State v. Ridenbaugh , 2019 Ohio 3564 ( 2019 )

[Cite as State v. Ridenbaugh, 2019-Ohio-3564.]
COURT OF APPEALS
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
:
: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J.
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs- :
: Case No. 18-CA-96
:
TEDDY E. RIDENBAUGH, JR. :
:
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 18 CR 196
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 3, 2019
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant:
BILL HAYES KATHERINE L. WOLFE
LICKING COUNTY PROSECUTOR 1350 West Fifth Ave., Suite 330
Columbus, OH 43212
CLIFFORD J. MURPHY
20 North Second Street, 4th Floor
Newark, OH 43055
Licking County, Case No. 18-CA-96 2
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Teddy E. Ridenbaugh, Jr. appeals his conviction and
sentence by the Licking County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-Appellee is the State of
Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} On March 29, 2018, Defendant-Appellant Teddy E. Ridenbaugh, Jr. was
indicted by the Licking County Court of Common Pleas on one count of aggravated
possession of drugs (methamphetamine), a third-degree felony in violation of R.C.
2925.11(A)(C)(1)(b) and one count of possession of drugs (heroin), a fifth-degree felony
in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(6)(a). The counts carried a forfeiture specification (U.S.
currency) pursuant to R.C. 2941.1417(A) and 2981.02(A)(2).
{¶3} Ridenbaugh entered a plea of not guilty to the charges. The matter was
scheduled for a jury trial on August 8, 2018. Ridenbaugh moved for a continuance of the
trial date because on August 3, 2018, the State provided him with a police report by
Detective Kyle Boerstler. Det. Boerstler’s report contained a statement made by
Ridenbaugh at the time of his arrest where he allegedly confessed to the charged crimes.
The trial court granted the motion for continuance and continued the jury trial to
September 27, 2018.
{¶4} The matter came on for trial on September 27, 2018. The following evidence
was adduced at trial.
Ridenbaugh’s Arrest
{¶5} On October 19, 2017, detectives from the Central Ohio Drug Enforcement
Task Force (“CODE TF”) were conducting surveillance on 452 Woods Avenue located in
Licking County, Case No. 18-CA-96 3
Licking County, Ohio, for possible drug activity. Det. Tanner Vogelmeir of the Licking
County Sheriff’s Office assigned to CODE TF was driving a marked cruiser and was
notified that a male and female had exited the Wood Avenue residence, driving in a blue
Jeep Liberty in which the male was the passenger. Det. Vogelmeir observed the vehicle
and determined the male passenger matched the description for Ridenbaugh who had a
felony warrant for his arrest. Det. Vogelmeir stopped the Jeep Liberty and approached
the vehicle. He secured Ridenbaugh and searched him incident to his arrest. Det.
Vogelmeir found a knife, $510.00 in cash, and a blue key chain with multiple keys. He
seated Ridenbaugh in the back seat of the cruiser and Detectives Hoskinson, Boerstler,
and Green arrived at the scene. There was no dashcam or audio available of the stop
because of a technical malfunction.
{¶6} Det. Boerstler was advised to speak with Ridenbaugh, who agreed to speak
with the detective. Ridenbaugh had a brief conversation with Det. Boerstler. Det. Boerstler
testified that Ridenbaugh said he and his female companion were going to get something
to eat. The conversation then turned to Ridenbaugh’s drug supplier. Ridenbaugh
identified his drug supplier, where the drug supplier was located, and that Ridenbaugh
was getting an ounce of methamphetamine from the drug supplier for $700.00. Det.
Boerstler stated Ridenbaugh told him he was staying at the Woods Avenue residence
and the keys found on his person would fit in the padlock to Ridenbaugh’s room.
Ridenbaugh did not sign a statement or sign a Miranda waiver form.
{¶7} Det. Boerstler testified he was the only police officer to take Ridenbaugh’s
confession. Det. Boerstler recalled that he drafted his report, which included
Ridenbaugh’s statement, sometime around October 20, 2017. He did not know when his
Licking County, Case No. 18-CA-96 4
report was submitted to the State. It was pointed out that the first six sentences of his
report were identical to Det. Green’s report. It stated:
On 10/19, 2017, the Central Ohio Drug Enforcement Task Force --- and
then in parenthesis it says capital letters, CODE TF, CODE TF, received
information from a confidential source – in parenthesis it says CS, which
means confidential source, that Teddy Ridenbaugh was staying at 452
Woods Avenue. According to the CS, Ridenbaugh possessed a large
amount of Methamphetamine at this address and was an absconder from
the Ohio Department of Corrections. After receiving this information,
Ridenbaugh’s parole violation warrant was confirmed.
(T. 153).
{¶8} Out of the hearing of the jury, Ridenbaugh moved to call the prosecutor as
a witness because he felt the jury should hear that the State did not turn over Det.
Boerstler’s report until August 3, 2018. He argued the date the report was turned over
went to the witness’s credibility. The jury could draw an inference that the report was
inaccurate and Det. Boerstler’s testimony was unreliable. The trial court overruled the
motion to call the prosecutor as a witness and found the date the report was turned over
was irrelevant. The trial court noted the trial was originally scheduled for August 8, 2018.
It granted Ridenbaugh’s motion to continue the trial date to September 27, 2018 based
on the August 3, 2018 release of Det. Boerstler’s report. It further found it was improper
“to ask the jury to render a verdict against the State simply because they’re sloppy with
their discovery or they’re late in it, that’s not the basis for them to make a decision * * *.”
(T. 160).
Licking County, Case No. 18-CA-96 5
Search of the West Avenue Residence
{¶9} After Ridenbaugh’s arrest, a search warrant was obtained to search the
Woods Avenue residence. At the time of the execution of the search warrant, two adults
and two juveniles were in the home. The police officers found drugs throughout the home.
Ridenbaugh’s room was secured with a padlock. Det. Hoskinson testified he used the
keys found on Ridenbaugh during his arrest to open the padlock on the door. Upon entry
into the room, the police officers found drugs and drug paraphernalia. They found 7.72
grams of methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance, and 0.20 grams of
heroin, a Schedule I controlled substance. 0.20 grams of methamphetamine was found
in the first level of the home. No DNA or fingerprints were taken on the contents of the
room or drugs found in the room.
Jury Verdict
{¶10} The jury found Ridenbaugh guilty on one count of aggravated possession
of drugs (methamphetamine), a third-degree felony in violation of R.C.
2925.11(A)(C)(1)(b) and one count of possession of drugs (heroin), a fifth-degree felony
in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(6)(a). The jury found the $510.00 in cash was not
subject to forfeiture pursuant to R.C. 2941.1417(A) and 2981.02(A)(2). Via a sentencing
entry filed September 28, 2018, the trial court sentenced Ridenbaugh to two years on
count one and one year on count two, to be served consecutively. The trial court also
imposed one year of his post release control time, stemming from a prior charge, to be
served consecutively with counts one and two.
{¶11} It is from this conviction and sentence Ridenbaugh now appeals.
Licking County, Case No. 18-CA-96 6
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶12} Ridenbaugh raises three Assignments of Error:
{¶13} “I. THE TRIAL COURT DENIED APPELLANT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION WHEN IT DENIED HIS REQUEST TO CALL THE
PROSECUTOR AS A WITNESS.
{¶14} “II. THE JURY’S VERDICTS WERE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT
OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶15} “III. THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL WAS INSUFFICIENT TO
SUPPORT THE CONVICTIONS.”
ANALYSIS
I.
{¶16} In his first Assignment of Error, Ridenbaugh contends the trial court denied
his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when it denied his request to call the
prosecutor as a witness. We disagree.
{¶17} Det. Boerstler’s report contained Ridenbaugh’s statement that the keys in
his pocket opened the lock on the door to his room at Wood Avenue. Det. Boerstler
testified he did not know when his report was submitted to the State. Ridenbaugh filed his
initial discovery demand on March 29, 2018 and the State responded on April 27, 2018.
The State provided Det. Boerstler’s report to Ridenbaugh on August 3, 2018. Ridenbaugh
contended the date Det. Boerstler submitted his report to the State was relevant to the
detective’s credibility as a witness. Because Det. Boerstler did not know the date,
Ridenbaugh argued the prosecutor’s testimony as to the date it received Det. Boerstler’s
report was relevant evidence.
Licking County, Case No. 18-CA-96 7
{¶18} The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
* * * to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” State v. Hampton, 5th Dist. Stark
No. 2018 CA 00123, 2019-Ohio-2555, 2019 WL 2613341, ¶ 25 quoting State v. Anderson,
154 Ohio App.3d 789, 2003–Ohio–5439, 798 N.E.2d 1155, ¶ 22 (7th Dist.). Furthermore,
the Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 10, states in pertinent part: “* * * In any trial, in
any court, the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with
counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a
copy thereof; to meet the witnesses face to face * * *.”
{¶19} The admission or exclusion of relevant evidence rests in the sound
discretion of the trial court. State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173, 180, 510 N.E.2d 343 (1987).
As a general rule, all relevant evidence is admissible. Evid.R. 402; cf. Evid.R. 802. The
term “abuse of discretion” connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that
the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Wilmington Steel
Products, Inc. v. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co., 60 Ohio St.3d 120, 122, 573 N.E.2d 622, 624
(1991). Absent an abuse of discretion resulting in material prejudice to the defendant, a
reviewing court should be reluctant to interfere with a trial court's decision in this regard.
State v. Sage at 180.
{¶20} We find no abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny Ridenbaugh’s
motion to call the prosecutor as a witness. First, upon Ridenbaugh’s motion, the trial court
continued the original trial date to allow Ridenbaugh adequate time to review and respond
to Det. Boerstler’s report. Second, Ridenbaugh had the opportunity to cross-examine Det.
Boerstler regarding his interaction with Ridenbaugh and his subsequent report
Licking County, Case No. 18-CA-96 8
documenting the same. The jury was able to hear Det. Boerstler’s testimony and weigh
his credibility. Third, the trial court found that evidence of when the State received Det.
Boerstler’s report was not relevant to whether Ridenbaugh committed the offenses of
aggravated possession of drugs and possession of drugs. The evidence in this case
demonstrated Ridenbaugh was observed coming out of the Wood Avenue residence.
When he was arrested and searched incident to arrest, Det. Vogelmeir found a set of
keys in Ridenbaugh’s pocket. During the execution of the search warrant, the keys were
used to open the padlock on a door, wherein drugs were found.
{¶21} Ridenbaugh’s first Assignment of Error is overruled.
II. and III.
{¶22} Ridenbaugh argues in his second and third Assignments of Error that his
conviction for aggravated possession of drugs and possession of drugs were against the
manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence.
{¶23} The legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence
are both quantitatively and qualitatively different. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380,
1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541, paragraph two of the syllabus. The standard of review for
a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is set forth in State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d
259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991) at paragraph two of the syllabus, in which the Ohio Supreme
Court held, “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
Licking County, Case No. 18-CA-96 9
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.”
{¶24} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the
evidence, the court of appeals functions as the “thirteenth juror,” and after “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 clearly
lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must
be overturned and a new trial ordered.” State v. Thompkins, supra, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387.
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 conviction.” Id.
{¶25} Ridenbaugh was first convicted of aggravated possession of drugs
(methamphetamine), in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(1)(b). The statute reads:
(A) No person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use a controlled
substance or a controlled substance analog.
***
(C) Whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of one of the
following:
***
(1) If the drug involved in the violation is a compound, mixture, preparation,
or substance included in schedule I or II, with the exception of marihuana,
cocaine, L.S.D., heroin, any fentanyl-related compound, hashish, and any
controlled substance analog, whoever violates division (A) of this section is
Licking County, Case No. 18-CA-96 10
guilty of aggravated possession of drugs. The penalty for the offense shall
be determined as follows:
***
(b) If the amount of the drug involved equals or exceeds the bulk amount
but is less than five times the bulk amount, aggravated possession of drugs
is a felony of the third degree, and there is a presumption for a prison term
for the offense.
{¶26} Ridenbaugh was next convicted of possession of drugs (heroin), in violation
of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(6)(a). The statute reads:
(A) No person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use a controlled
substance or a controlled substance analog.
***
(C) Whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of one of the
following:
***
(6) If the drug involved in the violation is heroin or a compound, mixture,
preparation, or substance containing heroin, whoever violates division (A)
of this section is guilty of possession of heroin. The penalty for the offense
shall be determined as follows:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(6)(b), (c), (d), (e), or (f) of
this section, possession of heroin is a felony of the fifth degree, and division
(B) of section 2929.13 of the Revised Code applies in determining whether
to impose a prison term on the offender.
Licking County, Case No. 18-CA-96 11
{¶27} Ridenbaugh argues the evidence presented by the State failed to establish
he was in possession of methamphetamine or heroin. He states that while a set of keys
was found on his person during his arrest and those keys opened the padlocked door at
the West Avenue residence, there was no evidence the drugs found in the padlocked
room belonged to Ridenbaugh. The police did not obtain fingerprints or DNA evidence to
determine if the contents of the padlocked room belonged to Ridenbaugh. Multiple
occupants and drugs were found throughout the West Avenue residence. Ridenbaugh
argues the only evidence connecting the drugs to him was the testimony of Det. Boerstler
that Ridenbaugh confessed the padlocked room at the West Avenue residence was his.
Ridenbaugh contends Det. Boerstler’s testimony was unreliable.
{¶28} The evidence in this case established Ridenbaugh was observed coming
out of the West Avenue residence and he was arrested shortly thereafter. After
Ridenbaugh’s arrest, Det. Vogelmeir searched him and found a set of keys in his pocket.
Det. Boerstler, who was present at Ridenbaugh’s stop and arrest, testified Ridenbaugh
told him the keys would open the padlock to his room at the West Avenue residence.
During the execution of the search warrant, the keys opened a padlocked door at the
West Avenue residence. Inside the room with the padlocked door was methamphetamine
and heroin.
{¶29} If the State relies on circumstantial evidence to prove an essential element
of an offense, it is not necessary for “ ‘such evidence to be irreconcilable with any
reasonable theory of innocence in order to support a conviction.’ “ State v. Crist, 5th Dist.
Fairfield No. 15-CA-63, 2016-Ohio-7750, 2016 WL 6695996, ¶ 39 quoting State v. Jenks,
61 Ohio St.3d 259, 272, 574 N.E.2d 492(1991) at paragraph one of the syllabus. “
Licking County, Case No. 18-CA-96 12
‘Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence inherently possess the same probative
value [.]’ “ Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d at paragraph one of the syllabus. Furthermore, “ ‘[s]ince
circumstantial evidence and direct evidence are indistinguishable so far as the jury's fact-
finding function is concerned, all that is required of the jury is that i[t] weigh all of the
evidence, direct and circumstantial, against the standard of proof beyond a reasonable
doubt.’ “ Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d at 272, 574 N.E.2d 492. While inferences cannot be based
on inferences, a number of conclusions can result from the same set of facts. State v.
Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 168, 555 N.E.2d 293 (1990), citing Hurt v. Charles J. Rogers
Transp. Co., 164 Ohio St. 329, 331, 130 N.E.2d 820(1955). Moreover, a series of facts
and circumstances can be employed by a jury as the basis for its ultimate conclusions in
a case. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d at 168, 555 N.E.2d 293, citing Hurt, 164 Ohio St. at 331, 130
N.E.2d 820.
{¶30} The jury had the opportunity to consider Det. Vogelmeir and Det. Boerstler’s
testimony. The jury could reasonably infer that the set of keys found in Ridenbaugh’s
pocket belonged to Ridenbaugh. Ridenbaugh was seen coming out of the West Avenue
residence and the keys opened a padlocked door at the West Avenue residence. It was
a reasonable inference that the padlocked room at the West Avenue residence belonged
to Ridenbaugh because the set of keys found in his pocket opened the padlock.
{¶31} The jury verdict finding Ridenbaugh guilty of aggravated possession of
drugs and possession of drugs was not against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the
evidence. Ridenbaugh’s second and third Assignments of Error are overruled.
Licking County, Case No. 18-CA-96 13
CONCLUSION
{¶32} The judgment of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Delaney, J.,
Gwin, P.J. and
Wise, John, J., concur.