[Cite as State v. Johnson, 2013-Ohio-3218.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Appellee 

 v. 

JEROME ALLEN JOHNSON 

 Appellant 

C.A. No. 26628 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO 

CASE No. CR 12 05 1289 (A) 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: July 24, 2013 

 

BELFANCE, Presiding Judge. 

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Jerome Allen Johnson appeals from his conviction in the 

Summit County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. 

I. 

{¶2} In May 2012, Mr. Johnson was indicted on one count of trafficking in cocaine in 

violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(C)(4), a fifth-degree felony. The matter proceeded to a jury trial 

and Mr. Johnson was found guilty of the charge. The trial court sentenced Mr. Johnson to 36 

months of community control and fined him $500. If Mr. Johnson violated community control, 

the court indicated that Mr. Johnson could face up to 12 months in prison. Mr. Johnson has 

appealed, raising a single assignment of error for our review. 
2 

 

II. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE WAS 

BASED UPON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW, AND 

WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. 

{¶3} Mr. Johnson asserts his conviction was based upon insufficient evidence as there 

was not enough evidence to connect him to the crime. He asserts his conviction is against the 

manifest weight of the evidence because the testimony of his alleged accomplice, Dontez 

Trammer, proves that Mr. Johnson did not provide Mr. Trammer with any cocaine. We do not 

agree. 

Sufficiency of the Evidence

{¶4} “Whether a conviction is supported by sufficient evidence is a question of law 

that this Court reviews de novo.” State v. Williams, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24731, 2009–Ohio–

6955, ¶ 18, citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). 

An appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to 

support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to 

determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind 

of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant inquiry is 

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. 

{¶5} Mr. Johnson was found guilty of violating R.C. 2925.03(A)(C)(4) under a 

complicity theory as an aider or abettor. R.C. 2925.03(A) states that 

[n]o person shall knowingly do any of the following: 

(1) Sell or offer to sell a controlled substance; 

(2) Prepare for shipment, ship, transport, deliver, prepare for distribution, or 

distribute a controlled substance, when the offender knows or has reasonable 
3 

 

cause to believe that the controlled substance is intended for sale or resale by the 

offender or another person. 

“A person acts knowingly, regardless of his purpose, when he is aware that his conduct will 

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

of circumstances when he is aware that such circumstances probably exist.” R.C. 2901.22(B). 

R.C. 2923.03(A)(2) provides that “[n]o person, acting with the kind of culpability required for 

the commission of an offense, shall * * * [a]id or abet another in committing the offense[.]” 

Whoever violates R.C. 2323.03 “shall be prosecuted and punished as if he were a principal 

offender.” R.C. 2923.03(F). “To support a conviction for complicity by aiding and abetting 

pursuant to R.C. 2923.03(A)(2), the evidence must show that the defendant supported, assisted, 

encouraged, cooperated with, advised, or incited the principal in the commission of the crime, 

and that the defendant shared the criminal intent of the principal.” State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio 

St.3d 240 (2001), syllabus. “Such criminal intent can be inferred from the presence, 

companionship, and conduct of the defendant before and after the offense is committed.” In re 

T.K., 109 Ohio St.3d. 512. 2006-Ohio-3056, ¶ 13. However, “the mere presence of an accused at 

the scene of a crime is not sufficient to prove, in and of itself, that the accused was an aider and 

abettor.” (Internal quotations and citation omitted.) Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d at 243. 

{¶6} Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, we conclude there 

was sufficient evidence whereby a reasonable trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable 

doubt that Mr. Johnson trafficked in cocaine by aiding and abetting Mr. Trammer. On May 4, 

2012, around 2:00 p.m., Detective Brian Boss with the Akron Street Narcotics Uniform Detail 

(“SNUD”) was driving around in high-crime areas of Akron with two other individuals in an 

unmarked vehicle trying to buy narcotics. Detective Boss was driving down Newton Street 

when he came across Mr. Trammer and asked him if he “had anything[.]” Mr. Trammer told 
4 

 

Detective Boss to pull onto Barder Avenue and he would meet him there. Detective Boss did so, 

and Mr. Trammer approached the vehicle and asked what Detective Boss wanted. Detective 

Boss indicated he was looking to buy a “20 piece,” which is a $20 rock of crack cocaine. Mr. 

Trammer told him wait a minute and he would be back. Mr. Trammer walked across the street 

and out of view. Approximately five minutes later, he returned and was in the company of Mr. 

Johnson. Mr. Trammer approached the car and told Detective Boss that “‘[his] boy [was] going 

to get the dope at the car wash’” and then Mr. Trammer would bring it to Detective Boss. As 

Mr. Trammer was saying “[his] boy” he was pointing at Mr. Johnson, who was approximately 50 

feet from Mr. Trammer. Detective Boss then relayed this information, as well as a description of 

the individuals to other undercover detectives in the area. 

{¶7} Detective Donny Williams, also with the SNUD, received the radio transmission 

from Detective Boss, and was parked in an unmarked vehicle in a parking lot next to a 

convenience store which was across the street from the car wash. Detective Williams estimated 

he was approximately 50-60 yards from the entrance of the car wash and had a clear, 

unobstructed view of the front of it. Detective Williams observed an individual matching Mr. 

Johnson’s description walk into the car wash and disappear out of view. Thirty to forty seconds 

later he walked out of the car wash and met an individual matching Mr. Trammer’s description 

between ten to twenty feet in front of the door of the car wash. Detective Williams testified that 

he “observed Mr. Johnson, with his right hand, hand Mr. Trammer something. Mr. Trammer 

looked at it, turned and walked away.” While Detective Williams did not see what, if anything, 

was transferred from Mr. Johnson to Mr. Williams, based upon his experience, it appeared that 

Mr. Johnson transferred something to Mr. Trammer. Detective Williams reported what he had 

observed to Detective Boss. 
5 

 

{¶8} Mr. Trammer then returned to Detective Boss’ vehicle and handed Detective Boss 

a rock of crack cocaine and Detective Boss handed Mr. Trammer $20. Detective Boss indicated 

that, based on his experience, the rock was similar in size to other $20 pieces of cocaine. Mr. 

Trammer and Mr. Johnson were then arrested and the buy money was found on Mr. Trammer. 

Laboratory analysis later confirmed that the rock contained cocaine. 

{¶9} Based on the foregoing, we conclude that sufficient circumstantial evidence was 

presented, if believed, whereby a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that Mr. Johnson 

trafficked in cocaine by aiding and abetting Mr. Trammer. According to Detective Boss, Mr. 

Trammer identified Mr. Johnson as the individual that would get cocaine from the car wash. 

Detective Williams observed Mr. Johnson go into the car wash and come out and then appear to 

hand something to Mr. Trammer. Mr. Trammer then looked at his hand and proceeded to walk 

away. In light of the fact that Mr. Trammer looked into his hand after his encounter with Mr. 

Johnson, a jury could reasonably infer that Mr. Johnson handed something to Mr. Trammer. 

Further, in light of the fact that Mr. Trammer told Detective Boss earlier that Mr. Johnson was 

going to get dope from the car wash, a jury could reasonably infer that the substance Mr. 

Johnson handed Mr. Trammer after having been in the car wash was the cocaine that Mr. 

Trammer then provided to Detective Boss. Thus, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable 

to the prosecution, the jury could conclude that Mr. Johnson was more than just an innocent 

bystander, and, instead, aided Mr. Trammer in the sale of cocaine to Detective Boss. 

Accordingly, Mr. Johnson’s argument is without merit. 
6 

 

Manifest Weight

{¶10} Mr. Johnson also asserts that his conviction is against the manifest weight of the 

evidence because Mr. Trammer unequivocally testified that he did not get the cocaine from Mr. 

Johnson. We do not agree. 

{¶11} In reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, the appellate court 

[m]ust 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. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.1986). 

{¶12} Mr. Johnson is correct that Mr. Trammer did testify on behalf of the defense and 

repeatedly indicated that he did not obtain any cocaine from Mr. Johnson. However, there was 

much about Mr. Trammer’s testimony that could have caused the jury to question Mr. 

Trammer’s credibility. 

{¶13} Mr. Trammer’s testimony is a bit disjointed and difficult to follow. Nonetheless, 

he does repeatedly deny obtaining cocaine from Mr. Johnson. Instead, Mr. Trammer testified 

that on May 4, 2012, someone had asked to buy a $20 piece of cocaine. Mr. Trammer indicated 

that he was very intoxicated and had consumed four six-packs of beer that day. Mr. Trammer 

stated that he remembered he had a small $10 piece of cocaine at home and so he went and 

retrieved that. Then Mr. Trammer proceeded to the car wash to see if he could get the phone 

number of a friend that would have more. Mr. Trammer passed Mr. Johnson on the way, but Mr. 

Johnson was on the phone and so Mr. Trammer did not bother him. Mr. Trammer did get a 

phone number and a cigarette from the car wash, although neither was found on Mr. Trammer 

when he was arrested. While Mr. Trammer testified he did obtain a phone number, Mr. 
7 

 

Trammer did not obtain any more cocaine. He testified that he returned to the vehicle and gave 

Detective Boss the piece of cocaine he got from his home and Mr. Trammer got $20. He stated 

that it was too small to be a $20 piece of cocaine and so was going to tell Detective Boss that he 

only needed to pay $10, but Detective Boss sped off before he had the chance to do so. 

{¶14} On cross-examination, Mr. Trammer acknowledged that he had a prior felony 

conviction for theft and also discussed several inconsistencies between his trial testimony and the 

previous colloquy that took place when Mr. Trammer pleaded guilty to charges related to this 

incident. Mr. Trammer agreed that, during his plea he stated that he did not know what 

happened the day of the drug sale or the next day. At the plea hearing, Mr. Trammer admitted he 

was an alcoholic and that he had seizures. He stated during his plea colloquy that “‘I did 

something dumb that day. The only way I found out I had did it is somebody had told me.’” 

{¶15} In light of the fact that, at the time of the plea, Mr. Trammer stated that he did not 

know what had happened on May 4, 2012, the jury could have viewed Mr. Trammer’s trial 

testimony in which Mr. Trammer suddenly seemed to remember the events of that day with 

skepticism. Essentially, the jury heard conflicting versions of events and was charged with 

evaluating which version was more credible. We cannot say that the jury lost its way in finding 

that Detectives Boss’ and Williams’ version was more credible. Accordingly, after a thorough 

and independent review of the record, we cannot say that Mr. Johnson’s conviction for 

trafficking in cocaine was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Mr. Johnson’s 

assignment of error is overruled. 

III. 

{¶16} In light of the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the Summit County Court of 

Common Pleas. 
8 

 

Judgment affirmed. 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy 

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the 

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 

 Costs taxed to Appellant. 

 

 EVE V. BELFANCE 

 FOR THE COURT 

CARR, J. 

WHITMORE, J. 

CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

JEFFREY N. JAMES, Attorney at Law, or Appellant. 

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.