[Cite as State v. Schatzinger , 2021-Ohio-167.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT WYANDOT COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 16-20-04 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v. AARON J. SCHATZINGER, O P I N I O N

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Wyandot County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 18-CR-0043 Judgment Affirmed Date of Decision: January 25, 2021

APPEARANCES:

Howard A. Elliot for Appellant Douglas D. Rowland for AppelleeCase No. 16-20-04

-2- WILLAMOWSKI, P.J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant Aaron J. Schatzinger (“Schatzinger”) appeal s the judgment of the Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas, alleging (1) that his conviction for permitting drug abuse is not supported by suffic ient evidence; (2) that his conviction for corruption of another with drugs rests on an inference upon an inference; (3) that both of his convictions are against the man ifest weight of the evidence; and (4) that his conviction for corrupting another wi th drugs is not supported by sufficient evidence. For the reasons set forth be low, the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed. Facts and Procedural History {¶2} On December 20, 2017, Sergeant Kevin Robison (“Sergeant Robison ”) of the Wyandot County Sheriff’s Office was dispatched to Schatz inger’s residence. Tr. 116-117. When Sergeant Robison arrived, Schatzinger indica ted that his girlfriend, Candace Schatzinger (“Candace”) was nonresponsive. Tr. 117. Sergeant

Robison entered the residence and found Candace in her bedroom. Tr. 118. He then determined that she was deceased and had “been gone for aw hile [sic].” Tr. 118. Sergeant Robison then secured the scene. Tr. 118-119. {¶3} Sergeant Edwin G. Gottfried (“Sergeant Gottfried”), who works i n the detective bureau at the Wyandot County Sheriff’s Office, was no tified of Candace’s death at 5:45 A.M. Tr. 132, 135. Once at Schatzinger’s reside nce, he noted that Candace “appeared to [have] be[en] in relatively good health” a nd suspected thatCase No. 16-20-04

-3- she may have died of an overdose. Tr. 139, 141. Sergeant Gott fried “sat down with [Schatzinger] * * * to try to get some basic information.” Tr. 141. Sergeant Gottfried testified that Schatzinger was “crying, emotional,” a nd “distraught * * *.” Tr. 141. Schatzinger told Sergeant Gottfried that Candace “was not a [drug] user, that she would not use drugs, [and] that he did not use drugs.” Tr. 141. {¶4} During their sweep of the bedroom, the police discovered a pill that appeared to be “Xanax or Alprazolam.” Tr. 140. The police als o discovered a part of a green pill on the dresser in the bedroom. Tr. 140. Becau se Candace had what appeared to be a Xanax pill next to her bed, the police initial ly believed that a local drug dealer, Mark Powers (“Powers”), may have been connected to this case. Tr. 146. Powers was known to have been “using a pill press to stam p fentanyl and/or heroin to look identical to a Xanax Alprazolam pill.” Tr. 146. Powers had also been linked to several overdose deaths in the area and was Schatzing er’s first cousin. Tr.

145-146. Ex. 4. {¶5} During the course of their investigation, the police also found Candace and Schatzinger’s cellular phones in their bedroom. Tr. 139. After Schatzinger consented to a search of his cell phone, Sergeant Gottfried dow nloaded and examined its contents. Tr. 143-144. While Schatzinger had pre viously stated that he and Candace were not drug users, his text messages indicated that he was not only using drugs but that he was also procuring various drugs f or Candace and a number of other people. Ex. 6E-G, 7. See Tr. 144-145. Further, Schatzinger’sCase No. 16-20-04

-4- phone contained multiple pictures of a white powdery substance in a bag on a scale. Ex. 5A-E, 6J. Tr. 158, 160-161, 216. When examining the conte nt of Candace’s phone, Sergeant Gottfried noted that Schatzinger was the only p erson who Candace “was having conversations with relevant to drugs or supplying h er with pills, marijuana, and other stronger stuff, heroin * * *.” Tr. 148. {¶6} On December 21, 2017, Sergeant Gottfried sat down for an interv iew (“the December 21 interview”) with Schatzinger. Tr. 150. Duri ng this interview, Sergeant Gottfried presented Schatzinger with copies of the pic tures and text messages from his cell phone that indicated he was involved in drug trafficking. Tr. 149, 216. Schatzinger admitted that he had a drug addiction an d indicated that he was using a gram to a gram and a half of heroin every couple of days. Ex. 4. When presented with the pictures from his phone of heroin on scales, he stated that he was trafficking in drugs to support his addiction and travelled out of town around two or three days a week to obtain drugs from his supplier. Ex. 4. H e also admitted that he had been a “little” worried about getting some bad heroin. Ex. 4. {¶7} During this interview, Schatzinger stated that Candace’s “habit ” was

“not that bad.” Ex. 4. H e also indicated t hat Cand ace would do “a point or two at the most” of heroin periodically and that she began using heroi n “only a couple of months” before her death. Ex. 4. He admitted to supplying Can dace with drugs but stated that he was “not sure if she got anything else from anyb ody else or not.” Ex. 4. Sergeant Gottfried then told Schatzinger that, based on the text messages inCase No. 16-20-04

-5- Candace’s phone, “[s]he didn’t act like she did [get drugs from another person]. I looked through her phone. Um, * * * anytime she needed somethi ng as simple as marijuana, she was looking to you.” Ex. 4. In response, Schat zinger said that he “d[id]n’t know for sure” whether she got drugs from another dea ler. Ex. 4. {¶8} Since the police suspected that Powers had perhaps supplied Schatzinger with a Xanax pill that was actually made of heroin and fentanyl, Sergeant Gottfried asked a number of questions about Powers. E x. 4. Schatzinger admitted that Powers supplied him with drugs on several occasio ns and was the source of the Xanax pills that he had obtained for Candace. Ex . 4. He also admitted that he was aware that the product that Powers was selling had some issues. Ex. 4. Powers had indicated that he was cutting his drugs with other s ubstances because of several overdoses that had happened. Ex. 4. Concerned by this information, Schatzinger indicated that he sought another source for some of his drugs. Ex. 4. {¶9} After discussing Powers, Schatzinger expressed remorse for his role in Candace’s death and eventually stated that he felt responsible. Ex. 4. Schatzinger

then wrote a statement the reads as follows: I’m not sure if this [the Xanax pills] is what killed my girl t hat I love so much. I wish I knew if your pills killed my girl. I w ill hate you [Powers] forever. I would buy those off you for 5 dollars. And now my girl is go ne! I know now if I could take everything back, I would. I feel absolutely horrible. And for the rest of my life I’ll be hurti ng.Case No. 16-20-04

-6- Ex. 8. Sergeant Gottfried noted that, if the Xanax pills were not the cause of Candace’s death, the heroin likely was. Ex. 4. Schatzinger th en stated that he did not think that Candace was becoming an addict and thought that he was “helping

her out.” Ex. 4. {¶10} While a large portion of this interview related to Schatzinger’ s relationship with Powers, the pills that were found in Candace’ s bedroom were subsequently submitted to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investiga tions (“BCI”) for testing on January 9, 2018 and were found not to contain fentan yl. Tr. 194. Instead, BCI determined that these pills were “just prescription Xanax * * *.” Tr. 194. For this reason, the police came to believe that these Xanax pills were not the cause of Candace’s death. Tr. 194. At trial, Sergeant Gottfried stated that Powers “was eliminated in this particular incident.” Tr. 187. {¶11} Subsequently at trial, Schatzinger testified that he expressed remorse during his interview with Sergeant Gottfried because he thought , at that time, that the Xanax pills he obtained from Powers were the cause of Canda ce’s death. Tr. 263. He further testified that he no longer felt responsible f or her death because the Xanax pills found in their bedroom were not found to contain fe ntanyl. Tr. 262. However, Sergeant Gottfried noted at trial that, in his written statement, Schatzinger wrote that he “wish [he] knew if [Powers’s] pills killed [Candace].” (Emphasis added.) Ex. 8. Tr. 198-199. While he admitted that there app eared to be no connection between Powers and Candace’s death, Sergeant Gottfri ed further notedCase No. 16-20-04

-7- that he discussed a wide range of illegal drugs during his inte rview with Schatzinger. Tr. 187, 200. {¶12} Further, an autopsy was performed on Candace. Ex. 2. The coro ner concluded that Candace “died of acute combined drug intoxicatio n, fentanyl, heroin, and alprazolam.” Ex. 2. Tr. 98. The coroner further determin ed that the cause of

death was “Accident—substance abuse.” Ex. 2. Tr. 101. The co roner’s report also

indicated that Candace died within minutes to hours after the a dministration of the drugs, though the precise time of death could not be pinpointed with certainty. Ex.

2. Tr. 101. {¶13} On April 11, 2018, Schatzinger was indicted on one count of involuntary manslaughter in violation of R.C. 2903.04(A), a fel ony of the first degree; one count of corrupting another with drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.02(A)(3), a felony of the second degree; one count of poss ession of heroin in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a felony of the fifth degree; and one count of permitting drug abuse in violation of R.C. 2925.13(B), a felony of the fifth degree. Doc. 1. On September 30, 2019, the State filed a motion to dis miss the charge of possession of heroin in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A). Doc. 103

. {¶14} On October 2 and 3, 2019, Schatzinger was tried on these charge s. Doc. 113. The State called Sergeant Robison, Sergeant Gottfrie d, and Candace’s stepmother, Angela M. Bricely (“Bricely”), as witnesses. Tr. 1 16, 124, 132. Dr. Robert B. Forney (“Dr. Forney”) also testified about the result s of Candace’sCase No. 16-20-04

-8- autopsy. Tr. 75. A recording of the December 21 interview bet ween Sergeant Gottfried and Schatzinger was played for the jury. Tr. 151, 17 . Ex. 4. Copies of various text messages and photos from Candace and Schatzinger’s phones were also introduced into evidence. Ex. 6, 7. {¶15} At the close of the State’s case-in-chief, the Defense made Cri m.R. 29 motions for each of the charges against Schatzinger. Tr. 225. The trial court denied these Crim.R. 29 motions. Tr. 229. Schatzinger then testified in his own defense. Tr. 232. On October 3, 2019, the jury found Schatzinger guilty of the offense of corrupting another with drugs and the offense of permitting dru g abuse. Doc. 110. However, the jury could not reach a verdict on the charge of in voluntary manslaughter. Doc. 110, 113. On October 22, 2019, the trial c ourt issued a judgment entry of sentencing. Doc. 117. {¶16} The appellant filed his notice of appeal on May 29, 2020. 1 Doc. 143. On appeal, Schatzinger raises the following assignments of erro r: First Assignment of Error Permitting drug abuse in violation of Ohio Revised Code §2925.13(B) is not supported by the evidence, and that the Defendant-Appellant knowingly permitted a felony drug abuse offense to take place in his residence and as such his convicti on must be vacated.

1 Schatzinger initially filed his notice of appeal on October 22 , 2019. Doc. 118. However, this Court dismissed this appeal on May 18, 2020 because the charge of inv oluntary manslaughter had not been disposed of by that time. Doc. 140. On May 20, 2020, the State filed a motion to dismiss the charge of involuntary manslaughter. Doc. 141. The trial court found this motion wel l-taken, and the charge of involuntary manslaughter was dismissed on May 21, 2020. Doc. 142. Schatzi nger then proceeded to file the appeal presently before this Court. Doc. 143.Case No. 16-20-04

-9- Second Assignment of Error The Defendant-Appellant’s conviction for corruption of another with drugs in violation of Ohio Revised Code §2925.02(A)(3), wa s based on an inference upon an inference as to the possession an d subsequent supplying by the Defendant-Appellant, controlled substance to the decedent which resulted in her death and such conviction must be vacated. Third Assignment of Error That neither of the convictions herein for permitting drug abus e or corrupting another with drugs, are supported by sufficient evidence and that the manifest weight of the evidence directs, that both convictions are improper and must be vacated. Fourth Assignment of Error That the conviction issued herein for corrupting another with drugs, is not supported by sufficient evidence and the convicti on must be vacated. For the sake of analytical clarity, we will consider Schatzinge r’s first and fourth assignments of error before we consider his second and third as signments of error. First Assignment of Error {¶17} Schatzinger argues that his conviction for permitting drug abus e is not supported by sufficient evidence. Legal Standard {¶18} A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a con viction “is a question of law and a ‘test of adequacy rather than credi bility or weight of the

evidence.’” State v. Beaver , 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-17-37, 2018-Ohio-2438, ¶ 40, quoting State v. Berry , 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-12-03, 2013-Ohio-2380, ¶ 19. “TheCase No. 16-20-04

-10- sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis addresses the question of whether adequate evidence was produced for the case to be considered by the trie r of fact and, thus, whether the evidence was ‘legally sufficient to support the ver dict * * *.’” State v.

Luebrecht , 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-18-02, 2019-Ohio-1573, ¶ 36, quoting State v. Worthington , 3d Dist. Hardin No. 6-15-04, 2016-Ohio-530, ¶ 12. On appeal, the applicable standard is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favora ble 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. Brown , 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-17-19, 2018-Ohio-899, ¶ 8, quoting State

v. Plott , 2017-Ohio-38, 80 N.E.3d 1108, ¶ 73 (3d Dist.). {¶19} To prove the offense of permitting drug abuse in violation of R .C. 2925.13(B), the State must establish that the defendant “[1] is the owner, lessee, or occupant, or who has custody, control, or supervision, of premi ses or real estate, including vacant land” and “[2] knowingly [3] permit[ted] the p remises or real estate, including vacant land, to be used for the commission of a felony drug abuse offense [4] by another person.” R.C. 2925.13(B). “A person ac ts 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 certai n nature.” R.C. 2901.22(B).Case No. 16-20-04

-11- {¶20} In proving a conviction, “[i]t is a well-settled rule of law th at direct evidence is not necessary for the trier of fact to make a findi ng; circumstantial evidence has the same probative value.” State v. Shoopman , 3d Dist. No. 14-10-17, 2011-Ohio-2340, ¶ 35. Direct evidence is ‘evidence that is based on personal knowledg e or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inferen ce or presumption.’ Black’s Law Dictionary (8 Ed.2004), 596. Circumstantial evidence is ‘evidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation.’ Id . at 595.

State v. Fisher , 3d Dist. No. 02-10-09, 2010-Ohio-5192, ¶ 26. “A conviction c an be sustained based on circumstantial evidence alone.” State v. Burke , 2020-Ohio4781, ---N.E.3d ---, ¶ 11 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Franklin , 62 Ohio St.3d 118, 124, 580 N.E.2d 1 (1991). Legal Analysis {¶21} Schatzinger does not challenge the first element of this offens e on appeal. See Appellant’s Brief, 6. Instead, Schatzinger argues that the St ate failed to establish that Candace was committing a felony drug offense in the residence. Appellant’s Brief, 8. He also argues that “there is not a reas onable basis” to believe that Schatzinger had “knowledge that the decedent was committin g a felony drug

offense in the home.” Id . We will limit our analysis to the arguments that the appellant has raised on appeal.Case No. 16-20-04

-12- {¶22} At trial, the State introduced a number of text messages that w ere exchanged between Schatzinger and Candace. Ex. 6. On October 24, 2017, the following exchange occurred: [Schatzinger]: Does Steff like the white? [Candace]: I’m not sure if she dose [sic] that any more or not

. She’s supposed to stop by today and pay me for those jeans I’ll ask her if you want me to? [Schatzinger]: Yeah ask I guess we have some to get rid [Candace]: You bringing me any home wink wink wink * * * Ex. 6-G. During the December 21 interview, Schatzinger explain ed that “white” referred to cocaine. Ex. 4. On November 2, 2017, the followin g exchange occurred: [Candace:] Grab me one please. . . [Candace:] Grab me one please. . . [Schatzinger:] F**k o [sic] forgot everything [Candace:] What? Ex. 6-I. Schatzinger later explained to Sergeant Gottfried tha t Candace was asking him to get some Percocet for her in these texts. Ex. 4. {¶23} On November 17, 2017, Candace and Schatzinger were texting abou t whether she should submit to a drug test for a job she was abou t to start: [Candace:] She said people they’re [sic] have used it and pass ed [the drug test] [Schatzinger:] I would be scared to take one H,coke,pills and pot!! There [sic] bound to find something it’s up too you thou ghCase No. 16-20-04

-13- Ex. 6-L. Sergeant Gottfried asked Schatzinger if this meant th at he was advising Candace not to take the drug test because she would test positi ve for heroin, cocaine, pills, and marijuana. Ex. 4. Schatzinger replied, “probably.” Ex. 4. {¶24} In another text, Candace stated, “I’ve been talking [sic] stool softner. It’s too late to take a laxative I’ll be up all night s******g. ” Ex. 6-O. At the December 21 interview, Sergeant Gottfried noted that heroin cau ses constipation. Ex. 4. He stated that this was an indication that Candace was, by this point, using drugs fairly regularly. Ex. 4. Further, Sergeant Gottfried te stified at trial that constipation is a common symptom “for someone that is taking a lot of medications and/or is on opiates.” Tr. 148. {¶25} On November 19, 2017, the following exchange occurred between Candace and Schatzinger: [Candace:] I’m still really tired today. * * * [Schatzinger:] That stuff does that lol [Candace:] I’ve only done one more since you left [Schatzinger:] Oh what you found on my dresser [Candace:] Probably not sure one of the lil pieces I got from you (Emphasis added.) Ex. 6-M. During the December 21 interview, Sergeant Gottfried noted that this language seemed to indicate that Candace had do ne some drugs at home while Schatzinger was present and before he had left. Ex. 4. In response toCase No. 16-20-04

-14- Gottfried’s statement, Schatzinger indicated that he could not remember what drug had been on his dresser on that day. Ex. 4. {¶26} On December 3, 2017, Candace texted Schatzinger about what she had seen two of her children, J.J. and K.S., do earlier: [Candace:] Umm so JJ told [K.S.] that we crush pills and snort then [sic] u our nose and showed her how we do it. . . * * * [Candace:] He showed her with carrots [Schatzinger:] Omg I hope you had a talk with him and tell him we don’t do that omg. [Candace:] Auto-Reply I’m driving right now – I’ll get back to you later. [Schatzinger:] Make something up idk what tell her medicine fo r somebody that can’t swallow [Schatzinger:] Omg that’s not good what if he does that at sch ool [Schatzinger:] We can’t do nothing around him anymore Ex. 6-R. During the December 21 interview, Sergeant Gottfried noted that the children appear to have seen them use heroin. Ex. 4. Schatzin ger said, “I don’t

think we did it around th e kids. It accidentally happened, you know wh at I mean.” (Emphasis added.) Ex. 4. Sergeant Gottfried then noted that t his text appeared to indicate that their children were aware of their drug usage. E x. 4. {¶27} On December 4, 2017, Candace texted Schatzinger this series of requests: [Candace:] Grab me some smokes please * * *Case No. 16-20-04

-15- [Candace:] My back and my feet are killing me wish you could grab me a p for tomorrow * * * [Candace:] Don’t forget my smokes your going to have to get them in town everything is closed * * * (Emphasis added.) Ex. 6-S. {¶28} Sergeant Gottfried also asked about another text where Candace requested a couple of grams from him. Ex. 4. However, Schatzi nger told him that Candace was not talking about heroin and was asking for marijua na. Ex. 4. There was another text exchange from October where Candace reported t hat she “only had about a half left.” Ex. 4. In response, Schatzinger replied, “Sweet. Let’s do it when I get home and I’ll grab a couple and do one when I get back.” (Emphasis added.) Ex. 4. Schatzinger told Sergeant Gottfried that this exchange was about Percocet.

Ex. 4. {¶29} During the December 21 interview, Schatzinger admitted that he was aware of Candace’s heroin use, though he stated that her habit was “not that bad.” Ex. 4. He stated that Candace “wasn’t really like hooked on an ything, but just every now and then she would try—try stuff, you know.” Ex. 4. Serge ant Gottfried stated that, as he examined Candace’s text messages, he noticed that s he progressed from drugs like marijuana to harder drugs like heroin. Ex. 4. Tr. 148. Schatzinger indicated that Candace had started using heroin “only a couple of months” before she died. Ex. 4. He also affirmed that Candace would do “a po int or two at the most” when she used it. Ex. 4. Sergeant Gottfried noted that her text messagesCase No. 16-20-04

-16- confirmed that she started using heroin in late October or earl y November of 2017. Ex. 4. Schatzinger stated that he could not remember the last time that he saw her use drugs. Ex. 4. {¶30} Further, Candace was found deceased in her bedroom as the resul t of a drug overdose. Tr. 118. Ex. 2. Dr. Forney testified that, based on the autopsy report, Candace likely died “within one to two hours max” after she ingested the fatal drug cocktail. Tr. 101. He then added that she “[p]roba bly [died within] less than an hour.” Tr. 101. Sergeant Gottfried also recovered two straws from the bedroom that were suspected to have traces of fentanyl on them. Tr. 182. However,

he testified that the straws were never tested to confirm this suspicion. Tr. 182. {¶31} In this case, Schatzinger admitted that he knew Candace had bee n using heroin for one or two months before her death. Ex. 4. T he text messages admitted into evidence indicate that Schatzinger also knew that Candace had been using heroin, cocaine, and Percocet. Ex. 4, 6-I, 6-L, 6-S. Fu rther, the text messages also indicated that Candace was doing illegal drugs in her home . Ex. 6-M. During the December 21 interview, Sergeant Gottfried read a text messa ge that indicated Schatzinger had planned to do drugs with Candace “when [he] got home.” Ex. 4. Based on the text messages admitted at trial, their children al so appear to have been aware of Candace and Schatzinger’s use of illegal drugs. Ex. 6 -R. Finally, Candace also passed away in their bedroom from a heroin and fentanyl in duced overdose. Tr. 118-119. We conclude that, from the facts presented at tri al, a jury could inferCase No. 16-20-04

-17- that Schatzinger knew that Candace was committing a felony drug offense in his

residence. {¶32} After reviewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could ha ve found that the State had produced some evidence to substantiate the essential elemen ts that Schatzinger has challenged on appeal. For this reason, his conviction for the crime of permitting drug abuse is not unsupported by sufficient evidence as alleged . Thus, Schatzinger’s first assignment of error is overruled. Fourth Assignment of Error {¶33} Schatzinger argues that his conviction for corrupting another w ith drugs is not supported by sufficient evidence. Legal Standard {¶34} We herein reincorporate the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standar d set forth under the first assignment of error. To prove the offens e of corrupting another with drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.02(A)(3), the State must e stablish that the defendant “[1] knowingly * * * [2] [b]y any means, administer[e d] or furnish[ed] to another * * * [3] a controlled substance, and [4] thereby cause [d] serious physical harm to the other person, or cause[d] the other person to becom e drug dependent.” R.C. 2925.02(A)(3). “A person acts knowingly, regardless of pu rpose, when the person is aware that the person’s conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature.” R.C. 2901.22(B).Case No. 16-20-04

-18- Legal Analysis {¶35} While Schatzinger concedes that death would constitute serious physical harm, he argues that the State did not present any dir ect evidence that he “furnished” Candace with the fatal dosage of heroin and fentany l that caused her death. Appellant’s Brief, 17-18. However, the State could als o establish this offense by proving that Schatzinger “knowingly * * * furnish[ed ] a controlled substance and * * * caused [Candace] * * * to become drug depen dent.” R.C. 2901.22(B). {¶36} At trial, the State introduced an abundance of evidence that es tablished that Schatzinger supplied Candace with illegal drugs. During t he December 21 interview, the following exchange occurred: [Sergeant Gottfried:] Did she have a drug dealer or did she pr etty much get the stuff that you brought home? [Schatzinger:] I’m not sure if she got anything else from anyb ody else or not. [Sergeant Gottfried:] She doesn’t act like she did. I looked through her phone. Um, did not see anytime she needed something as simple as marijuana she was looking to you. Does that sound pretty accurate? [Schatzinger:] I don’t know for sure. I can’t say one hundred percent. Ex. 4. Schatzinger further admitted that he supplied Candace w ith illegal drugs, ranging from marijuana to Percocet. Ex. 4. He also admitted t o obtaining Xanax from Powers at Candace’s request. Ex. 4, 7.Case No. 16-20-04

-19- {¶37} However, Sergeant Gottfried testified that he had reviewed Cand ace’s text messages and that Schatzinger was the only person from who m she requested illegal drugs. Tr. 148. At trial, he stated the following: [I]nitially we looked at different avenues. We had heard one individual was possibly supplying Aaron Schatzinger and Candace, which was a Travis Danner, who we are familiar with. So I looked in [Candace’s] phone for conversations with Travis Danner, along with numerous other conversation threads she had still currently on her cell phone. And I did not observe any r eal drug content that would suggest getting drugs from any of those individuals, until I came to the thread with Aaron Schatzinger. Tr. 147. He further testified that the police investigation di d not uncover any other people who supplied Candace with drugs. Tr. 173. At various p oints, the texts between Candace and Schatzinger mention heroin, cocaine, Percoc et, and marijuana. Ex. 6-E, 6-G, 6-I, 6-K, 6-L, 6-P, 6-S. She specifi cally asked Schatzinger for Percocet and marijuana in these text messages. Ex. 6. {¶38} Further, the text messages at trial indicate that Schatzinger w as trafficking in heroin. Ex. 5, 6, 7. He had multiple pictures on his phone of heroin on scales. Ex. 4, 5. Tr. 216. Schatzinger told Sergeant Gott fried that he was trafficking in drugs primarily to support his heroin addiction. Ex. 4. He further admitted that he was using one to one and a half grams of heroi n every couple of days. Ex. 4. He indicated that each gram of heroin cost him $ 100.00 to $120.00. Ex. 4. For this reason, he stated that he was not making much money from selling

heroin to others. Ex. 4. Tr. 256.Case No. 16-20-04

-20- {¶39} During the December 21 interview, Schatzinger admitted that he was a “little” concerned about getting some bad heroin in the proce ss of trafficking these drugs. Ex. 4. The prosecution also introduced several text me ssages from several people who had purchased heroin from Schatzinger. Ex. 7. One of these contacts informed Schatzinger the product he sold caused him to “fade ou t bad.” Ex. 7. Another contact reported that the product was “burning [his] no se bad.” Ex. 7. Schatzinger told Sergeant Gottfried that, if he could go back, he would not have sold these drugs to people. Ex. 4. {¶40} However, after receiving texts indicating that the drugs he was selling were too strong, he received texts from his contacts with repor ts the drugs he was trafficking were not strong enough. Ex. 7. Schatzinger was, a t this time, obtaining drugs from Powers. Ex. 4. He texted Powers about this issue. Ex. 7. Powers replied the drugs were not as strong because he was cutting them “becau se all the ods.” Ex. 7. During the December 17 interview, Schatzinger stated that t his concerned him and that he began to get drugs from other sources. Ex. 4. See Tr. 222. However, Schatzinger still obtained the Xanax for Candace from Powers ev en though he was aware that Powers was selling dangerous substances that had cau sed overdoses. Ex. 4, 8. Tr. 221-222. {¶41} During the December 21 interview, Schatzinger stated that he di d not think that Candace was becoming an addict and that he believed that he was helping her out by providing her with these drugs. Ex. 4. At trial, S ergeant GottfriedCase No. 16-20-04

-21- testified about the progression of Candace’s drug usage based o n the text messages on her phone. Tr. 148. [Sergeant Gottfried:] It was a long history of text messages d ating back several months of conversations between Aaron Schatzinger and Candace Schatzinger. And through those conversations, it was very evident to me, whose dealt with the epidemic, and deal t with numerous drug investigations, that there was a process where an individual who was drug dependent. It’s not an immediate thing. It’s almost a gradual process, where someone may start with pills, and then get deeper into pills, maybe str onger pills, and then moving to heroin, and then stronger heroin. It was almost a process that we could see of a telling tale of the las t few months of Candace Schatzinger’s life, which started out with getting marijuana, getting pills, moving towards heroin, strong er heroin, doing more, needing it, becoming constipated * * * whic h is also commonly—for someone that is taking a lot of medication s and/or is on opiates. So once we saw this, I started to see wh ere the only person that she was having conversations with relevant to drugs or supplying her with pills, marijuana, and other stronger stuff, heroin, was Aaron Schatzinger. If she needed something, her conversation thread indicated that she was contacting him, Aaron Schatzinger, to get her this. Tr. 147-148. Sergeant Gottfried had also explained to Schatzin ger that the constipation referred to in the text messages would indicate th at Candace was engaging in more regular heroin use by the middle of November. Ex. 4, 6. {¶42} At trial, Bricely testified that Candace lost weight in the mon ths before

she died. Tr. 129. She also testified that Candace had become more withdrawn over time and less social. Tr. 128. Bricely stated that she was un aware that Candace had been using illegal drugs. Tr. 131. However, she testified tha t the family had plannedCase No. 16-20-04

-22- to have an intervention after Christmas in 2017 because they we re concerned about Candace and wanted to find out what was happening with her. Tr . 129. {¶43} During the December 21 interview, Schatzinger indicated that Candace had progressed to heroin one or two months before her d eath. Ex. 4. Sergeant Gottfried noted that this statement was consistent wit h the text messages. Ex. 4. Schatzinger affirmed that Candace was using about “a po int or two” but that

her habit was not as bad as his had been. Ex. 4. He stated th at he could not remember the last time that he saw her using heroin. Ex. 4. S chatzinger also indicated that Candace began losing weight before she started u sing the harder drugs. Ex. 4. {¶44} In this case, the State provided evidence that Schatzinger furn ished Candace with a variety of controlled substances over an extende d period of time. Further, the prosecution provided evidence that Candace became progressively more dependent on stronger and stronger drugs, moving from mari juana to pills to heroin over the course of several months. Ex. 4, 6. Tr. 148. After reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we concl ude that a rational trier of fact could conclude that Schatzinger committed the off ense of corrupting another with drugs. Since the State provided some evidence for each of the essential elements of this crime, this conviction is supported by suffici ent evidence. Thus, Schatzinger’s fourth assignment of error is overruled.Case No. 16-20-04

-23- Second Assignment of Error {¶45} Schatzinger argues that his conviction for corrupting another w ith drugs is based upon an inference upon an inference. Legal Standard {¶46} “An inference based solely and entirely upon another inference, unsupported by any additional fact or another inference from ot her facts, is an inference on an inference and may not be indulged in by a jury. ” State v. Palmer , 80 Ohio St.3d 543, 561, 687 N.E.2d 685, 701-702 (1997), quoting Hurt v. Charles J. Rogers Transp. Co ., 164 Ohio St. 329, 130 N.E.2d 820 (1955), paragraphs one of the syllabus. However, “a given state of facts may give rise t o two or more inferences, and in such case one inference is not built upon an other but each is drawn separately from the same facts.” State v. Cassidy , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 88AP1054, 1990 WL 20083, *6 (Mar. 6, 1990), quoting McDougall v. Glenn Cartage

Co ., 169 Ohio St. 522, 160 N.E.2d 266 (1959), paragraph two of th e syllabus. Thus, “a trier of fact may draw multiple inferences from the same set of facts.” State v.

Jordan , 3d Dist. Seneca Nos. 13-01-25, 13-01-26, and 13-01-27, 2002 W L 479160, *2 (Mar. 2002). Legal Analysis {¶47} Schatzinger argues that his conviction for corrupting another w ith drugs is based on an impermissible inference on an inference. Specifically, he asserts that the jury inferred that he had possession of the fa tal heroin compoundCase No. 16-20-04

-24- and that he furnished this compound to Candace. However, the S tate did not have to establish that Schatzinger furnished Candace with the fatal dosage of heroin in order to prove that he committed the offense of corrupting anot her with drugs. The State could also establish a conviction for this offense by pro ving that he caused Candace to become drug dependent. R.C. 2925.02(A)(3). {¶48} At trial, the State introduced evidence that established that S chatzinger was an addict who regularly used heroin; that Schatzinger was t rafficking in heroin to support his habit; that Schatzinger had seen Candace use her oin, though he could not recall the last occasion that he saw her ingest this drug; that Schatzinger had supplied Candace with the controlled substances she had request ed from him over an extended period of time; and that Schatzinger had procured m arijuana, Percocet, and Xanax for her. Ex. 4, 6. From these facts, a jury could i nfer that Schatzinger

had also furnished Candace with heroin. This conclusion did no t require the jury to

make an inference on an inference. {¶49} Further, the State also introduced evidence that established th at Schatzinger supplied Candace with various types of drugs over a n extended period of time; that Candace progressed from marijuana to pills to har der drugs, such as heroin, during this timeframe; that Candace had only progressed to heroin a few months before she died; and that Candace had a heroin “habit,” though her habit was not as bad as Schatzinger’s habit. Ex. 4, 6. Tr. 148. Fr om these facts a jury could infer that Schatzinger had, by furnishing her these vario us kinds of controlledCase No. 16-20-04

-25- substances, caused her to form a drug dependency that progresse d over time from marijuana to pills to heroin. Tr. 148. {¶50} These conclusions do require inferences. However, these conclu sions do not require inferences upon inferences. From the evidence i ntroduced at trial, a jury could make permissible inferences that support a convictio n for corrupting another with drugs. For this reason, Schatzinger’s second assi gnment of error is

overruled. Third Assignment of Error {¶51} Schatzinger argues that his convictions for permitting drug abu se and corrupting another with drugs are against the manifest weight o f the evidence. Legal Standard {¶52} In a manifest weight analysis, “an appellate court’s function * * * is to determine whether the greater amount of credible evidence suppo rts the verdict.” Plott, supra , at ¶ 73. Thus, “the appellate court sits as a ‘thirteenth ju ror’ * * *.”

State v. Davis , 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-16-30, 2017-Ohio-2916, ¶ 17, quoting State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). Appellate cou rts must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all of th e reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, a nd 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.’Case No. 16-20-04

-26- State v. Brentlinger , 2017-Ohio-2588, 90 N.E.3d 200, ¶ 36 (3d Dist.), quoting Thompkins at 387. {¶53} “A reviewing court must, however, allow the trier of fact appro priate discretion on matters relating to the weight of the evidence an d the credibility of the

witnesses.” State v. Sullivan , 2017-Ohio-8937, 102 N.E.3d 86, ¶ 38 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Coleman , 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-13-53, 2014-Ohio-5320, ¶ 7. “[I]t is well established that the * * * credibility of the witnesses [is] primarily a matter

for the trier of fact.” State v. Gervin , 2016-Ohio-8399, 79 N.E.3d 59, ¶ 142 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Clark , 101 Ohio App.3d 389, 409, 655 N.E.2d 795 (8th Dist. 1995). “Only in exceptional cases, where the evidence ‘weighs heavily against the conviction,’ should an appellate court overturn the trial court ’s judgment.” State v.

Little , 2016-Ohio-8398, 78 N.E.3d 323, ¶ 27 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Hunter , 131 Ohio St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, 960 N.E.2d 955, ¶ 119. Legal Analysis for Permitting Drug Abuse {¶54} We reincorporate the evidence that we examined under the first assignment of error and turn now to examining the evidence pres ented at trial for its weight and credibility. On cross-examination, Sergeant Gottfri ed admitted that Schatzinger did not admit that he gave Candace fentanyl. Tr. 2 17. He also admitted that, while the text messages clearly referred to drug usage, t he type of drugs being used was not always clear. Tr. 212-213. Sergeant Gottfried al so testified that theCase No. 16-20-04

-27- police did not recover any other pills from Schatzinger’s resid ence besides the

Xanax. Tr. 216. {¶55} In this case, Schatzinger testified in his own defense. Tr. 23 0. He testified that, on the night of December 19, 2017, he went to b ed at 9:30 P.M. and that Candace was awake at that time, “getting ready for * * * b ed herself.” Tr. 233- 234. He stated that he woke up at 5:40 A.M. and noticed that C andace was not in the bed next to him. Tr. 234-235. He began looking for Candac e and discovered

her on the floor next to their bed. Tr. 237. {¶56} Schatzinger admitted that he, at that time, was addicted to opi ates and used opiates almost everyday. Tr. 241-242, 251. He further in dicated that he was abusing Percocet and had used heroin as late as December 20, 20 17. Tr. 243. According to his testimony, he was also trafficking drugs to su pport his addiction and sold drugs to his close friends in this process. Tr. 247, 256. Schatzinger also

stated that Candace wa s an addict. T r. 245. He t estifie d that Candace began using opiates to address the pain of a toothache that she had. Tr. 2 45. However, he also stated that, “like anybody knows about opiates, they take ahold of you real fast.”

Tr. 245. {¶57} On cross-examination, Schatzinger affirmed that both he and Can dace were addicts, though he admitted his addiction was worse. Tr. 260-261. He stated that he was aware that Candace was using heroin. Tr. 260-261. However, he stated that her heroin use “was something very recent * * *.” Tr. 261 . He stated that heCase No. 16-20-04

-28- did not know she was using heroin on the night of her death. T r. 261. Schatzinger also admitted that he did procure marijuana for Candace at her request and that he procured Xanax for her on one occasion. Tr. 258, 262-264. {¶58} After considering the evidence presented at trial on the basis of its weight and credibility, we conclude that the evidence does not weigh heavily against Schatzinger’s conviction for permitting drug abuse. Further, h aving considered the evidence in the record, we find no indication that the jury los t its way and returned a conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence. Thus , we find these arguments to be without merit. Legal Analysis for Corrupting Another with Drugs {¶59} On the morning of Candace’s death, Schatzinger told the police that he and Candace were not drug users. Tr. 141. However, he late r admitted that he was a heroin addict; that he trafficked heroin; and that Candac e was a drug addict. Ex. 4. Tr. 245. Schatzinger testified that he did procure Per cocet for Candace at her request. Tr. 245. He stated that they did not have insura nce and that he got these pills for Candace to help relieve some pain she had from a tooth ache. Tr. 245. He further testified that Candace had asked him for opiat es but that he refused to give them to her. Tr. 248. {¶60} At trial, Schatzinger admitted that he supplied heroin to his c lose friends and did not dispute that Candace died from a lethal com bination of fentanyl and heroin. Tr. 257. However, he disputed that he was the sou rce of the drugs thatCase No. 16-20-04

-29- ended Candace’s life and stated that he would not “provide her” with these drugs. Tr. 257, 261, 266. He testified that he did not give any drugs to Candace on December 19, 2017. Tr. 248. When asked whether he had access to fentanyl, Schatzinger stated that he did not know “where fentanyl comes f rom.” Tr. 260. He further testified that he had “no clue” how Candace got fentany l. Tr. 248, 266. Schatzinger also testified that he was “distraught” during the December 21 interview with Sergeant Gottfried, in part, because he was under the impr ession that the Xanax from Powers was fentanyl. Tr. 244. {¶61} On cross-examination, Schatzinger did admit that he would get d rugs for Candace at her request. Tr. 264. He stated that he “mainl y” got marijuana for her and that he got her Xanax “one time.” Tr. 264. However, h e admitted that he did not know what was in the Xanax that he procured and assumed that “it was a regular Xanax.” Tr. 265. He further admitted that it was dang erous to procure and distribute drugs without knowing what they contained. Tr. 265. {¶62} After considering the evidence presented at trial on the basis of its weight and credibility, we conclude that the evidence does not weigh heavily against Schatzinger’s conviction for corrupting another with drugs. Fu rther, having considered the evidence in the record, we find no indication th at the jury lost its way and returned a conviction against the manifest weight of the ev idence. Thus, Schatzinger’s third assignment of error is overruled.Case No. 16-20-04

-30- Conclusion {¶63} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the parti culars assigned and argued, the judgment of the Wyandot County Court o f Common Pleas

is affirmed. Judgment Affirmed PRESTON and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur.

/hls