State v. Double
| Decision Date | 08 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20CA0021-M,20CA0021-M |
| Citation | 168 N.E.3d 899 |
| Parties | STATE of Ohio, Appellee v. Austin M. DOUBLE, Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
JOCELYN STEFANCIN and KIMBERLY STOUT-SHERRER, Attorneys at Law, for Appellant.
S. FORREST THOMPSON, Prosecuring Attorney, and VINCENT V. VIGLUICCI, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
{¶1} Austin Double appeals his convictions from the Medina County Court of Common Pleas. This Court reverses in part, and affirms in part.
{¶2} Trooper Castillo with the Ohio State Highway Patrol pulled Mr. Double over for speeding on I-71 in Brunswick on March 8, 2019. She approached the passenger side of his Chevy Cavalier, and Mr. Double leaned over to roll down the passenger-side window. Trooper Castillo immediately smelled a strong odor of raw marijuana. After obtaining Mr. Double's license, registration, and proof of insurance, Trooper Castillo asked Mr. Double to step out of the vehicle, performed a pat-down search, read Mr. Double his Miranda rights, and put him in the backseat of her patrol car.
{¶3} Trooper Castillo then searched Mr. Double's vehicle for about twenty minutes. While doing so, she noticed a strong odor of marijuana coming from the center console. Using a pocketknife, she opened the compartment of the center console that contained "the wires to the gear shift and whatnot[.]" Trooper Castillo testified that this compartment was neither created nor installed by Mr. Double, and that she knew it opened because she previously owned a Chevy Cavalier, and that compartment to her Chevy Cavalier contained the power window control panel. She testified that, although she used a pocketknife to open that compartment, she did not need to exert a lot of force because it "popped right off." During her cross-examination, Trooper Castillo acknowledged that she did not try to open the compartment with her fingers first before using her pocketknife.
{¶4} In the compartment, Trooper Castillo discovered a packet of tissue paper that contained wax, which she explained is a form of hashish, and a small container that contained more hashish. Trooper Castillo took these items to her patrol car and showed them to Mr. Double, who confirmed that it was about an ounce of hashish. Trooper Castillo released Mr. Double at the scene and submitted the substance for testing.
{¶5} Mr. Double was subsequently charged with one count of operating a vehicle with a hidden compartment used to transport a controlled substance in violation of Revised Code Section 2923.241(C), and one count of possession of hashish in violation of Section 2925.11(A), (C)(7)(c). He pleaded not guilty, and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.
{¶6} At trial, Lauren Ditto, a criminalist with the Ohio State Highway Patrol Crime Lab, testified that she performed two presumptive tests and one confirmatory test on the brown, waxy substance, which weighed 16.7914 grams. Ms. Ditto testified that the results of that testing indicated that the substance was hashish, which is essentially concentrated marijuana resin. Ms. Ditto testified that she did not test the level of THC (the psychoactive cannabinoid found in marijuana) present in the substance because the law in effect at the time did not require her to do so and, according to her lab manual, a substance was considered hashish if it contained THC plus two additional cannabinoids. Here, she testified, the substance contained THC plus three additional cannabinoids, thus fitting the definition of hashish.
{¶7} Scott Goodin, a mechanical engineer who specializes in automotive design, testified on behalf of the defense. Mr. Goodin testified that he inspected Mr. Double's vehicle, and that it contained the original factory equipment without any modifications. Specific to the center console, he testified that he did not need any tools to open the compartment that Trooper Castillo searched, which contained the parking brake cables, shift linkage, and some wiring.
{¶8} The jury found Mr. Double guilty of both charges. He now appeals, raising five assignments of error for this Court's review. We will address his first assignment of error last.
{¶9} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Double argues that his conviction for operating a vehicle with a hidden compartment used to transport a controlled substance is against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence. It is well-established, however, that "a review of the sufficiency of the evidence and a review of the manifest weight of the evidence are separate and legally distinct determinations." State v. Vicente-Colon , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 09CA009705, 2010-Ohio-6242, 2010 WL 5276993, ¶ 18. Accordingly, "it is not appropriate to combine a sufficiency argument and a manifest weight argument within a single assignment of error." State v. Mukha , 9th Dist. Wayne No. 18AP0019, 2018-Ohio-4918, 2018 WL 6493282, ¶ 11 ; see Loc.R. 7(B)(7) of the Ninth District Court of Appeals ("Each assignment of error shall be separately discussed * * *."); App.R. 12(A)(2) (). Nonetheless, we exercise our discretion to consider the merits of Mr. Double's combined assignment of error.
{¶10} Whether a conviction is supported by sufficient evidence is a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). In carrying out this review, our "function * * * is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Jenks , 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. "The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Id.
{¶11} On the other hand, when considering a challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence, this Court is required to consider the entire record, "weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine whether, in resolving 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. Otten , 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340, 515 N.E.2d 1009 (9th Dist.1986). "A reversal on this basis is reserved for the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction." State v. Croghan , 9th Dist., 2019-Ohio-3970, 133 N.E.3d 631, ¶ 26.
{¶12} In support of his assignment of error, Mr. Double asserts that his vehicle contained original factory equipment that had not been modified or altered in any way. He, therefore, argues that his vehicle did not contain a hidden compartment for purposes of Section 2923.241(A)(2). For the reasons that follow, this Court agrees.
{¶13} Initially, we note that "[i]nterpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo." State v. Pountney , 152 Ohio St.3d 474, 2018-Ohio-22, 97 N.E.3d 478, ¶ 20. Section 2923.241(C), under which Mr. Double was charged and convicted, provides that "[n]o person shall knowingly operate, possess, or use a vehicle with a hidden compartment with knowledge that the hidden compartment is used or intended to be used to facilitate the unlawful concealment or transportation of a controlled substance." A "[h]idden compartment" is defined as "a container, space, or enclosure that conceals, hides, or otherwise prevents the discovery of the contents of the container, space, or enclosure." R.C. 2923.241(A)(2). This includes, but is not limited to: "[f]alse, altered, or modified fuel tanks; [a]ny original factory equipment on a vehicle that has been modified to conceal, hide, or prevent the discovery of the modified equipment's contents; [and] [a]ny compartment, space, box, or other closed container that is added or attached to existing compartments, spaces, boxes, or closed containers integrated or attached to a vehicle." R.C. 2923.241(A)(2)(a), (b), and (c).
{¶14} The testimony at trial indicated that Mr. Double's Chevy Cavalier contained original factory equipment with no modifications or additions. Trooper Castillo acknowledged this, testifying that she previously owned a Chevy Cavalier, and that the compartment she found the substance in was neither created nor installed by Mr. Double. In denying Mr. Double's Criminal Rule 29 motion, the trial court rejected defense counsel's argument that, because Mr. Double's vehicle contained original factory equipment that had not been modified in any way, the State failed to establish that Mr. Double's vehicle contained a hidden compartment for purposes of Section 2923.241. The trial court primarily relied upon State v. Gomez ,1 5th Dist., 2019-Ohio-481, 130 N.E.3d 1065, for the proposition that a vehicle's original factory equipment can be considered a hidden compartment under the broad language of Section 2923.241. As explained below, however, Gomez is readily distinguishable from this case.
{¶15} In Gomez , a detective found drug residue inside a spare tire located in the cargo section of a Kia. Gomez at ¶ 16. The spare tire was not original to the Kia; the original spare tire had been removed and replaced with one that was not compatible with the Kia. This spare tire had "purposeful" cuts in it allowing access to the tire's interior, which is where the detective located the drug residue. Id. at ¶ 16. At the bench trial, the parties...
To continue reading
Request your trial