State v. Mark Gordall, 82-LW-3957

• Decision Date: 09 June 1982
• Docket Number: C-810473,82-LW-3957
• Parties: STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARK GORDALL, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARK GORDALL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. C-810473.

82-LW-3957 (1st)

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District Hamilton

June 9, 1982

Mr Simon L. Leis, Jr. and Ms. Janna L. Heltman, 420 Hamilton County Court House, Court and Main Streets, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mr. G Ernie Ramos, Jr., 1085 1/2 Ohio Pike, Suite 4, Cincinnati Ohio 45245.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY.

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on to be heard upon the appeal, the transcript of the docket, journal entries and original papers from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Ohio, the transcript of the proceedings, the assignments of error, the briefs and the arguments of counsel.

Now therefore, the assignments of error having been fully considered are accordingly passed upon in conformity with App. R. 12(A) as follows:

Defendant-appellant, Mark Gordall, was indicted by a Hamilton County Grand Jury on a single charge of trafficking in controlled substances, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(7), as a result of an incident occurring in the early morning hours of January 25, 1981, in which appellant was arrested for offering to sell an undercover agent a certain quantity of powdered amphetamine. Appellant's involvement in the illicit transaction came as a result of the arrest of his friend, one Cecil Colt, a few hours earlier on a similar drug offense charge. Following his arrest, Colt agreed to set up a drug sale between appellant and another officer and, in aid of this, Colt telephoned appellant and arranged to meet him in the parking lot of a motel in Hamilton County, Ohio. At the appointed hour, Colt and the officer arrived at the parking lot and were met by appellant and another person, described only as a white female. Both people then climbed into the back seat of Colt's car. Appellant handed the officer a small bag containing a white, powdered substance, saying "Check this out." As the officer pretended to do so, appellant removed two more pouches of like substance and gave them to the officer, who asked appellant how much he wanted. Appellant initially requested $800.00 but, after some negotiating, settled on a price of $600.00, and gave the officer a brown paper bag. The officer placed the small bags into the paper bag and then, pulling out his service revolver, identified himself as a police officer and arrested appellant. Subsequent analysis revealed that the bags contained amphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance.

At a trial to the court, upon appellant's timely motion, the charge was reduced to aggravated trafficking, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(C)(1), appellant was found guilty and sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment in the state penitentiary, his request to be confined in the state reformatory being denied. From this judgment, appellant has taken this timely appeal in which he asserts two assignments of error.

In his first assignment of error, appellant contends that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the evidence presented at trial established by the requisite standard of proof the defense of entrapment. We disagree. It is well-established that the affirmative defense of entrapment is only available where it is demonstrated that the requisite criminal intent originated elsewhere than in the...