DocketNumber: No. 86899.
Citation Numbers: 2006 Ohio 3491
Judges: DIANE KARPINSKI, J.:
Filed Date: 7/6/2006
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
{¶ 2} In April 2005, Detective Graves of the Cleveland Police Department was investigating a complaint of drug activity in the West 47th Street and Lorain Avenue area. As part of his investigation, Graves was patrolling the area when he saw defendant driving a vehicle with an alleged prostitute inside the car. Graves ran defendant's license plate and learned the vehicle was listed as stolen. Graves pursued defendant, who, after a brief chase, pulled his vehicle over.
{¶ 3} After defendant exited the vehicle, a glass crack pipe fell from his shirt pocket to the ground and broke. Police recovered the pipe and then tested it. The pipe contained cocaine residue. Defendant was indicted and tried for possessing the cocaine inside the crack pipe in an amount less than five grams.
{¶ 4} In a pretrial motion to dismiss the possession charge, defendant argued that he should be tried for possessing only drug paraphernalia, the crack pipe, under R.C.
{¶ 5} In this timely appeal, defendant presents a single assignment of error which reads as follows:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO GIVE JURY INSTRUCTION FOR POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA.
{¶ 6} Defendant admits that he possessed the crack pipe. Defendant argues, however, that he was never knowingly in possession of cocaine pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 7} "A defendant can be found guilty of drug possession when he possesses paraphernalia containing drug residue. Statev. Teamer (1998)
{¶ 8} In the case at bar, defendant ignores the unrebutted fact that the crack pipe police seized from him contained cocaine residue in an amount less than five grams. Moreover, he offers no explanation as to why he should not be found to know what was in a crack pipe he admitted possessing.
{¶ 9} Defendant further argues that possessing drug paraphernalia is a lesser offense of possessing cocaine. Defendant therefore concludes that he was entitled to a jury instruction on the lesser offense.
{¶ 10} "Allied offenses of similar import are offenses the elements of which correspond to such a degree that the commission of one will result in the commission of the other. Newark v.Vazirani (1990),
{¶ 11} In the case at bar, possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia are not allied offenses. As explained in Smith, one offense can be committed without committing the other. Accordingly, defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on the offense of possessing drug paraphernalia.
{¶ 12} For the foregoing reasons, defendant's sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment accordingly.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Kilbane, J., and Corrigan, J., concur.