State v. Delrossi , 2014 Ohio 4457 ( 2014 )

[Cite as State v. Delrossi, 2014-Ohio-4457.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 26943
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
JERRI L. DELROSSI COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. CR 12 10 3061 (B)
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: October 8, 2014
BELFANCE, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Jerri L. Delrossi appeals from judgments of the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.
I.
{¶2} Late in the evening on October 27, 2012, police, including Officer Brent
Bauknecht of the Akron Police Department, stopped and searched a vehicle which contained
items associated with manufacturing methamphetamine. Because of the presence of items
associated with manufacturing methamphetamine, the officers called Officer David Crockett,
who was a member of the Clandestine Laboratory Enforcement Team, to assist them with the
investigation.
{¶3} Officer Crockett received consent from the occupants of the vehicle, John Gargus
and a woman, to search their home at 100 Willard. At 100 Willard, officers found additional
items associated with the manufacture of methamphetamine. Also while at 100 Willard,
2
someone brought up the name of Wendy Jacobs, who had an outstanding misdemeanor arrest
warrant and was believed to reside at 92 Willard, which was next door. Additionally, officers
also received information that there was a possible methamphetamine lab at 92 Willard.
{¶4} Thus, when officers saw someone outside 92 Willard in the early morning hours
of October 28, 2012, they proceeded over to investigate. Officer Bauknecht testified that, “[a]s
[officers] approached [92 Willard], somebody threw down a gun, and another person ran inside
the house and slammed the door.” Police demanded that the individuals come out, and a female,
Angelica Hoysak,1 a resident of 92 Willard, answered the door. Ultimately, police entered the
home and found methamphetamine as well as numerous items associated with and used in the
manufacture of methamphetamine. Police arrested the three residents of the house: Ms. Hoysak,
Ms. Jacobs and Dale Connell, who was dating Ms. Hoysak. Additionally, police arrested the
other people who were present in the house: Jack Blaurock, Jericho Hill, Michael Morlock, and
Ms. Delrossi.
{¶5} In November 2012, Ms. Delrossi was indicted on one count of illegal manufacture
of drugs (methamphetamine) in violation of R.C. 2925.04(A), a felony of the second degree, and
one count of illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs in
violation of R.C. 2925.041(A), a felony of the third degree. The indictment specified that the
crimes took place “on or about the 28th day of October 2012[.]” The matter proceeded to a joint
trial with Ms. Delrossi’s codefendant, Mr. Morlock. A jury found Ms. Delrossi guilty of both
counts. The trial court found the offenses to be allied, and the State elected to sentence Ms.
Delrossi on the count for the illegal manufacture of drugs. Ms. Delrossi was sentenced to three
years in prison.
1
Ms. Hoysak’s name is spelled three different ways in the record. For consistency, this
Court will use the spelling Ms. Hoysak gave at trial.
3
{¶6} Ms. Delrossi has appealed, raising three assignments of error for our review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
APPELLANT’S CONVICTION WAS BASED UPON INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN CONVICTION. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY
DENYING APPELLANT’S CRIM.R. 29 MOTION.
{¶7} Ms. Delrossi asserts in her first assignment of error that her convictions are based
upon insufficient evidence, essentially arguing that there was no evidence that on or about
October 28, 2012, Ms. Delrossi possessed chemicals or participated in the manufacture of
methamphetamines.
{¶8} “We review a denial of a defendant’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal by
assessing the sufficiency of the State’s evidence.” State v. Slevin, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25956,
2012-Ohio-2043, ¶ 15. Whether a conviction is based on sufficient evidence is a question of law
that this Court reviews de novo. State v. Williams, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24731, 2009-Ohio-
6955, ¶ 18, citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St. 3d 380, 386 (1997). The relevant inquiry is
whether the State has met its burden of production by presenting sufficient evidence to sustain a
conviction. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St. 3d at 390 (Cook, J. concurring). When a defendant
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not evaluate credibility; rather, the Court must
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 evidence in a
light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found
the essential elements of crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St. 3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶9} Ms. Delrossi was found guilty of violating R.C. 2925.04(A), which states that
“[n]o person shall * * * knowingly manufacture or otherwise engage in any part of the
4
production of a controlled substance.” R.C. 2925.01(J) defines manufacture as “to plant,
cultivate, harvest, process, make, prepare, or otherwise engage in any part of the production of a
drug, by propagation, extraction, chemical synthesis, or compounding, or any combination of the
same, and includes packaging, repackaging, labeling, and other activities incident to production.”
Additionally, she was found guilty of violating R.C. 2925.041(A), which provides that “[n]o
person shall knowingly assemble or possess one or more chemicals that may be used to
manufacture a controlled substance in schedule I or II with the intent to manufacture a controlled
substance in schedule I or II in violation of section 2925.04 of the Revised Code.” R.C.
2925.041(B) provides that,
[i]n a prosecution under this section, it is not necessary to allege or prove that the
offender assembled or possessed all chemicals necessary to manufacture a
controlled substance in schedule I or II. The assembly or possession of a single
chemical that may be used in the manufacture of a controlled substance in
schedule I or II, with the intent to manufacture a controlled substance in either
schedule, is sufficient to violate this section.
{¶10} Possession or possess “means having control over a thing or substance, but may
not be inferred solely from mere access to the thing or substance through ownership or
occupation of the premises upon which the thing or substance is found.” R.C. 2925.01(K). “A
‘controlled substance’ is ‘a drug, compound, mixture, preparation, or substance included in
schedule I, II, III, IV, or V.’ R.C. 3719.01(C). Methamphetamine is classified as a controlled
substance. R.C. 3719.41 Schedule II(C)(2).” State v. Gerhart, 9th Dist. Summit 24384, 2009-
Ohio-4165, ¶ 13.
{¶11} At trial, only three people testified: Ms. Hoysak, Officer Bauknecht, and Officer
Crockett.
{¶12} Officer Crockett testified about the manufacturing process of methamphetamine
via the “shake and bake” method involved in this case. Officer Crockett explained that there are
5
two phases to the process. The first involves taking the lithium strips from the inside of
batteries, ammonium nitrate (which is found inside cold packs), lye/drain cleaner, Coleman fuel,
and crushed pseudoephedrine pills and putting them all in a two-liter plastic bottle and shaking
them for anywhere from 40 minutes to an hour. Pressure from the toxic ammonia gas building
up inside the container has to be released periodically during the process. A liquid “meth oil” is
thereby created which is siphoned off using coffee filters. The next phase, called “gassing[,]”
involves placing the meth oil in a glass jar and using the gas created from either muriatic acid
and aluminum foil or sulfuric acid and salt to crystalize the methamphetamine. Tubing is used to
introduce the gas into the meth oil. The crystalized methamphetamine is then poured on to
coffee filters and allowed to dry.
{¶13} Officer Crockett explained that, because some methamphetamine will become
trapped in the fibers of the coffee filters, people will put the coffee filters in their drinks to
extract more methamphetamine or will use water or isopropyl alcohol to extract the last traces of
methamphetamine. Officer Crockett could not remember whether this method of further
extraction was used by the occupants of 92 Willard, although Ms. Hoysak admitted to using it.
{¶14} Officer Crockett also described the hazardous nature of the chemicals involved in
and created from manufacturing methamphetamine. Many of them are toxic and some are also
fire hazards. For instance, if the lithium from the batteries is exposed to any moisture, it will
ignite. The sludge created from the manufacturing process that would need to be disposed of
would also include many hazardous chemicals.
{¶15} Ms. Hoysak testified that she began using methamphetamine in November 2011
through an ex-boyfriend. Also in November 2011, she met Mr. Connell, who cooked
methamphetamine using the “shake and bake” method. Sometime thereafter, the two began
6
dating, and Ms. Hoysak moved in with him at 92 Willard in August 2012. At some point, prior
to the events in this case, Ms. Hoysak was arrested with her ex-boyfriend after items used in the
manufacture of methamphetamine were found in a car.2 Mr. Hoysak went to jail for a period of
time and then briefly stayed with her mom prior to moving back in with Mr. Connell in
September 2012. In September 2012, Ms. Jacobs, an ex-girlfriend of Mr. Connell, was also
living at 92 Willard. According to Ms. Hoysak, Mr. Connell would make methamphetamine
both in and outside the residence. Ms. Hoysak testified that she would buy ingredients used to
make methamphetamine, watch Mr. Connell make methamphetamine, and also help in the
manufacturing process. She stated that, in exchange for buying supplies, she would receive
methamphetamine or money. Ms. Hoysak testified that the waste created from the
manufacturing process would be put in trash bags, sealed (to prevent it from catching fire), and
would then be taken out and put in someone else’s trash. Taking the trash out not only reduced
the fire risk to the property but also got rid of some of the evidence. She testified that she had
taken the trash out before.
{¶16} Ms. Hoysak and Mr. Connell were friends with the residents of 100 Willard, and
she testified that sometimes they would go over to 100 Willard and Mr. Connell would cook with
John Gargus, whom Mr. Connell taught to manufacture methamphetamine. Ms. Hoysak
indicated that sometimes Mr. Gargus would use their supplies to manufacture methamphetamine.
{¶17} Ms. Hoysak met Ms. Delrossi and Mr. Morlock sometime around August 2012,
and they became friends. She indicated that Ms. Delrossi and Mr. Morlock were a couple and
that they would come over to get high. Ms. Hoysak stated that Ms. Delrossi would give Mr.
Connell money, Sudafed, or chemicals (such as cold packs) in exchange for methamphetamine.
2
Ms. Hoysak ultimately pleaded guilty and was out on bond at the time of the October
28, 2012 raid on 92 Willard.
7
Mr. Morlock would also give cold packs or Sudafed in exchange for methamphetamine. Ms.
Hoysak averred that Mr. Morlock and Ms. Delrossi brought the Sudafed or cold packs over 5 or
6 times in the month prior to the raid at 92 Willard; however, there was no testimony that Ms.
Delrossi or Mr. Morlock brought over any chemicals on or about October 28, 2012. Ms. Hoysak
indicated that Ms. Delrossi and Mr. Morlock would bring the ingredients over, leave, and then
Ms. Hoysak or Mr. Connell would call them a few hours later when the methamphetamine was
made. Ms. Delrossi and Mr. Morlock would then return and they would get high. Sometimes
Ms. Delrossi and Mr. Morlock would take the trash out from these cooks and sometimes Ms.
Hoysak would. Notably, there was no testimony that Ms. Delrossi or Mr. Morlock took the trash
out on or about October 28, 2012.
{¶18} Ms. Hoysak testified that, on October 28, 2012, she observed Jordan Strange call
Ms. Delrossi and ask for a ride home. Accordingly, it was Ms. Hoysak’s testimony that that was
the reason Ms. Delrossi and Mr. Morlock were at 92 Willard on October 28, 2012, i.e. to give
Mr. Strange a ride. However, at the point in time that they arrived at 92 Willard, Mr. Strange
was at 100 Willard, “probably getting his stuff ready.” Also present at 92 Willard that early
morning were Mr. Hill, Mr. Blaurock, Ms. Hoysak, Ms. Jacobs, and Mr. Connell. At the time,
Ms. Jacobs was sleeping in her room. Mr. Blaurock had brought over Sudafed and guns to trade
for methamphetamine and was about to leave with Mr. Hill when police came over to the house.
Ms. Hoysak testified that, while methamphetamine was not manufactured in the house that day,
there were approximately 3 grams from the prior cook and they were planning to get high when
police came in. Mr. Connell had lined up four lines of methamphetamine on the speaker, one
each for himself, Ms. Hoysak, Ms. Delrossi, and Mr. Morlock. When police arrived, Mr. Connell
fled to the basement and hid, and Mr. Morlock blew the lines of methamphetamine off the
8
speaker. Near where Ms. Delrossi and Mr. Morlock were sitting, a pink pouch containing straws
and an Altoids container and a Diablo scale were found. Ms. Hoysak identified the pink pouch,
the Altoids container, and the scale as belonging to Ms. Delrossi. Inside the Altoids container
was a vial of methamphetamine, a pen used in snorting or smoking methamphetamine, and a
knife used to cut up methamphetamine. Additionally, there was testimony that isopropyl alcohol
was found within the vicinity of Ms. Delrossi and Mr. Morlock; however, it is not clear if this
bottle was the same bottle later attributed to Mr. Connell.
{¶19} Officer Crockett proceeded downstairs and encountered a strong ammonia smell
coming from the basement. There he found Mr. Connell in the process of attempting to discard a
box of pseudoephedrine pills. In addition, in his search of the house, Officer Crockett found
several pills and other items used to manufacture in the basement which was
where [Mr. Connell] was. There was a garbage bag. Inside that garbage bag was
actually the contents from an ammonium nitrate [(shake and bake)] cook * * *.
We also found several snorting straws, digital scales, methamphetamine, remnants
of meth lab being the trash from a meth lab inside the house and outside in the
garbage.
{¶20} In the kitchen/dining area, police found a bag containing unopened lithium
batteries. There was also a pipe cutter, electrical tape, and a pair of pliers. Additionally, there
was a bottle of isopropyl alcohol containing a green liquid that police learned that Mr. Connell
used “to put on his head because he thought he had worms in his head.” A grinder used to chop
up pseudoephedrine pills, portions of batteries, and empty battery boxes were found in the
basement. In unspecified locations, police found coffee filters that were still wet and stained,
snort straws, a bottle with tubing, cold pack boxes, mason jars, measuring cups, twisted
aluminum foil, multiple cans of Coleman fuel, a Hawaiian Punch bottle that had trace amounts of
manufacturing waste in it, and empty cold packs. In the kitchen cabinet in a Kraft parmesan
cheese container police found a mixture of ammonium nitrate and lye. Based upon everything
9
found in the house, Officer Crockett believed that methamphetamines were last manufactured in
that house “[t]hrough a couple weeks period.” He later specified that he thought
methamphetamine was manufactured at 92 Willard within a day or two of October 28, 2012,
based upon the condition of the materials found.
{¶21} Ms. Hoysak estimated that Mr. Connell last made methamphetamine within a few
days of October 28, 2012, and the last batch could have possibly been made on October 26,
2012. However, Ms. Hoysak could not remember with certainty the last time Ms. Delrossi and
Mr. Morlock were at 92 Willard. She estimated that they were last there over a week prior to
October 28, 2012, but it may have been longer than that. Ms. Hoysak also estimated that the last
time Ms. Delrossi and Mr. Morlock brought ingredients over to make methamphetamine was two
weeks prior to October 28, 2012, and that Mr. Connell would have used the ingredients that same
day in making methamphetamine.
{¶22} Initially, when questioned by police, Ms. Hoysak denied Ms. Delrossi’s and Mr.
Morlock’s involvement with the methamphetamine production. At trial, she indicated that she
did so because they were her friends and because Mr. Morlock was in a motorcycle gang and she
was afraid of possible repercussions if she were to implicate him. Ms. Hoysak ultimately agreed
to testify truthfully against Ms. Delrossi and Mr. Morlock in exchange for a guilty plea to
attempted manufacturing. She received a suspended sentence for her role in the events of
October 28, 2012.
{¶23} During her interview with police, Ms. Delrossi stated that she was at 92 Willard
that day “to pick up a third party who wasn’t even at the house.” Ms. Delrossi denied any role in
manufacturing methamphetamine and denied knowing that a meth lab was in the house, but she
did admit to using methamphetamines. She also admitted to being at both 92 and 100 Willard a
10
few times in the past month. Police suspected, however, that Ms. Delrossi was a “Smurf[,]”
someone who would buy chemicals used to make methamphetamine for the manufacturer in
exchange for money or methamphetamine, and so the officer asked if Ms. Delrossi had
purchased any pseudoephedrine. Ms. Delrossi admitted that police would find her name on
pharmacy logbooks which record pseudoephedrine purchases, but specified that the purchases
were made for her child’s allergies. There was no time frame indicating when these purchases
would have taken place. Later in the interview, Ms. Delrossi indicated that she had a suspicion
that Mr. Connell may have been cooking methamphetamine in the house.
{¶24} This Court is well aware that “‘[o]rdinarily the precise dates and times are not
essential elements of the offense[] and a certain degree of inexactitude of averments, where it
relates to matters other than elements of the offense, is not fatal to the prosecution.’” State v.
Forney, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24361, 2009-Ohio-2999, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Adams, 5th Dist.
Licking No. 02-CA-00043, 2002-Ohio-5953, ¶ 8, citing State v. Sellards, 17 Ohio St. 3d 169, 171
(1985). “The State is only required to prove that the offense occurred reasonably near the date
specified in the indictment.” Forney at ¶ 10. Thus, when a specific date is stated in an
indictment and the indictment is not later amended, courts do examine whether the evidence
supports a finding of guilt on a date reasonably near the specified date. See State v. Sicilian, 10th
Dist. Franklin No. 93AP-467, 1993 WL 524869, *3 (Dec. 14, 1993) (“[D]efendant stood charged
with having violated the statute on or around December 10, 1987. Even if the date is not an
essential element of the offense, the indictment is meant to apprise defendant of the approximate
date on which the offense allegedly occurred. The evidence does not support her having violated
R.C. 2905.04 at any time in the vicinity of December 10, 1987[.]”); In re T.K., 2d Dist.
Montgomery No. 24613, 2011-Ohio-5024, ¶ 18-20; State v. McGill, 2d Dist. Greene No.
11
99CA25, 2000 WL 1803650, *3-*6 (Dec. 8, 2000); State v. Scruggs, 136 Ohio App. 3d 631, 635-
636 (2d Dist.2000); State v. Ruff, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 39-CA-01, 1992 WL 319000, *4-*5
(Nov. 2, 1992) (concluding the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence where the
indictment specified a particular date, the medical evidence did not support the conclusion that
the crime occurred on that date, and the State did not allege in the indictment that the offense
“occurred on more than one occasion over an extended period of time[]”).
{¶25} Here, while the State did try to amend the indictment to include the month prior to
the October 28, 2012 raid, the trial court denied that motion. The propriety of the trial court’s
ruling is not before this Court on appeal. Thus, the State was left with an indictment that stated
the crimes at issue occurred on or about October 28, 2012. Additionally, we note that the State’s
motion for a jury instruction on complicity was denied. Therefore, this Court must consider
whether sufficient evidence exists whereby a reasonable trier of fact could conclude beyond a
reasonable doubt that, on or about October 28, 2012, Ms. Delrossi knowingly possessed “one or
more chemicals that may be used to manufacture a controlled substance in schedule I or II with
the intent to manufacture a controlled substance in schedule I or II in violation of section
2925.04 of the Revised Code.” R.C. 2925.041(A). Additionally, we must consider whether on
or about that same date the evidence supports her conviction for the illegal manufacture of
methamphetamine in violation of R.C. 2925.04.
{¶26} Even after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we
cannot say that the State met its burden. We cannot say that the State demonstrated that, on or
about October 28, 2012, Ms. Delrossi either “knowingly * * * possess[ed] one or more chemicals
that may be used to manufacture [methamphetamine] with the intent to manufacture
[methamphetamine,]” R.C. 2925.041(A), or “knowingly manufacture[d] or otherwise engage[d]
12
in any part of the production of [methamphetamine].” R.C. 2925.04(A). There was no evidence
that methamphetamine was being made or disposed of on October 28, 2012. See State v. Myers,
9th Dist. Summit No. 23435, 2007-Ohio-2737, ¶ 17 (including disposal as part of the
manufacturing process). Nor was there any evidence that Ms. Delrossi possessed or assembled
any chemical on or about October 28, 2012. And while there was evidence that
methamphetamines were being manufactured at 92 Willard as recently as a couple days prior to
October 28, 2012, a time period that could possibly fall within on or about October 28, 2012,
there was no evidence that Ms. Delrossi was involved or engaged in that production. Ms.
Hoysak was never specifically asked whether Ms. Delrossi and Mr. Morlock were present or
participating in the last cook. The testimony she gave was that Ms. Delrossi and Mr. Morlock
were last at 92 Willard at least a week before October 28, 2012. Thus, there was no evidence
that Ms. Delrossi and Mr. Morlock were at 92 Willard the last time methamphetamine was
manufactured there several days prior. Further, there was not even evidence that the supplies
used in the most recent cook, occurring several days before October 28, 2012, were purchased or
supplied by Ms. Delrossi.3 Thus, we cannot say there was sufficient evidence to convict Ms.
Delrossi of manufacturing methamphetamine on or about October 28, 2012.
{¶27} With respect to the conviction for violating R.C. 2925.041, we also conclude there
was insufficient evidence to conclude Ms. Delrossi “knowingly * * * possess[ed] one or more
chemicals that may be used to manufacture [methamphetamine] with the intent to manufacture
[methamphetamine]” on or about October 28, 2012. R.C. 2925.041(A). There was no evidence
that, on or about October 28, 2012, Ms. Delrossi possessed any chemicals or supplied any
3
Likewise, there was no evidence that Ms. Delrossi disposed of methamphetamine waste
on or about October 28, 2102. Ms. Hoysak stated that Ms. Delrossi had disposed of
methamphetamine waste on more than one occasion during the month prior to October 28, 2012.
However, there was no testimony she did so on or about October 28, 2012.
13
chemicals to make methamphetamine to Mr. Connell or anyone at 92 Willard. The testimony
was that, when Ms. Delrossi came over to 92 Willard, she did not have any chemicals used to
make methamphetamines with her, and there was no evidence to the contrary. Ms. Hoysak
testified that the last time Ms. Delrossi and Mr. Morlock brought over chemicals used in the
manufacture of methamphetamine was two weeks prior to October 28, 2012.
{¶28} The State argues that, because there were left over chemicals at 92 Willard on
October 28, 2012, and there was testimony that Ms. Delrossi and Mr. Morlock brought over
supplies to make methamphetamine 5 or 6 times in the month prior to October 28, 2012, then it
is reasonable to conclude that the leftover supplies were those Ms. Delrossi or Mr. Morlock
purchased and that they were used in the manufacture or illegal assembly on or about October
28, 2012. There was no evidence to support this theory. Neither Ms. Hoysak nor any other
witness testified that the items found in the premises were the items Ms. Delrossi had supplied.
Instead, the State’s argument relies entirely upon speculation. There was no testimony that the
products found during the October 28, 2012 raid were assembled or possessed by Ms. Delrossi.
We note that there was testimony that other people brought over supplies to make
methamphetamine at 92 Willard and that sometimes the supplies at 92 Willard were used by Mr.
Gargus in his cooks at 100 Willard. However, there was no evidence that linked the chemicals
found at 92 Willard as having been assembled or possessed by Ms. Delrossi. Accordingly, we
conclude that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that, on or about October 28, 2012,
Ms. Delrossi violated R.C. 2925.041(A).
{¶29} In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the State failed to present sufficient
evidence that, on or about October 28, 2012, Ms. Delrossi violated either R.C. 2925.04 or R.C.
2925.041(A). Ms. Delrossi’s first assignment of error is sustained.
14
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE JURY VERDICT IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE
EVIDENCE.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
THE VERDICT FORMS ARE CONTRARY TO LAW AND INSUFFICIENT
ON THEIR FACE TO DEMONSTRATE GUILT OF THE OFFENSES
CHARGED.
{¶30} Based upon our resolution of Ms. Delrossi’s first assignment of error, her second
and third assignments of error are moot, and we decline to address them. See App.R.
12(A)(1)(c).
III.
{¶31} In light of the foregoing, we sustain Ms. Delrossi’s first assignment of error and
remand the matter so that the record can reflect the same. The judgment of the Summit County
Court of Common Pleas is reversed.
Judgment reversed,
and cause remanded.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
15
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellee.
EVE V. BELFANCE
FOR THE COURT
MOORE, J.
CONCURS.
CARR, J.
DISSENTING.
{¶32} I respectfully dissent. I would conclude, based on the evidence presented, that the
State presented sufficient evidence to prove that Delrossi possessed chemicals and participated in
the manufacture of methamphetamine on or about October 28, 2012.
{¶33} During the State’s case-in-chief, Ms. Hoysak testified that she, Delrossi, and
Michael Morlock would routinely provide various ingredients necessary for the production of
methamphetamine in exchange for some of the finished product. After dropping off the
ingredients, Delrossi and Morlock would leave until they received a call a few hours later
informing them that the methamphetamine had been made. They would then return to the
residence to use their share of the drugs. When the police entered the residence early in the
morning on October 28, 2012, they saw four lines of methamphetamine laid out on a speaker
where Delrossi, Morlock, Hoysak, and another man were preparing to use the drugs. The
reasonable inference to be drawn from Ms. Hoysak’s testimony is that Delrossi had possessed
and provided chemicals for the manufacture of the methamphetamine that she was about to use
16
that morning. Although Ms. Hoysak testified that no one had cooked methamphetamine at the
residence that day, it is reasonable to infer that Delrossi, who was paid for providing chemicals
with a portion of the manufactured drug, had very recently possessed and provided chemicals for
this batch. The evidence demonstrated that it takes only a few hours to produce
methamphetamine. Delrossi returned to the residence early in the morning of October 28, 2012,
and was preparing to use the drugs. The reasonable inference is that she had provided the
chemicals sometime within the last day, and she had returned to collect her fee in kind.
Accordingly, I would conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to prove that Delrossi
possessed chemicals and participated in the manufacture of methamphetamine on or about
October 28, 2012. Therefore, I would overrule the first assignment of error and address the
remaining assignments of error.
APPEARANCES:
ALAN M. MEDVICK, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.