Court Opinion

ID: 9882886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:21:28.175849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:06.082197
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Janson, 2023-Ohio-3125.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                               ASHTABULA COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                                    CASE NO. 2023-A-0007

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                  Criminal Appeal from the
        - vs -                                    Court of Common Pleas

JOSEPH R. JANSON,
                                                  Trial Court No. 2022 CR 0390
                 Defendant-Appellant.

                                             OPINION

                                     Decided: September 5, 2023
                                         Judgment: Affirmed

Colleen M. O’Toole, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Daniel F. Maynard, Assistant
Prosecutor, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Margaret Brunarski, Ashtabula County Public Defender, and Michael J. Ledenko and
Jeffrey R. Davis, Assistant Public Defenders, 22 East Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH
44047 (For Defendant-Appellant).

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Joseph R. Janson (“Mr. Janson”), appeals his conviction for

aggravated trafficking of drugs, a second-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2)

and (C)(1)(d), following a jury trial in the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas. At

issue is whether Janson’s conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

        {¶2}     On December 20, 2021, between 1:30 and 2:00 a.m., Patrolman Aaron

McCracken of the Ashtabula City Police Department initiated the traffic stop of a Ford

Mustang for a nonworking license plate light. Officer McCracken had previously observed
the vehicle and two individuals inside of it parked for approximately forty minutes at a gas

station in what he testified to be a “high narcotics trafficking area.” After initiating the stop,

the vehicle did not immediately stop, but continued for several blocks, turning down a side

street and into a private drive. When the vehicle did eventually stop, Officer McCracken

called for back-up.

       {¶3}    While waiting for back-up to arrive, Officer McCracken observed the

occupants of the vehicle moving around inside and could see arms “reaching around.”

Once back-up arrived, Officer McCracken ordered the driver, Mr. Janson, out of the

vehicle and detained him, and Officer Mark Allen, who had arrived on the scene, removed

the passenger, Steven Smith (“Mr. Smith”), from the vehicle. In plain view, officers found

what was identified as a meth pipe on the passenger seat of the car. On Mr. Smith’s

person, officers found a couple of baggies containing suspected drug residue and a small

amount of unidentified pills. Additionally, after a search inside the vehicle, a box

containing two baggies of methamphetamine in the center console, along with another

baggie of suspected heroin, a small baggie of marijuana, a glass smoking pipe, and a

scale were discovered. A box found behind the driver’s seat contained a small bag of

hallucinogenic mushrooms and more than 70 new small plastic Ziploc baggies. The

baggies of methamphetamine found in the vehicle were tested by the Ohio Attorney

General’s Bureau of Criminal Investigation and came back at a combined weight of

approximately 19.59 grams. The mushrooms found in the vehicle were tested and came

back as psilocin, at a weight of approximately 2.44 grams.

       {¶4}    Mr. Janson was indicted for aggravated trafficking in drugs, a felony of the

second-degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and (C)(1)(d), and aggravated

                                                2

Case No. 2023-A-0007
possession of drugs, a felony of the fifth-degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), and

(C)(1)(a). Mr. Janson’s case was tried to a jury on December 12, 2022. After a one-and-

a-half day trial, Mr. Janson was convicted of aggravated trafficking in drugs and acquitted

of aggravated possession of drugs.

       {¶5}   Mr. Janson appeals and raises the following assignment of error: “the trial

court erred to the prejudice of the [a]ppellant when it returned a verdict of guilty of

aggravated trafficking in drugs against the manifest weight of the evidence.”

       {¶6}   “[W]eight of the evidence addresses the evidence’s effect of inducing

belief.” State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382, 2007-Ohio-2202, 865 N.E.2d 1264, ¶ 25. “In

other words, a reviewing court asks whose evidence is more persuasive—the state’s or

the defendant’s?” Id. “‘The court, reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and

all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether

in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury [or 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. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997),

quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983).

       {¶7}   “When a court of appeals reverses a judgment of a trial court on the basis

that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the appellate court sits as a

‘thirteenth juror’ and disagrees with the factfinder’s resolution of the conflicting testimony.”

Id., quoting Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1981).

“‘The discretionary power to grant a new trial should be exercised only in the exceptional

case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.’” Id., quoting Martin at

                                               3

Case No. 2023-A-0007
175. The vehicle driven by Mr. Janson was earlier determined to be registered to his

father, and none of the items found in the vehicle were tested for fingerprints or DNA.

      {¶8}   Mr. Janson was convicted of aggravated trafficking in drugs in violation of

R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and (C)(1)(d).

      {¶9}   R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) provides:

             No person shall knowingly * * * [p]repare for shipment, ship,
             transport, deliver, prepare for distribution, or distribute a
             controlled substance or a controlled substance analog, when
             the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that
             the controlled substance or a controlled substance analog is
             intended for sale or resale by the offender or another person.”

      {¶10} R.C. 2901.22(B) provides:

             (B) 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.

      {¶11} In support of his argument, Mr. Janson notes that his passenger, Mr. Smith,

spent time alone in the vehicle while the police officer’s attention was focused on Mr.

Janson. During that time Mr. Smith had access to the center console of the vehicle where

methamphetamine and a scale were found and to the area in the back of the vehicle

behind the driver’s seat where the psilocin and small baggies were found. Mr. Janson

contends that the narcotics found within the vehicle belonged to Mr. Smith and not to Mr.

Janson and notes that no contraband was found on Mr. Janson’s person, while Mr. Smith

had several empty baggies with suspected drug residue on them and a small quantity of

                                             4

Case No. 2023-A-0007
unidentified pills on his person. Officer McCracken testified that the box containing

methamphetamine appeared to have been placed in the console last atop other items in

the center console. Mr. Janson argues that the evidence presented at trial did not support

the “knowingly” mental state required for conviction and defined under R.C. 2901.22(B),

which states, in relevant part, “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.” Mr. Janson notes that Mr. Smith was called

to testify twice but failed to appear as a witness. Further, Mr. Janson argues that

considering Mr. Smith’s time alone in the car, the items found on Mr. Smith’s person, and

the fact that none of the items found in the vehicle were fingerprinted or tested for DNA,

his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

       {¶12} In reviewing the record, Mr. Janson’s conviction was not against the

manifest weight of the evidence.

       {¶13} Mr. Janson was the one in physical control of the vehicle. While in physical

control of the vehicle, Mr. Janson was observed for 40 minutes prior to initiating the stop

in what was testified to be a known narcotics trafficking area. When Officer McCracken

initiated the traffic stop, Mr. Janson did not stop the vehicle, but instead continued on for

several blocks, turning down a side street, and then into a private drive. Mr. Janson

remained in control of the vehicle until additional officers arrived. Mr. Janson was

removed from the vehicle first, leaving Mr. Smith alone in the vehicle for what Officer

McCracken testified to be for “about thirty seconds.” The testimony of Officer McCracken

and Officer Allen, both who were subject to cross examination, was presented at trial.

According to that testimony, Mr. Janson had the greatest control and dominion over the

                                             5

Case No. 2023-A-0007
vehicle and the items within it for all but approximately thirty seconds before Mr. Smith

was removed from the vehicle. The Court notes that both officers testified that they

decided on scene, not to arrest Mr. Smith. Further, these arguments were presented at

trial before the jury, and deference must be given to their determination of the credibility

of the witnesses and evidence presented. The jury did not clearly lose its way or create a

manifest miscarriage of justice.

       {¶14} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of

Common Pleas is affirmed.

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,

concur.

                                             6

Case No. 2023-A-0007