· 3/20/2024

State v. Whittle

Citations

  • 2024 Ohio 1023

Syllabus

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL - SEARCH AND SEIZURE – OTHER-ACTS EVIDENCE – EVID.R. 403(A) – PLAIN ERROR - CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION – RIGHT TO COUNSEL – APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL: The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during the execution of a search warrant in which defendant argued that the warrant failed to particularly describe the place to be searched where even though the warrant designated the wrong apartment letter, the affidavit in support of the warrant consistently stated that the evidence would be found at the apartment on the second floor of a two-story building on the northwest corner. The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during the execution of a search warrant where, even though the affidavit supporting the warrant did not contain a notary seal, the affidavit met the specific requirements of R.C. 2933.23 and Crim.R. 41(C)(1), and those provisions prevail over the more general statutes governing notaries and their certifications, and suppression is only warranted for rule violations of a constitutional magnitude. The trial court did not commit plain error by admitting other-acts evidence of five controlled buys that occurred before the execution of a search warrant at defendant's residence under Evid.R. 404(B) or in failing to exclude that evidence under Evid.R. 403(A), where due to the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, the outcome of the trial would not have been otherwise. Defendant's conviction for trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the state presented competent, credible evidence that defendant constructively possessed drugs found in the basement of an apartment building including tear-offs from plastic baggies, lottery tickets, firearms, digital scales and other items related to drug trafficking along with several documents bearing defendant's name and address. The trial court did n

Judges: Winkler

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.