Court Opinion

ID: 9389309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 15:06:06.718212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:26.574000
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Brady, 2023-Ohio-1328.]

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

STATE OF OHIO,

        PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,                               CASE NO. 9-22-25

        v.

TYLER JOSEPH BRADY,                                       OPINION

        DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                 Appeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court
                            Trial Court No. 21-CR-413

                                      Judgment Affirmed

                             Date of Decision: April 24, 2023

APPEARANCES:

        Geoffrey A. Spall for Appellant

        Raymond A. Grogan, Jr. for Appellee
Case No. 9-22-25

MILLER, P.J.

         {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Tyler Joseph Brady, appeals the April 25, 2022

judgment of sentence of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas. For the

reasons that follow, we affirm.

         {¶2} This case arises from a December 24, 2020 incident in which the

Marion Police Department was dispatched to investigate a report of a person having

a gun.     When officers arrived on the scene, they spoke to a group of three

individuals: Brady, Tristan Kennedy, and Heather Canter. During the course of the

investigation, officers asked Brady for permission to search the backpack he was

wearing for the presence of weapons. Brady consented to the search and when

officers asked Brady if they would find weapons in “his” backpack, he responded,

“No.” (State’s Ex. 1). Officers conducted a cursory search of the backpack and,

after finding no weapons inside, returned the backpack to Brady. During the course

of checking whether the individuals had outstanding arrest warrants, it was learned

Kennedy had a warrant and he was taken into custody. At about this same time,

Brady attempted to flee from the scene on foot. During the ensuing chase, Brady

removed the backpack from his person, threw it onto the ground, and continued

running. Officers apprehended Brady and placed him under arrest. During the

subsequent search of the backpack, officers located methamphetamine inside an

earbud case located inside the backpack.

                                        -2-
Case No. 9-22-25

       {¶3} On September 22, 2021, the Marion County Grand Jury indicted Brady

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

(C)(1), a third-degree felony. Brady appeared for arraignment on November 4, 2021

and pleaded not guilty to the count in the indictment.

       {¶4} The matter proceeded to a jury trial on March 31 and April 1, 2022. At

trial, Brady introduced the personal property records from the Multi-County

Correctional Center (“MCCC”) where he and Kennedy were incarcerated after their

arrest. Those records indicated a backpack was logged into jail property with

Kennedy’s personal items and given to Kennedy upon his release from MCCC.

(Defendant’s Exs. A, B, C). Brady also attempted, unsuccessfully, to introduce

Defendant’s Exhibit D, an indictment charging Kennedy with drug possession from

an unrelated event on April 4, 2021 in which Kennedy was involved. At the

conclusion of the trial, the jury found Brady guilty of the charge in the indictment.

The trial court accepted the jury’s verdict and continued Brady’s sentencing pending

completion of a presentence investigation report.

       {¶5} At the sentencing hearing on April 25, 2022, the trial court sentenced

Brady to 36 months in prison on Count One. Additionally, the trial court found that

Brady was on post-release control at the time of the offense. Accordingly, the trial

court ordered Brady serve an additional 818 days in prison consecutively to the

                                         -3-
Case No. 9-22-25

prison term imposed in the instant case. The trial court filed its judgment entry of

sentence later that day.

        {¶6} Brady filed a notice of appeal on May 3, 2022.            He raises one

assignment of error for our review.

                               Assignment of Error

        The trial court abused its discretion in denying the admission of
        relevant, probative, and reliable evidence thus resulting in the
        deprivation of Defendant’s due process right to present a full and
        fair defense under the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions.

        {¶7} In his assignment of error, Brady argues that the trial court erred by

excluding a piece of relevant evidence. Specifically, Brady alleges that the trial

court erred by not admitting Defendant’s Exhibit D, a copy of an indictment

charging Kennedy with aggravated possession of methamphetamine in an unrelated

case.

        {¶8} Generally, the admission or exclusion of evidence lies within the trial

court’s discretion, and a reviewing court should not reverse absent an abuse of

discretion and material prejudice. State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412, 2006-Ohio-

2815, ¶ 62, citing State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 (2001). An abuse of discretion

implies that the trial court’s attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.

State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 (1980). “When applying the abuse of

discretion standard, a reviewing court is not free to merely substitute its judgment

for that of the trial court.” In re Jane Doe 1, 57 Ohio St.3d 135, 137-138 (1991).

                                         -4-
Case No. 9-22-25

       {¶9} “Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.” Evid.R. 402.

Evidence is relevant when it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact

that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less

probable than it would be without the evidence.” Evid.R. 401. “Under Evid.R.

403(A), ‘[a]lthough relevant, evidence is not admissible if its probative value is

substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the

issues, or of misleading the jury.’” State v. Velez, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-13-10,

2014-Ohio-1788, ¶ 122, citing State v. Maag, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-03-32, 2005-

Ohio-3761, ¶ 71. “‘Unfair prejudice is that quality of evidence which might result

in an improper basis for a jury decision.’” Id., quoting State v. Calhoun, 11th Dist.

Ashtabula No. 2010-A-0057, 2012-Ohio-1128, ¶ 82.

       The mere fact that testimony is logically relevant does not in all cases
       make it admissible. It must also be legally relevant. A fact which in
       connection with other facts renders probable the existence of a fact in
       issue may still be rejected, if in the opinion of the judge and under the
       other circumstances of the case it is considered essentially misleading
       or too remote.

State v. McDowell, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-17-01, 2017-Ohio-9249, ¶ 28, quoting

Whiteman v. State, 119 Ohio St. 285, 289 (1928).

       {¶10} “‘[D]espite the mandatory terms of Evid.R. 403(A), when considering

evidence under that rule, the trial court is vested with broad discretion and an

appellate court should not interfere absent a clear abuse of that discretion.’” State

                                         -5-
Case No. 9-22-25

v. Nevins, 171 Ohio App.3d 97, 2007-Ohio-1511, ¶ 49 (2d Dist.), quoting State v.

Harding, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20801, 2006-Ohio-481, ¶ 21.

       {¶11} Kennedy did not testify at Brady’s trial. However, Brady’s counsel

proffered Defendant’s Exhibit D in an attempt to show that the methamphetamine

found in the backpack actually belonged to Kennedy and that he, Brady, did not

have knowledge of the methamphetamine contained within the earbud case.

Accordingly, Brady argues that Kennedy’s indictment for his subsequent possession

of methamphetamine charge was relevant because it tended to show that Kennedy

had a proclivity or propensity for using and possessing methamphetamine.

(Appellant’s Brief at 7). Brady further argues the indictment charging Kennedy

with aggravated possession of drugs, albeit for an offense occurring on April 4,

2021, was “extremely probative” of Brady’s theory that the drugs actually belonged

to Kennedy “because the very same prosecutor’s office had brought charges against

[Kennedy] for possession of the very same drug found in this case in a backpack

that Kennedy twice claimed belonged to him.” (Appellant’s Brief at 7-8). Brady

argues the indictment was “fundamental” to his case because it demonstrates “that

because it was not [Brady’s] backpack, and because Kennedy has also been accused

of possession [of] methamphetamine, the[] drugs belonged to Kennedy.” (Emphasis

sic.) (Appellant’s Brief at 7-8).

                                       -6-
Case No. 9-22-25

       {¶12} We disagree. First, the indictment that Brady attempted to introduce

as evidence did not arise from the course of events on December 24, 2020. Rather,

the indictment related to an alleged crime that occurred four months after the date

of the instant offense. Accordingly, under the circumstances of the case, it is too

remote. Furthermore, “[i]t is a fundamental principal that a complaint or indictment

is not evidence of the allegations contained therein.” State v. Draher, 4th Dist. Ross

No. 801, 1981 WL 6016 , *2 (Sept. 10, 1981). Accordingly, the indictment is not

evidence that Kennedy possessed methamphetamine on April 4, 2021 or on

December 24, 2020. In fact, at the time of Brady’s trial on the instant offense,

Kennedy’s possession-of-methamphetamine charge was still pending, and Kennedy

had not been convicted of the charge in the indictment. Moreover, Brady’s trial

counsel was not able to establish a foundation connecting the events on April 4,

2021 to the events on December 24, 2020. In fact, Brady’s trial counsel admitted

to the trial court, “I’m not suggesting that charge [relating to the events of April 4,

2021] stems from [the December 24, 2020] incident.” (Mar. 31 – Apr. 1, 2022 Tr.

at 286). See State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227, 2002-Ohio-2126, ¶ 35, quoting

Whiteman v. State, 119 Ohio St. 285, 289 (1928) (holding “it is the trial court’s

providence to determine whether, under the circumstances, testimony is ‘essentially

misleading or too remote’ to be deemed relevant.”).

                                          -7-
Case No. 9-22-25

       {¶13} Additionally, Brady’s assertion that the methamphetamine did not

belong to him is negated by the evidence that Brady had dominion and control over

the backpack containing the drugs during his interaction with law enforcement

officers on December 24, 2020. See State v. Frye, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-17-30, 2018-

Ohio-894, ¶ 53. Furthermore, even assuming Kennedy also had access to the drugs

in the backpack, Brady and Kennedy could have had joint possession and control of

the drugs. State v. Troche, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-22-18, 2023-Ohio-565, ¶ 31.

Accordingly, establishing that Kennedy possessed methamphetamine on another

day does not abate Brady’s culpability in the instant case, particularly in light of the

undisputed evidence that Brady physically possessed the backpack for more than 17

minutes while the officers conducted their investigation. Additionally, Brady’s

attempt to discard the backpack is at least inferential evidence of his knowledge that

drugs were hidden in the backpack and would be found during a more thorough

search.

       {¶14} For the foregoing reasons, we do not find that the trial court abused its

discretion by excluding Defendant’s Exhibit D from evidence.

       {¶15} Brady’s assignment of error is overruled.

                                          -8-
Case No. 9-22-25

       {¶16} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the

particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Marion County Court

of Common Pleas.

                                                              Judgment Affirmed

WILLAMOWSKI and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur.

/jlr

                                       -9-