[Cite as State v. Guy, 2018-Ohio-4835.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State of Ohio, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 No. 17AP-281 

v. : (C.P.C. No. 16CR-771) 

Isaiah Guy, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on December 6, 2018 

 

On brief: Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Sheryl L. 

Prichard, for appellee. Argued: Sheryl L. Prichard. 

On brief: Todd W. Barstow, for appellant. Argued: 

Todd W. Barstow. 

 

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 

DORRIAN, J. 

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Isaiah Guy ("Isaiah"), appeals from a judgment of the 

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to a total of seven years 

imprisonment pursuant to jury verdicts finding him guilty of three counts of heroin 

trafficking, one count of heroin possession, and one count of kidnapping. Because we 

conclude the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the 

manifest weight of the evidence, we affirm. 

I. Facts and Procedural History 

{¶ 2} Isaiah, his brother James Guy ("James"), and Andrew Naus ("Naus") were 

indicted in February 2016 on various drug possession, drug trafficking, and kidnapping 

charges related to events that occurred in October 2014. The charges against Isaiah and 

James were tried together in a jury trial conducted in late February and early March 2017. 
No. 17AP-281 2 

{¶ 3} An undercover detective from the Special Investigations Unit of the Franklin 

County Sheriff's Office ("the detective") testified at trial he received information from a 

confidential informant about narcotics activity at an address on West Broad Street in 

Columbus, Ohio. Although the detective did not find evidence of narcotics activity at that 

location, the investigation led him to investigate narcotics activity at 72 South Wheatland 

Avenue ("South Wheatland") in Columbus, Ohio. Naus was later identified as having 

rented the house at 72 South Wheatland. The informant arranged for the detective to 

purchase heroin from an individual identified as "Zay." On October 15, 2014, the detective 

and the informant went to 72 South Wheatland and the detective purchased one gram of 

heroin from "Zay." During the transaction, "Zay" questioned the detective about his car 

and suggested the detective could be a police officer. The detective lifted his shirt to indicate 

he was not wearing any recording devices. Following the purchase, the detective researched 

the information he knew about "Zay," including the initial address provided by the 

informant, and identified Isaiah as "Zay." At trial, the detective identified Isaiah in the 

courtroom as the individual referred to as "Zay," who sold heroin to him. 

{¶ 4} On October 16, 2014, the detective called Isaiah to arrange a second purchase 

of heroin. The detective returned to 72 South Wheatland with another undercover detective 

and purchased two grams of heroin from Isaiah. The detective entered the house alone, 

while the other detective waited in the car. The detective was not wearing a recording device 

but had a cell phone in his pocket that was connected to an open line being monitored by a 

surveillance team. In addition to Isaiah, another individual was present at the house and 

Isaiah introduced him to the detective as his "brother Stone." (Tr. Vol. II at 344.) Following 

the transaction, the detective conducted research and retrieved photographs; this research 

led him to identify James as the individual who was introduced to him as "brother Stone." 

The detective testified that surveillance of the residence identified a partial Illinois license 

plate number on one of the vehicles parked outside the residence. The detective determined 

the number was a partial match to a license plate number registered to James. At trial, the 

detective identified James in the courtroom as the individual who was introduced as 

"brother Stone." 

{¶ 5} During the transaction on October 16, 2014, James questioned the detective 

about his car and whether he intended to use or sell the heroin. James then said something 
No. 17AP-281 3 

about the detective being a police officer and asked whether he was wearing a recording 

device. When James attempted to pat him down, the detective pushed James away and 

refused to be searched. James then told the detective to wait and turned toward a curtain 

leading into the next room. The detective turned toward the exit door, which had been 

resting against the door jamb but not fully closed. Isaiah stepped between the detective and 

the door, and closed the door. The detective turned back toward the interior of the room 

and found James holding a black pistol in his face. At trial, the detective identified the gun 

James pointed at him on October 16th as appearing similar to a Springfield .40 caliber 

pistol that was recovered from the house in a search conducted on October 17th. James 

told the detective to step away from the door and the detective complied. James instructed 

the detective to remove his clothes. The detective refused to undress, but removed his coat 

and James instructed Isaiah to pat him down. During the search, the detective admitted he 

had a firearm, which Isaiah removed from his pocket and placed in the corner of the room. 

The detective claimed he had the gun to avoid being robbed. James then put his gun in his 

waistband and continued the transaction. After completing the purchase, the detective 

asked for his gun back. James pulled out his own gun and pointed it at the detective while 

telling him to go get the gun but keep it pointed down. The detective then retrieved his gun 

and left the residence. The detective testified that the lighting inside 72 South Wheatland 

was minimal, but adequate, and that he was approximately three to eight feet away from 

Isaiah and James during the transaction. 

{¶ 6} On October 17, 2014, the detective and other members of the Special 

Investigations Unit executed a search warrant on 72 South Wheatland following initial 

entry by a Special Weapons and Tactics ("SWAT") team. Both Isaiah and James were 

present at the time the search warrant was executed and were both arrested. During the 

search, Isaiah's state identification card was located in a dresser drawer in a bedroom of 72 

South Wheatland, along with two firearms, two bottles containing drugs, and an 

unspecified quantity of cash. 

{¶ 7} At trial, plaintiff-appellee, State of Ohio, presented recordings of telephone 

calls made by Isaiah while in the Franklin County Jail. In one of the calls, Isaiah identified 

himself as "Zay" during the recorded introduction of the call before then identifying himself 

as "Isaiah." Isaiah asked the recipient of the call how he was identified at the beginning of 
No. 17AP-281 4 

the call. When the call recipient responded "Zay, Isaiah," Isaiah indicated he made a 

mistake by referring to himself as "Zay" and tried to correct it. In another call, placed by 

Isaiah to James on October 23, 2014 after James had been released from the Franklin 

County Jail, James indicated he had posted on Facebook about the incident. The detective 

testified that based on this call and using a telephone number he had for Isaiah, he 

identified a Facebook page belonging to Isaiah under the name "Zay Block." This page 

contained 6 to 12 photographs of Isaiah. The detective testified the "Zay Block" page was 

also linked to a Facebook page for James under the name "Wes Worlds." The detective 

testified that this Facebook page contained dozens of photographs of James. On the "Wes 

Worlds" Facebook page there were posts on October 23, 2014 asserting that SWAT officers 

had killed the page owner's dog during a raid, and warning that undercover and SWAT 

officers were actively pursuing drug dealers. On cross-examination, the detective admitted 

that jail inmates sometimes switch personal identification numbers for use in making 

phone calls. The pre-recorded message containing the caller's name is associated with the 

personal identification number; therefore, this information would not change if one inmate 

used another inmate's personal identification number to make a call. 

{¶ 8} On cross-examination, the detective admitted that none of the items retrieved 

from 72 South Wheatland pursuant to the search warrant were submitted for fingerprint or 

DNA testing. The detective also admitted there were no surveillance photographs of Isaiah 

at that location on October 15th or 16th. The detective admitted on cross-examination he 

did not see Isaiah possess a firearm during either transaction, except when he removed the 

detective's own firearm from his pocket and placed it in the corner. 

{¶ 9} Isaiah and James's mother, Patricia Guy ("Patricia"), was called as a witness 

and testified she did not recall seeing Isaiah on October 15, 2014, but saw him during the 

afternoon of October 16, 2014 at a casual family gathering at her daughter's house on 

Livingston Avenue. Patricia testified Isaiah was living at that address at the time. Patricia 

testified she was at the gathering for a few hours, but did not know if Isaiah was present 

that entire time. 

{¶ 10} Stella Calloway ("Calloway"), who was in a relationship with Isaiah, was also 

called as a witness and testified she was with Isaiah during the day on October 15, 2014, 

and spent that evening with him at the Livingston Avenue address. She testified she did 
No. 17AP-281 5 

not specifically recall going with Isaiah to 72 South Wheatland on October 15th, but 

admitted it could have happened. Calloway further testified she was apart from Isaiah for 

a few hours in the early morning of October 16, 2014, and then picked him up and 

accompanied him to two locations for meetings about parts for a tow truck. She then 

accompanied Isaiah at the gathering at the Livingston Avenue address and stayed with him 

that evening, leaving early on the morning of October 17, 2014. 

{¶ 11} James's fiancée, Debra Smith ("Smith"), testified that James and his five 

brothers have a similar physical appearance. Smith testified that she spent part of 

October 16th with James at his mother's house and another part of the day and evening 

with James and members of his family at his sister's house. On cross-examination, Smith 

testified she and James drove around in a maroon or purplish Envoy on October 16, 2014. 

The Special Investigations Unit surveillance log for October 16, 2014 indicated a maroon 

Envoy was one of the vehicles present behind 72 South Wheatland on that date. Smith also 

admitted on cross-examination that she did not contact police to state that James was with 

her on October 16th prior to trial, but also testified that she was not contacted by law 

enforcement about the events of October 16th or 17th. She also testified she did not believe 

she needed to come forward because she and James believed there was a police recording 

of the events on October 16th that would exonerate James. 

{¶ 12} James and Isaiah's brother, Daniel Guy ("Daniel"), testified he has frequently 

been mistaken for his brothers, including one time when he was subjected to a traffic stop 

while driving a white truck registered to James, and searched because police officers 

believed one of his brothers was in the vehicle. Daniel testified that he and Naus performed 

improvements on the house at 72 South Wheatland, getting it ready for Naus to occupy it. 

Daniel testified there were "[a] lot of people" in the house at 72 South Wheatland 

throughout the day. (Tr. Vol. VII at 1431.) 

{¶ 13} At the close of the jury trial, Isaiah was convicted on three counts of heroin 

trafficking, one count of heroin possession, and one count of kidnapping. The trial court 

found that the heroin trafficking and possession charges related to October 17, 2014 merged 

for purposes of sentencing, and sentenced Isaiah to a total of seven years imprisonment on 

all charges. 
No. 17AP-281 6 

II. Assignment of error 

{¶ 14} Isaiah appeals and assigns the following single assignment of error for our 

review: 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND DEPRIVED APPELLANT 

OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE 

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES 

CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE ONE SECTION TEN OF THE 

OHIO CONSTITUTION BY FINDING HIM GUILTY OF 

TRAFFICKING IN HEROIN; KIDNAPPING AND 

POSSESSION OF HEROIN AS THOSE VERDICTS WERE 

NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND WERE 

ALSO AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE 

EVIDENCE. 

III. Analysis 

{¶ 15} In his sole assignment of error, Isaiah argues his convictions for heroin 

trafficking and possession, and for kidnapping, were not supported by sufficient evidence 

and were against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

{¶ 16} "Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal standard that tests whether the evidence 

introduced at trial is legally sufficient to support a verdict." State v. Cassell, 10th Dist. No. 

08AP-1093, 2010-Ohio-1881, ¶ 36, citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 

(1997). In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court must 

determine "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." State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the 

syllabus. Where the evidence, "if believed, would convince the average mind of the 

defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," it is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Id. 

"The testimony of a single witness, if believed by the finder of fact, is sufficient to support a 

criminal conviction." State v. Booker, 10th Dist. No. 15AP-42, 2015-Ohio-5118, ¶ 18. See 

also State v. Conkel, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-845, 2009-Ohio-2852, ¶ 14, citing State v. 

Ruhlman, 12th Dist. No. CA2005-05-125, 2006-Ohio-2137, ¶ 26 (for the proposition that 

the testimony of a victim as to the elements of sexual assault, if believed, is sufficient to 

establish the elements of the offense). 

{¶ 17} "While sufficiency of the evidence is a test of adequacy regarding whether the 

evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict as a matter of law, the criminal manifest 
No. 17AP-281 7 

weight of the evidence standard addresses the evidence's effect of inducing belief." Cassell

at ¶ 38, citing State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382, 2007-Ohio-2202, ¶ 25. 

When presented with a challenge to the manifest weight of the 

evidence, an appellate court may not merely substitute its 

view for that of the trier of fact, but must review 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. McCrary, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-881, 2011-Ohio-3161, ¶ 12, citing Thompkins at 387. 

This authority " 'should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence 

weighs heavily against the conviction.' " Thompkins at 387, quoting State v. Martin, 20 

Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist.1983). In conducting our review of the evidence, "we are 

guided by the presumption that the jury, or the trial court in a bench trial, 'is best able to 

view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use 

these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony.' " State v. 

Cattledge, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-105, 2010-Ohio-4953, ¶ 6, quoting Seasons Coal Co. v. 

Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80 (1984). 

{¶ 18} Isaiah was convicted of three counts of trafficking in heroin, in violation of 

R.C. 2925.03, with one count related to the sale of heroin to the detective on October 15th, 

the second count related to the sale of heroin to the detective on October 16th, and the third 

count related to the evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrant that was executed on 

October 17th. Isaiah was also convicted of one count of possession of heroin, in violation of 

R.C. 2925.11, related to the evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrant that was 

executed on October 17th. He was also convicted of one count of kidnapping, relating to 

the incident where the detective was held at gunpoint on October 16th. On appeal, Isaiah 

does not challenge any of the statutory elements of the charges, such as the amount of 

heroin involved in each transaction or the purpose of the restraint of the detective giving 

rise to the kidnapping charge. Instead, he argues the state failed to establish that he was 

the individual identified as "Zay" who committed the offenses. Based on our review of the 

record, we conclude that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

prosecution, there was sufficient evidence to establish each of the statutory elements of the 
No. 17AP-281 8 

charges against Isaiah. We also conclude that with respect to the statutory elements of the 

charges against Isaiah, the jury did not clearly lose its way in finding those elements to have 

been proven. Therefore, we will focus our analysis on the issue of identity. 

{¶ 19} Isaiah notes that Patricia and Calloway testified they were with him on 

October 16, 2014 at a family gathering at his sister's home on Livingston Avenue. Isaiah 

argues the sheriff's department did not maintain consistent surveillance on 72 South 

Wheatland between October 16th and 17th, and there was no specific testimony regarding 

where Isaiah was located when the search warrant was executed on October 17th. Isaiah 

further notes Patricia testified she saw him in a car outside the residence after the raid, 

suggesting he was not in the residence at the time the search warrant was executed. 

{¶ 20} " 'While identity is an element that must be proven by the state beyond a 

reasonable doubt, the credibility of witnesses and their degree of certainty in identification 

are matters affecting the weight of the evidence.' " State v. Tucker, 10th Dist. No. 15AP434, 2016-Ohio-1033, ¶ 13, quoting State v. Reed, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-20, 2008-Ohio6082, ¶ 48. 

{¶ 21} The detective identified Isaiah in the courtroom as the individual known as 

"Zay" who sold him heroin on October 15th and 16th. He testified the lighting in the kitchen 

where the transactions occurred was low, but adequate for him to see Isaiah. The detective 

further testified that after the initial transaction on October 15th, he conducted research 

and identified Isaiah as the individual who had been introduced to him as "Zay," including 

identifying the "Zay Block" Facebook page containing multiple photographs of Isaiah. The 

detective also testified that Isaiah was present on October 17th when the search warrant 

was executed. As explained above, this testimony alone, if believed by the jury, would have 

been sufficient to establish the element of identity. Booker at ¶ 18. However, the 

prosecution did not rely solely on the detective's testimony to establish that Isaiah was the 

individual identified as "Zay" who participated in the heroin transactions at 72 South 

Wheatland. The prosecution presented evidence that Isaiah's state identification card was 

found in a dresser drawer in a bedroom of 72 South Wheatland, along with cash, drugs, and 

firearms. The prosecution also introduced the jail call recording in which Isaiah referred 

to himself as "Zay" and then told the call recipient he had made a mistake by doing so. 

During that same call, Isaiah instructed the call recipient to find his Galaxy 4 cell phone and 
No. 17AP-281 9 

switch the number. The detective testified a Samsung Galaxy 4 cell phone was recovered 

from 72 South Wheatland pursuant to the search warrant and the number associated with 

that phone matched the phone number he had used to contact the individual identified as 

"Zay" regarding the purchase of heroin. 

{¶ 22} Isaiah relies on the alibi testimony offered by Patricia and Calloway. 

However, that testimony failed to account for Isaiah's whereabouts on October 15th or 17th. 

Patricia testified that she had no recollection of seeing Isaiah on the 15th, and although 

Calloway testified she was with Isaiah on the 15th, she admitted it was possible they went 

to 72 South Wheatland on that date. Neither Patricia nor Calloway testified they were with 

Isaiah on October 17th, when the search warrant was executed, although Patricia testified 

she saw Isaiah in a police car outside that address after the warrant had been served. Both 

Patricia and Calloway testified they were with Isaiah at the family gathering at the house on 

Livingston Avenue on October 16th, but Patricia did not know whether Isaiah was present 

during the entire gathering and Calloway testified that she accompanied Isaiah to multiple 

locations on October 16th to try to get parts for a tow truck. Neither witness's testimony 

conclusively established that Isaiah was not at 72 South Wheatland at some time on 

October 16th. Moreover, both Patricia and Calloway had personal relationships with Isaiah, 

and the jury was able to consider that in weighing their credibility. See State v. Powell, 10th 

Dist. No. 17AP-808, 2018-Ohio-3944, ¶ 15 ("As the finder of fact, the jury is in the best 

position to weigh the credibility of testimony by assessing the demeanor of witnesses and 

the manner in which they testify, their connection or relationship with the parties, and their 

interest, if any, in the outcome."). 

{¶ 23} The testimony and evidence in this case, if viewed in the light most favorable 

to the prosecution, was sufficient to establish that Isaiah was the individual identified as 

"Zay" who engaged in the heroin transactions with the detective at 72 South Wheatland. 

Furthermore, with respect to the weight of the evidence, while there was some testimony 

from Patricia and Calloway suggesting that Isaiah was not at 72 South Wheatland on 

October 16th, that testimony must be balanced against the detective's testimony regarding 

the events of that day and the day prior, along with the other evidence indicating Isaiah had 

been present at that location. Based on our review of the evidence, and all reasonable 

inferences, and considering the credibility of the witnesses, we cannot find the jury clearly 
No. 17AP-281 10 

lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the convictions must be 

reversed. 

{¶ 24} Accordingly, we overrule Isaiah's sole assignment of error. 

IV. Conclusion 

{¶ 25} For the foregoing reasons, we overrule Isaiah's sole assignment of error and 

affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. 

Judgment affirmed. 

BROWN, P.J., and SADLER, J., concur.