[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 Logan 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-
