Court Opinion

ID: 9940392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 14:06:16.044084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:49.463191
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Brown, 2024-Ohio-440.]

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                           HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

 STATE OF OHIO,                            :     APPEAL NO. C-230034
                                                 TRIAL NO. B-2202816
         Plaintiff-Appellee,               :

   VS.                                     :         O P I N I O N.

 YAHMALE BROWN,                            :

       Defendant-Appellant.                :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: February 9, 2024

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M. Donovan,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Arenstein & Gallagher and William R. Gallagher, for Defendant-Appellant.
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

CROUSE, Judge.

       {¶1}   Defendant-appellant Yahmale Brown appeals his conviction, following

a jury trial, for having weapons while under a disability (“WUD”). In two assignments

of error, Brown argues that his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence

and was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Finding Brown’s arguments to be

without merit, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                     I. Factual and Procedural Background

       {¶2}   On June 16, 2022, the Hamilton County Grand Jury issued an

indictment charging Brown with WUD and eight drug offenses.

       {¶3}   At a jury trial, Cincinnati Police Officer Aubrey Pitts testified about an

investigation he conducted as part of his assignment to the Crime Gun Intelligence

Unit that ultimately led to Brown’s arrest. The target of the investigation was an

individual named Aaron Orr, who resided at 2938 Queen City Avenue, Apartment 6.

Officer Pitts believed that Orr was engaging in drug trafficking out of his apartment.

On February 14, 2022, Officer Pitts conducted surveillance on Orr’s residence while in

plain clothes and in an unmarked police vehicle. After witnessing Orr leave the

apartment in a wheelchair, get into a vehicle, and drive away, Officer Pitts effectuated

a traffic stop of Orr based on outstanding warrants. Orr was arrested, and his

apartment was secured to ensure that no persons entered or exited while a search

warrant was obtained. Orr asserted ownership over the items in the apartment and

never stated that any other persons resided there with him.

       {¶4}   Officer Pitts and Officer Broering conducted the search of the

apartment. Officer Broering found a social security card in Brown’s name in a back

room. He also found paperwork that Officer Pitts described as “a health document like

                                           2
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

from the health department” addressed to Brown at the Queen City address. Officer

Broering described the paperwork found in the back room as “parole paperwork.” He

confirmed that it was addressed to Brown, but did not recall whether it reflected the

Queen City address. No photographs were taken of either the social security card or

paperwork, and these items were not admitted at trial.

       {¶5}   Four firearms were recovered during the search: an American Tactical

Rifle, a Hi-Point 9-mm firearm, a Taurus 1911 firearm, and a Draco Mini. All four

weapons were test fired and found to be in working order. The Taurus 1911 was found

in a sleeve of a couch designed to hold remotes and magazines. The Draco Mini was

found on the floor of the same room where Brown’s social security card was

discovered, and the Hi-Point firearm was found on a closet shelf in a bedroom in the

apartment. Photographs of these weapons were admitted into evidence.

       {¶6}   Several different drugs, including fentanyl, methamphetamine, and

marijuana, were recovered during the search, along with various drug paraphernalia,

including a scale. Brown’s fingerprints were not found on any of the recovered drugs

or weapons. After searching the apartment, Officer Pitts left a copy of the search

warrant behind.

       {¶7}   Officer Pitts listened to recorded jail telephone calls placed by Orr and

an individual named Ravea Barron, who was also arrested as a result of the

investigation into Orr. From listening to these calls, Officer Pitts gleaned a phone

number that he linked to Brown, and he subsequently pulled and listened to calls

between Orr and Brown.

       {¶8}   Several of these calls were played for the jury. Officer Pitts identified the

voices on the calls as belonging to Orr and Brown. Brown can be heard in the calls

                                            3
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

referencing the search warrant that Officer Pitts left at the apartment. The calls also

reflected a discussion between Brown and Orr about the placement of the Taurus 1911

in the sleeve of the couch. During one of the calls, Orr mentioned leaving the

apartment in a wheelchair, prompting Brown to ask Orr how much later he left the

apartment after Brown. Orr responded “20 or 30 minutes.” The calls also contained a

reference to the paperwork that Officer Broering found.

       {¶9}   After developing Brown as a suspect, Officer Pitts conducted

surveillance on Brown for approximately three months. At no time during either

Officer Pitts’s surveillance of Brown or his surveillance of the Queen City apartment

prior to Orr’s arrest was Brown seen at the apartment.

       {¶10} During his investigation, Officer Pitts obtained several photographs

from a social-media account belonging to Brown. One photograph depicted Brown

with three firearms in his possession on the balcony of the Queen City apartment.

According to Officer Pitts, “[t]he one in his right hand appears to be the Draco Mini

that was recovered, and in his left hand is another firearm. I can’t tell which one that

one is for sure. And then in his left-hand pocket, there’s another firearm that appears

to be a handgun.” Officer Pitts further stated that he believed the “AR” found during

execution of the search warrant was one of the weapons in the picture, but he “would

have to double-check.” He later stated that he recognized the guns in the photograph

of Brown and that they were three of the weapons recovered from the apartment.

Another photograph depicted Orr and Brown together. In it, Orr held currency in

multiple denominations and Brown held a blunt.

                                           4
                      OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

        {¶11} The jury acquitted Brown of all eight drug charges but found him guilty

of WUD.1 The trial court sentenced Brown to three years of imprisonment.

                     II. Sufficiency and Weight of the Evidence

        {¶12} In his first assignment of error, Brown argues that his conviction was

against the manifest weight of the evidence. In his second assignment of error, he

argues that his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence. We address these

arguments together.

        {¶13} When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “[t]he

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. Walker, 150 Ohio St.3d 409, 2016-

Ohio-8295, 82 N.E.3d 1124, ¶ 12, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d

492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by constitutional amendment

on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 102, 684 N.E.2d 668

(1997), fn. 4. The court’s role is to ask “whether the evidence against a defendant, if

believed, supports the conviction.” (Emphasis sic.) State v. Jones, 166 Ohio St.3d 85,

2021-Ohio-3311, 182 N.E.3d 1161, ¶ 16.

        {¶14} A challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence, on the other hand,

requires this court to “review the entire record, weigh the evidence, consider the

credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether the trier of fact clearly lost its way

and created a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Powell, 1st Dist. Hamilton No.

1 Although the state presented evidence that four firearms were found in the apartment, it was only

required to prove that Brown possessed one of the firearms to support the WUD conviction.
                                                5
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

C-190508, 2020-Ohio-4283, ¶ 16, citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387,

678 N.E.2d 541 (1997).

       {¶15} Brown was found guilty of WUD in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2). This

statute provides, as relevant to Brown, that “[u]nless relieved from disability under

operation of law or legal process, no person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or

use any firearm or dangerous ordnance, if * * * [t]he person * * * has been adjudicated

a delinquent child for the commission of an offense that, if committed by an adult,

would have been a felony offense of violence.” R.C. 2923.13(A)(2).

       {¶16} The indictment alleged that Brown committed the WUD offense on or

about February 14, 2022, while he was under disability for a robbery adjudication.

Brown stipulated at trial that he was under disability on the date of the offense alleged

in the indictment.

       {¶17} Brown argues that the sufficiency and weight of the evidence fail to

establish that he possessed a firearm on or about February 14, 2022. A WUD

conviction can be based on actual or constructive possession. State v. Williams, 197

Ohio App.3d 505, 2011-Ohio-6267, 968 N.E.2d 27, ¶ 14 (1st Dist.), quoting State v.

English, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-080827, 2010-Ohio-1759, ¶ 31 (“To ‘have’ a firearm

within the meaning of the weapons-under-a-disability statute, the offender must

actually or constructively possess it.”); State v. Morris, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-

220651 and C-220652, 2023-Ohio-4622, ¶ 28 (the jurisprudence on constructive

possession is the same for the offense of WUD as it is for drug-possession offenses).

       {¶18} Brown contends that the state waived its right to argue on appeal that

he constructively possessed a weapon because it failed to argue a theory of constructive

possession at trial and did not request a jury instruction on constructive possession.

                                           6
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

We do not view the state’s argument in the trial court with respect to Brown’s

possession of a weapon so narrowly.

       {¶19} Brown is correct that the trial judge did not instruct the jury on

constructive possession regarding the WUD charge. Rather, the judge instructed the

jury that it had to find that Brown “knowingly acquired, had, carried, or used” a

firearm on or about the date alleged. Nevertheless, Brown was not found in actual

possession of any of the weapons recovered from the apartment. The state, therefore,

could only have proceeded under a theory of constructive possession with respect to

those weapons.

       {¶20} In response to a Crim.R. 29 motion made by Brown challenging the lack

of evidence establishing his connection to the drugs and weapons found in the

apartment, the state did not limit itself to a theory of actual possession. The state

argued that:

       [H]e is living in the apartment, photographed with the guns. He is

       photographed with money, indicias [sic] of drug trafficking. There is a

       jail call where he indicates that he left 20 to 30 minutes prior to Mr.

       [Orr] leaving the apartment and Mr. [Orr]’s arrest.

       So we have him placing himself with—looking at the evidence in the

       light most favorable to the prosecution, that this is Mr. Brown on these

       jail calls and Mr. Brown putting himself in the apartment.

       We also have the testimony from the officers, in the light most favorable

       to the prosecution, about his personal paperwork, and I’ll note that one

       of [those] piece[s] of paperwork was his Social Security card * * *.

                                           7
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶21} The state’s closing argument likewise argued to the jury that the

telephone calls between Brown and Orr established that Brown was living in the

apartment, as did the fact that Brown’s social security card was found in the

apartment.

       {¶22} On this record, we hold that the state did not fail to argue a theory of

constructive possession during trial, and that it is not prohibited from making a

constructive-possession argument on appeal.

       {¶23} Constructive possession is established where “the defendant exercised

dominion and control over an item, even though the item was not within his

immediate physical possession.” State v. Jackson, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-110570,

2012-Ohio-2727, ¶ 14. It “may be inferred where the defendant has control and

dominion over the premises and is aware that the item is on those premises.” Id.

Dominion and control, as well as whether a person was conscious of the presence of a

weapon, may be proven by circumstantial evidence. Williams, 197 Ohio App.3d 505,

2011-Ohio-6267, 968 N.E.2d 27, at ¶ 15. This court has held that “constructive

possession may be established even where the defendant shares an apartment with

another, if the items are found in the defendant’s living area and in plain view

throughout the premises.” Jackson at ¶ 14.

       {¶24} The evidence presented at trial established that Brown’s social security

card and paperwork in his name were found in a room in the apartment where one of

the guns was recovered; that a photograph on Brown’s social media depicted him

holding three weapons on the balcony of the apartment; that Officer Pitts testified that

one of the weapons in the photograph appeared to be the same weapon found in the

room containing Brown’s personal documents; and that Brown and Orr, in recorded

                                           8
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

jail calls, discussed the location of the Taurus 1911, the fact that Brown left the

apartment approximately 20 to 30 minutes prior to Orr on the day of Orr’s arrest and

execution of the search warrant, and that Brown was aware that a copy of the search

warrant had been left in the apartment.

       {¶25} Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, see Walker, 150

Ohio St.3d 409, 2016-Ohio-8295, 82 N.E.3d 1124, at ¶ 12, this evidence was sufficient

to establish that Brown constructively possessed at least one of the four weapons in

the apartment and that he “knowingly acquired, had, carried, or used” at least one of

the four weapons on or about February 14, 2022. The photograph of Brown with

weapons, one of which the officer believed looked like the Draco Mini found in the

room where Brown’s social security card and paperwork were found, and Brown’s

statements in the recorded jail calls established that he had been staying at the

apartment, had been there on February 14, 2022, and that he had control and

dominion over the premises and was aware of at least one of the weapons in the

apartment. See Jackson, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-110570, 2012-Ohio-2727, at ¶ 14.

       {¶26} Brown makes much of the fact that the photograph of him holding the

weapons was not dated. He contends that this photograph taken “on some

undetermined date” was the only evidence of possession. We disagree. Brown’s WUD

conviction was based on his constructive possession of the weapons found in the

apartment, not his actual possession of the weapons in the photograph. While the

photograph was not dated, other evidence presented at trial, as set forth above, placed

Brown in the apartment and linked him to the weapons on the date alleged in the

indictment.

                                          9
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶27} The facts of this case are similar to those in State v. Munn, 6th Dist.

Lucas No. L-08-1363, 2009-Ohio-5879. In Munn, the court upheld a WUD conviction

based on constructive possession where the evidence established that defendant had

been seen at the residence where the weapons at issue were found and either lived or

stored his belongings there, the weapons were discovered in a bedroom among men’s

clothing and shoes, and personal paperwork and a birth certificate for defendant were

found in the bedroom and in the residence. Id. at ¶ 48.

       {¶28} Brown additionally argues that the state failed to establish that “what he

was alleged to have possessed” was a firearm pursuant to R.C. 2923.11(B), which

defines a firearm as “any deadly weapon capable of expelling or propelling one or more

projectiles by the action of an explosive or combustible propellant.” This argument is

without merit. Officer Pitts testified that all four of the weapons found in the

apartment were test fired and found to be in working order.

       {¶29} We accordingly hold that Brown’s conviction for WUD was supported

by sufficient evidence.

       {¶30} Brown’s conviction was also supported by the manifest weight of the

evidence. While the jury heard testimony that the officers never saw Brown at the

apartment while they were conducting surveillance, Brown’s own statements in the

recorded jail calls established that he had been in the apartment both on the day that

the search warrant was executed and sometime subsequent thereto, as evidenced by

his discussion regarding the copy of the search warrant that was left behind. And

although Brown’s DNA was not found on any of the recovered weapons, other evidence

was presented linking Brown to those weapons. This evidence included testimony that

one of the weapons was found in the same room as Brown’s social security card and

                                          10
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

paperwork, Brown’s discussion of the weapons’ placement in the apartment, and the

photograph depicting Brown holding three weapons on the balcony of the apartment.

        {¶31} The jury, as the trier of fact, was in the best position to determine what

weight to give the evidence and to judge the credibility of the witnesses. State v.

Loudermilk, 2017-Ohio-7378, 96 N.E.3d 1037, ¶ 6 (1st Dist.); State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio

St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. This was not the rare

case in which the jury lost its way and committed a manifest miscarriage of justice in

convicting Brown. See Powell, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190508, 2020-Ohio-4283, at

¶ 16.

        {¶32} Brown’s conviction for WUD was supported by the both the sufficiency

and the weight of the evidence. The first and second assignments of error are

overruled.

                                   III. Conclusion

        {¶33} Having overruled Brown’s assignments of error, we accordingly affirm

the trial court’s judgment convicting him of WUD.

                                                                    Judgment affirmed.

BERGERON, P.J., and WINKLER, J., concur.

Please note:

        The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.

                                           11