State v. Deem

Citation: 2013 Ohio 5227Docket: 26761

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; November 26, 2013; Ohio; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Matthew Deem was convicted of aggravated possession of drugs, a third-degree felony, in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, with a sentence of eighteen months incarceration. Deem appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for acquittal under Crim. R. 29, claiming insufficient evidence for conviction. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, stating that a judgment of acquittal is only warranted if no rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Deem was charged under R.C. 2925.11(A) for knowingly obtaining or possessing methamphetamine, classified as a Schedule II controlled substance. The amount in question was 5.03 grams, exceeding the bulk amount defined as three grams for Schedule II stimulants, thus meeting the criteria for aggravated possession. The court emphasized that knowledge of possession does not solely depend on ownership or access but requires control over the substance.

Receipt and retention of property can imply actual or constructive possession. Constructive possession occurs when an individual knowingly exercises control over an object, even if it is not physically in their possession. In State v. Moorer, evidence indicated that Moorer constructively possessed a credit card used for gasoline, although it was unclear which defendant presented it. Joint possession arises when two or more individuals have the ability to control an object. Deem challenges the sufficiency of evidence for his possession of methamphetamine found in the vehicle he was driving. However, evidence presented could support a finding of constructive, joint possession. 

On May 21, 2012, Officer Joseph Sidoti observed a minivan with a female passenger leaning out the window and initiated a traffic stop after the vehicle rolled through a stop sign. When the vehicle stopped, the passenger, Nancy Porter, fled but did not discard any items. Upon arresting Deem, Officer Sidoti conducted an inventory search, discovering drug paraphernalia on the passenger side floorboard, which he suspected was related to methamphetamine manufacture. Porter, when questioned about the drugs, initially stated they were Deem's, a claim inconsistent with her later testimony that the drugs belonged to her. Despite this inconsistency, the court does not assess credibility in sufficiency analyses and must favor reasonable inferences for the State.

The Court determined that the evidence presented by the State was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of aggravated possession of drugs. A Ziploc bag containing wet methamphetamine was found in the passenger side floorboard of a vehicle driven by Deem, with Officer Sidoti indicating that this substance is indicative of the final stages of methamphetamine manufacture. Although neither Deem nor the passenger, Porter, had immediate physical possession of the drugs, both had exclusive control over the vehicle's contents. This situation parallels the case of State v. Gilbert, where joint possession of a controlled substance within a vehicle was similarly established. The drugs were located in an area accessible only to Deem and Porter. Consequently, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, overruling Deem's assignment of error, and ordered the execution of the judgment with costs taxed to the Appellant. A certified copy of this journal entry serves as the mandate, and the Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to notify the parties of the judgment.