State v. Frye

Citations

• 2018 Ohio 894
• 108 N.E.3d 564

Syllabus

The defendant-appellant's having-weapons-while-under-disability, tampering-with-evidence, and possession-of-drugs convictions are based on sufficient evidence. The defendant-appellant's possession-of-drugs conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err by denying the defendant-appellant's motion to suppress evidence because the trash pulls did not violate his rights under the Ohio Constitution. The trial court did not err by denying the defendant-appellant's motion to dismiss one of the counts in the indictment because ADB Fubinaca was a schedule I controlled substance in Ohio at the time of the defendant-appellant's arrest. The trial court did not commit plain error by rejecting the defendant-appellant's request for immunity under R.C. 2945.44 for witnesses he intended to call as part of his defense. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant-appellant's motion for a new trial because the trial court's jury instruction was not an incorrect statement of law. The defendant-appellant was not denied a fair trial based on prosecutorial misconduct. The trial court correctly concluded that the defendant-appellant's having-weapons-under-disability and tampering-with-evidence convictions are not allied offenses of similar import.