believes
that there is a high probability of its existence and fails to make inquiry or acts with a
conscious purpose to avoid learning the fact.” Mr. Janson notes that Mr. Smith was called
to testify twice but failed to appear as a witness. Further, Mr. Janson argues that
considering Mr. Smith’s time alone in the car, the items found on Mr. Smith’s person, and
the fact that none of the items found in the vehicle were fingerprinted or tested for DNA,
his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶12} In reviewing the record, Mr. Janson’s conviction was not against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶13} Mr. Janson was the one in physical control of the vehicle. While in physical
control of the vehicle, Mr. Janson was observed for 40 minutes prior to initiating the stop
in what was testified to be a known narcotics trafficking area. When Officer McCracken
initiated the traffic stop, Mr. Janson did not stop the vehicle, but instead continued on for
several blocks, turning down a side street, and then into a private drive. Mr. Janson
remained in control of the vehicle until additional officers arrived. Mr. Janson was
removed from the vehicle first, leaving Mr. Smith alone in the vehicle for what Officer
McCracken testified to be for “about thirty seconds.” The testimony of Officer McCracken
and Officer Allen, both who were subject to cross examination, was presented at trial.
According to that testimony, Mr. Janson had the greatest control and dominion over the
5
Case No. 2023-A-0007
vehicle and the items within it for all but approximately thirty seconds before Mr. Smith
was removed from the vehicle. The Court notes that both officers testified that they
decided on scene, not to arrest Mr. Smith. Further, these arguments were presented at
trial before the jury, and deference must be given to their determination of the credibility
of the witnesses and evidence presented. The jury did not clearly lose its way or create a
manifest miscarriage of justice.
{¶14} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed.
JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,
EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,
concur.
6
Case No. 2023-A-0007