[Cite as State v. Carroll, 2024-Ohio-1626.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

CRAWFORD COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

CASE NO. 3-23-30

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

 v.

JUSTIN CARROLL, O P I N I O N

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court

Trial Court No. 22-CR-0253

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: April 29, 2024

APPEARANCES:

Tyler Naud Jechura for Appellant

Ryan M. Hoovler for Appellee
Case No. 3-23-30

-2-

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Justin Carroll (“Carroll”) appeals the judgment of 

the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas, arguing that his conviction is not 

supported by sufficient evidence or the manifest weight of the evidence. For the 

reasons set forth below, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} Brenda Hager (“Hager”) worked at a gas station in Bucyrus. On July 

17, 2022 at 2:15 A.M., Hager saw Carroll emerge from a red car in the parking lot, 

enter the gas station store, and ask where the restrooms were located. After Hager 

directed him to go down the hall, Carroll went into the restroom and then left the 

building. Over two hours later, Hager saw that the red car was still in the parking 

lot of the gas station. She also noticed that the vehicle was situated in the fire lane. 

At this point, Hager called 9-1-1 and asked the police to perform a welfare check. 

{¶3} Officer Noah Graves (“Officer Graves”) responded to this call and 

approached the red car in the parking lot. He observed Carroll “slumped over” in 

the driver’s seat of the vehicle. Officer Graves saw that Carroll was drooling, 

sweating, and making “slight arm movements.” (Tr. 22). While Carroll was 

initially non-responsive, he eventually got out of the vehicle at the request of the 

police. Officer Graves came to believe that Carroll may have used narcotics after 

conducting an examination of his eyes. 
Case No. 3-23-30

-3-

{¶4} After Carroll identified himself, the police learned that a warrant had 

been issued for his arrest. After being arrested, Carroll gave consent for the police 

to search his vehicle. Officer Graves then located a bag under the driver’s seat that 

contained a crystalline substance that appeared to be composed of 

methamphetamines. He also located a wallet inside this bag that contained a debit 

card and an identification card with Carroll’s name on them. Carroll stated that the 

wallet belonged to him.

{¶5} The police continued to search the car and located a magnetic black box 

on the passenger’s side of the vehicle that contained two other baggies of crystalline 

substances. Officer Graves later testified that, in his experience, these types of 

magnetic box have typically been used to store drugs on the bottom of a vehicle to 

avoid detection. The police also located a digital scale in the vehicle. Officer 

Graves testified that scales are often found alongside illegal narcotics because these 

devices are used to establish the weight of the drugs in a transaction or for personal 

consumption. 

{¶6} These crystalline substances were later tested and found to contain a 

total of 53.6 grams of methamphetamines. On July 26, 2022, Carroll was indicted 

on one count of aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a 

second-degree felony. After a trial on June 1, 2023, the jury returned a verdict of 

guilty on the charge against Carroll. The trial court issued its judgment entry of 

sentencing on June 7, 2023.
Case No. 3-23-30

-4-

Assignment of Error

{¶7} Carroll filed his notice of appeal on June 23, 2023. On appeal, he raises 

the following assignment of error:

The trial court [erred] when it convicted Mr. Carroll as the State 

failed to prove all elements of the offense. This conviction would 

then be against both the sufficiency of the evidence and the 

manifest weight of the evidence. 

Carroll asserts that that State failed to establish that he knowingly possessed the 

contraband that was recovered from the vehicle. 

Standard of Review

{¶8} A sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis examines whether the State has 

carried its burden of production at trial. State v. Richey, 2021-Ohio-1461, 170 

N.E.3d 933, ¶ 16 (3d Dist.). On review, an appellate court is not to consider whether 

the evidence at trial should be believed but whether the evidence, if believed, could 

provide a legal basis for the finder of fact to conclude that the defendant is guilty of 

the crime charged. State v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-3015, 223 N.E.3d 919, ¶ 19 (3d Dist.). 

Accordingly, the applicable standard “is whether, after viewing the evidence in the 

light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found 

that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

State v. Plott, 2017-Ohio-38, 80 N.E.3d 1108, ¶ 62 (3d Dist.).

{¶9} In contrast, a manifest-weight analysis examines whether the State has 

carried its burden of persuasion at trial. State v. Wilson, 2022-Ohio-504, 185 N.E.3d 
Case No. 3-23-30

-5-

176, ¶ 58 (3d Dist.). On review, “an appellate court’s function * * * is to determine 

whether the greater amount of credible evidence supports the verdict.” State v. 

Harvey, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-19-34, 2020-Ohio-329, ¶ 12, quoting Plott at ¶ 73. 

Appellate courts “must review the entire record, weigh the evidence 

and all of the reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of 

witnesses, and determine whether in resolving conflicts in the 

evidence, the factfinder ‘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. Randle, 2018-Ohio-207, 104 N.E.3d 202, ¶ 36 (3d Dist.), quoting Plott at ¶ 

73, quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 

541 (1997). 

{¶10} While an appellate court sits as a “thirteen juror” in this analysis, it 

must still “allow the trier of fact appropriate discretion on matters relating to the 

weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.” State v. Sullivan, 2017-

Ohio-8937, 102 N.E.3d 86, ¶ 37-38 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Coleman, 3d Dist. 

Allen No. 1-13-53, 2014-Ohio-5320, ¶ 7. “Only in exceptional cases, where the 

evidence ‘weighs heavily against the conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn 

the trial court’s judgment.” State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, 

960 N.E.2d 955, ¶ 119, quoting Thompkins at 387.

Legal Standard

{¶11} To establish a conviction for aggravated possession of drugs as a 

second-degree felony, the State must prove that the defendant “knowingly 
Case No. 3-23-30

-6-

obtain[ed], possess[ed], or use[d] a controlled substance or a controlled substance 

analog” in an amount that “equals or exceeds five times the bulk amount but is less 

than fifty times the bulk amount.” R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(c). In turn, R.C. 

2901.22(B) states: 

A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person is 

aware that the person’s conduct will probably cause a certain result or 

will probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of 

circumstances when the person is aware that such circumstances 

probably exist. When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact 

is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person 

subjectively believes that there is a high probability of its existence 

and fails to make inquiry or acts with a conscious purpose to avoid 

learning the fact.

Further, R.C. 2925.01(K) defines “possession” as “having control over a thing or 

substance * * *.” However, possession “may not be inferred solely from mere 

access to the thing or substance through ownership or occupation of the premises 

upon which the thing or substance is found.” R.C. 2925.01(K). 

{¶12} “Possession of drugs can be either actual or constructive.” State v. 

Bustamante, 3d Dist. Seneca Nos. 13-12-26, 13-13-04, 2013-Ohio-4975, ¶ 25. 

“A person has ‘actual possession’ of an item if the item is within his 

immediate physical possession.” State v. Williams, 4th Dist. Ross No. 

03CA2736, 2004-Ohio-1130, ¶ 23. “A person has ‘constructive 

possession’ if he is able to exercise dominion and control over an item, 

even if the individual does not have immediate physical possession of 

it.” Bustamante at ¶ 25. “For constructive possession to exist, ‘[i]t 

must be shown that the person was conscious of the presence of the 

object.’” Id., quoting State v. Hankerson, 70 Ohio St.2d 87, 91, 434 

N.E.2d 1362 (1982).
Case No. 3-23-30

-7-

State v. Troche, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-22-18, 2023-Ohio-565, ¶ 26. “[T]he State 

may prove * * * constructive possession of contraband by circumstantial evidence 

alone.” State v. McClain, 2020-Ohio-1436, 153 N.E.3d 854, ¶ 45 (3d Dist.), quoting 

Bustamante at ¶ 25. 

‘Although a defendant’s mere proximity to drugs is in itself 

insufficient to establish constructive possession, proximity to the 

drugs may constitute some evidence of constructive possession.’

State v. Brown, 4th Dist. Athens No. 09CA3, 2009-Ohio-5390, * * * 

¶ 20 * * *. ‘Therefore, presence in the vicinity of contraband, coupled 

with another factor or factors probative of dominion or control over 

the contraband, may establish constructive possession.’ Id. * * *

(Citations omitted.) McClain at ¶ 46. For example, “when one is the driver of a car 

in which drugs are within easy access of the driver, constructive possession may be 

established.” State v. Silvas, 3d Dist. Shelby No. 17-21-03, 2021-Ohio-4473, ¶ 14, 

quoting State v. Fry, 4th Dist. Jackson No. 03CA26, 2004-Ohio-5747, ¶ 41.

Legal Analysis 

{¶13} As to the sufficiency of the evidence, the police located 

methamphetamines under the driver’s seat of a parked car where Carroll had been 

sitting for several hours. Carroll was the sole occupant of the vehicle. These drugs 

were found inside a bag that contained a wallet that Carroll identified as belonging 

to him. The wallet contained an identification card and a debit card with Carroll’s 

name on them. See State v. Johnson, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-22-51, 3-22-52, 2023-

Ohio-2638, ¶ 9; State v. Pierce, 3d Dist. Paulding No. 11-09-05, 2010-Ohio-478, ¶ 

17. The other drugs were located in close proximity to the driver’s seat on the 
Case No. 3-23-30

-8-

passenger’s side of the vehicle. Further, Hager testified that no one else was around 

the red car in the parking lot that morning. 

{¶14} From this testimony, a trier of fact could reasonably conclude that 

Carroll knowingly exercised dominion and control of the methamphetamines that 

were located inside the red car. See Troche, supra, at ¶ 37. Thus, having examined 

the evidence in the record in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude 

that the State produced sufficient evidence to support Carroll’s conviction. 

{¶15} As to the manifest weight of the evidence, Carroll argues that the State 

failed to examine the baggies that contained the methamphetamines for fingerprints 

or DNA samples. However, “a lack of physical evidence, standing alone, does not 

render [a defendant’s] conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence.” 

State v. Peeples, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13-AP-1026, 2014-Ohio-4064, ¶ 21. State 

v. Poindexter, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19AP-394, 2021-Ohio-1499, ¶ 22 (addressing 

the absence of DNA evidence); State v. Peabody, 6th Dist. Erie No. E-22-042, 2024-

Ohio-185, ¶ 54-55 (addressing the absence of fingerprint evidence). 

{¶16} Further, on cross examination, Officer Graves testified that the red car 

did not belong to Carroll but was owned by a Michael Mayberry. However, he also 

testified that the owner of the vehicle was not in or around the red car when the 

drugs were discovered; that Carroll was in control of the vehicle when the welfare 

check was conducted; and that no one else had been seen in or around the red car 

that morning. Officer Graves also acknowledged that Carroll denied ownership of 
Case No. 3-23-30

-9-

the drugs in the vehicle and that no illegal narcotics were found on his person during 

the search incident to his arrest. 

{¶17} In examining the evidence presented at trial on the basis of its weight 

and credibility, we have found no indication that the finder of fact clearly lost its 

way and returned a verdict that was against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

The evidence in the record does not weigh heavily against the conclusion that 

Carroll knowingly had constructive possession of the controlled substances that 

were located under the driver’s seat of the red vehicle. Accordingly, the sole 

assignment of error is overruled. 

Conclusion

{¶18} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars 

assigned and argued, the judgment of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas

is affirmed. 

Judgment Affirmed

WALDICK and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur.

/hls