[Cite as State v. Morrison, 2021-Ohio-3297.]
COURT OF APPEALS
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, : JUDGES:
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J.
Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs- :
:
SHAWN MORRISON, : Case No. 2021 CA 0020
:
Defendant - Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County
Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
20CR1034
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: September 20, 2021
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
WILLIAM C. HAYES WILLIAM T. CRAMER
Licking County Prosecutor 470 Olde Worthington Road, Suite 200
Westerville, Ohio 43082
By: PAULA M. SAWYERS
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
20 S. Second Street
Newark, Ohio 43055
Licking County, Case No. 2021 CA 0020 2
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Shawn Morrison, appeals the verdict of the jury in the Licking
County Court of Common Pleas, finding him guilty of Aggravated Possession of
Controlled Substances (Methamphetamine), a violation of 2925.11(A),(C)(1)(a) and a
felony of the fifth-degree.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE CASE
{¶2} On December 30, 2019, Detective Sergeant Alan Thomas of the Licking
County Sheriff's Department began drug surveillance at 193 West Church Street, an
address at which the Sheriff’s Office had conducted controlled buys of narcotics, when
he noticed a large pickup truck parked in front. Thomas parked in a location that permitted
him to see people entering and leaving 193 West Church Street and, after thirty minutes,
he noticed a white male, later identified as Morrison, leave the residence and drive off in
the pickup truck. He saw that the license plate light was not illuminated, a traffic offense
that warranted stopping the truck. Thomas followed Morrison in an unmarked car, radioed
Detective Justin Woodyard and relayed the information regarding the truck.
{¶3} Detective Woodyard was nearby when he received the call from Thomas.
Woodyard responded in a marked cruiser and stopped the pickup truck. Thomas
continued a distance and parked to observe the interaction between Woodyard and
Morrison. He also contacted the Sheriff’s Office and requested that they send another
officer to the scene.
{¶4} Woodyard approached the passenger side of the vehicle and, because the
vehicle was very high off the ground, he asked Morrison if he could open the passenger
door to allow them to see each other as they talked. Woodyard asked for Morrison's
Licking County, Case No. 2021 CA 0020 3
driver's license and noticed that Morrison's hands were visibly shaking as he looked
through the center console and around the interior of the vehicle for his license.
Woodyard believed the shaking was not normal for a simple traffic stop.
{¶5} Because Morrison was visibly shaking and fidgety and could not locate his
driver's license, Woodyard asked him to step outside the vehicle to talk. After they walked
back to Woodyard's cruiser, Woodyard requested permission to search Morrison's person
and he agreed. Before searching Morrison, he asked if he had any illegal drugs or
anything illegal in his pockets and Morrison responded that he did not.
{¶6} In the right pocket, the officer discovered a money clip/knife combination
that contained Morrison’s driver's license. In the left pocket he saw a plastic baggy, a
round, multi-colored, rubbery pouch and cut straws. Woodyard recognized the straws as
something often used to ingest illegal narcotics.
{¶7} Woodyard noticed that Morrison was still nervous and fidgety during the
search. When Woodyard asked about the items in Morrison’s left pocket, Morrison
claimed that the officer had put them in his pocket. After hearing the accusation and
noticing Morrison continued nervous state, Woodyard decided to place Morrison in hand
cuffs to insure his own safety. Before he could place the cuffs, Morrison fled. Woodyard
followed, and then noticed that Detective Thomas saw Morrison flee and that Thomas
was pursuing him. Woodyard returned to Morrison’s vehicle and secured it, then drove
his cruiser to where he last saw Morrison pursued by Thomas.
{¶8} Thomas saw Morrison run from Woodyard, pursued him, and knocked him
to the ground. Because he had no handcuffs, Thomas restrained Morrison by laying on
him until assistance arrived. Morrison kept his hands beneath his body and, concerned
Licking County, Case No. 2021 CA 0020 4
that he may have a weapon, Thomas ordered him to put his hands behind his back, but
Morrison did not comply.
{¶9} Woodyard arrived in his patrol car and found Morrison on the ground with
Thomas on top of him, restraining his movement. Woodyard and Thomas secured
Morrison, and, after they removed him from the ground, Woodyard noticed a small plastic
bag on the ground that looked like the bag he had seen in Morrison’s pocket during the
search. He also found the cut straws and the round, rubbery, multi-colored pouch he
discovered during the search of Morrison.
{¶10} The Sheriff’s Office sent the contents of the plastic bag to the Central Ohio
Regional Crime Lab for identification. That Lab analyzed the contents of the plastic baggy
and determined that it contained 1.09 grams of methamphetamine. The pouch found in
Morrison’s pocket contained what was referenced by the parties as “marijuana dabs.”
{¶11} Morrison was charged with Aggravated Possession of Controlled
Substances (Methamphetamine), 2925.11(A),(C)(1)(a), felony of the fifth-degree. The
case was presented to a jury on January 6, 2021 and Morrison testified. He explained
that he told the officer that he had just come from a friend’s home, but admitted at trial
that was not true. Instead, he explained that he had come from 163 West Church Street
after answering a solicitation for sex. When he was stopped he was concerned that he
might be cited for soliciting sex or having the marijuana dabs, and he claimed this fear
prompted him to run. He denied any knowledge of the methamphetamine that was found,
and could not explain how the plastic bag containing methamphetamine came to be in his
pocket.
Licking County, Case No. 2021 CA 0020 5
{¶12} During cross-examination, Morrison admitted that he lies when he is faced
with trouble. On re-direct, when asked by his attorney whether he always lied every time
he was in trouble, Morrison admitted that he did.
{¶13} The jury returned a guilty verdict and the court imposed a sentence of
Community Control for three years and ordered Morrison to enter and successfully
complete an approved community-based correctional facility program.
{¶14} Morrison filed a timely appeal and submitted a single assignment of error:
{¶15} “I. THE CONVICTION FOR AGGRAVATED POSSESSION OF DRUGS
WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.”
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶16} When reviewing a weight of the evidence, the appellate court functions as
the “thirteenth juror” and reviews the entire record, weighing the evidence and all
reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in
resolving conflicts of evidence, the jury 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. Reversing a conviction as being against the manifest
weight of the evidence and ordering a new trial should be reserved for only the
“exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the convictions.” Id.
ANALYSIS
{¶17} In his sole assignment of error, Morrison contends that his sentence was
against the manifest weight of the evidence because he did not know that he possessed
the amphetamine. The fact that he admitted that he was soliciting sex and possessed
marijuana was offered as a testament to his credibility in support of his contention that he
Licking County, Case No. 2021 CA 0020 6
was unaware that he had methamphetamine in his pocket. Though not expressly stated,
Morrison invites us to conclude that his story should be accepted and the testimony of the
state’s witnesses regarding the discovery of the methamphetamine should be discounted.
Morrison is asking us to assign greater weight and credibility to his version of the facts.
{¶18} The weight to be given to the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses
are issues for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212(1967)
paragraph one of the syllabus as quoted in State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67, 2011–
Ohio–6524, 960 N.E.2d 955, ¶ 118. Accord, Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80,
62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942): Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422, 434, 103 S.Ct.
843, 74 L.Ed.2d 646 (1983).
{¶19} The jury as the trier of fact was free to accept or reject any and all of the
evidence offered by the parties and assess the witness's credibility. “Indeed, the jury need
not believe all of a witness' testimony, but may accept only portions of it as true.” State v.
Raver, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 02AP–604, 2003–Ohio–958, ¶ 21 quoting State v. Antill,
176 Ohio St. 61, 67, 197 N.E.2d 548 (1964); State v. Burke, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 02AP–
1238, 2003–Ohio–2889 quoting State v. Caldwell, 79 Ohio App.3d 667, 607 N.E.2d 1096
(4th Dist. 1992) Although the evidence may have been circumstantial, we note that
circumstantial evidence has the same probative value as direct evidence. State v. Jenks,
supra.
{¶20} Morrison was charged with possession of methamphetamine, a violation of
R.C. 2925.11(A) and a fifth-degree felony. R.C. 2925.11(C)(1)(a). The statute states that
“no person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use a controlled substance or a controlled
substance analog.” Morrison does not contend that the material in the bag was not a
Licking County, Case No. 2021 CA 0020 7
controlled substance, nor does he directly state that the bag was not in his pocket, but he
claims that he did not know that he possessed methamphetamine. “[W]hether a person
acts knowingly can only be determined, absent a defendant's admission, from all the
surrounding facts and circumstances, including the doing of the act itself. Because the
intent of an accused person is only in his mind and is not ascertainable by another, it
cannot be proven by direct testimony of another person but must be determined from the
surrounding facts and circumstances. (Citations omitted.) State v. Huff, 145 Ohio App.3d
555, 563, 763 N.E.2d 695, 701 (1st Dist. 2001).
{¶21} In this case the focus is upon Morrison’s knowing, actual possession of
methamphetamine. "Actual possession exists when the circumstances indicate that an
individual has or had an item within his immediate physical possession." State v.
Kingsland, 177 Ohio App.3d 655, 2008-Ohio-4148, ¶ 13, 895 N.E.2d 633 (4th Dist.),
quoting State v. Fry, 4th Dist. Jackson No. 03CA26, 2004-Ohio-5747, ¶ 39. Whether a
defendant knowingly possessed a controlled substance "is to be determined from all the
attendant facts and circumstances available." State v. Teamer, 82 Ohio St.3d 490,492,
1998-Ohio-193, 696 N.E.2d 1049 (1998); accord State v. Corson, 4th Dist. Pickaway
No. 15CA4, 2015-Ohio-5332, ¶ 13.
{¶22} After review of the record, we find sufficient evidence from which the jury
could determine that Morrison knowingly possessed methamphetamine. The narcotic
was found in his possession shortly after he left a residence where narcotics had been
purchased by the authorities as part of an investigation. The jury had the opportunity to
view the cruiser video of the search of Morrison and could find that it did not show the
officer placing the drug in his pocket. Further, Morrison’s actions and statements provide
Licking County, Case No. 2021 CA 0020 8
a basis for a reasonable juror to doubt his protestation of innocence. He lied to the officer
when he told him that he had just left a friend’s home. He lied to the officer when he
denied that he had any drugs on his person. During his testimony he admitted that he lied
when faced with the consequences of his actions, and, when his counsel attempted to
limit his admission, he stated that he always lied when he was in trouble. Finally, the jury
may have interpreted his flight from Woodyard as exhibiting a consciousness of guilt.
{¶23} We find that this is not an ‘exceptional case in which the evidence weighs
heavily against the conviction.’ Thompkins, supra at 387. The jury neither lost his way
nor created a miscarriage of justice in convicting Morrison.
{¶24} Morrison’s assignment of error is denied and the decision of the Licking
County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Baldwin, P.J.
Hoffman, J. and
Delaney, J. concur.