[Cite as State v. Staats,
2025-Ohio-2823.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, Case No. 2024CA00169
Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry
-vs- Appeal from the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 2024-CRVERONICA LYNN STAATS, 1214A
Defendant – Appellant Judgment: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry: August 8, 2025
BEFORE: Craig R. Baldwin; Andrew J. King; Robert G. Montgomery, Appellate Judges
APPEARANCES: VICKI L. DESANTIS, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for PlaintiffAppellee; AARON KOVALCHIK, for Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION
Baldwin, P.J.
{¶1} The appellant, Veronica Lynn Staats, appeals her conviction and sentence
for Aggravated Possession of Drugs and Failure to Comply with an Order or Signal of a
Police Officer in the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio. The appellee is the
State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE CASE
{¶2} On July 3, 2024, the Stark County Grand Jury indicted the appellant for
Aggravated Possession of Drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), and Failure to Comply
with an Order or Signal of a Police Officer, in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B).
{¶3} On July 12, 2024, the appellant entered a plea of not guilty.
{¶4} On September 16, 2024, the matter proceeded to a jury trial.
{¶5} At trial, Officer Hunter Anthony of the Massillon Police Department testified
that, while driving in Massillon, the appellant made eye contact with him, appeared
nervous, and eyed each police officer who was with Officer Anthony. He observed the
appellant fail to use a turn signal while making a turn. Officer Anthony activated his
overhead lights to initiate a traffic stop. The appellant did not stop. Eventually, Officer
Anthony activated his sirens, which the appellant continued to ignore. Officer Anthony
checked the registration on the vehicle. The registration check revealed that the vehicle
was registered to the appellant, who had a suspended license and outstanding warrants.
{¶6} During the pursuit, the appellant slowed down to let a passenger exit the
vehicle and then continued to flee. Officer Anthony’s dashboard camera captured the
events. Officer Anthony stayed with the passenger, who was found in possession of
narcotics both on his person and in his backpack. Officer Anthony identified the appellant
as the driver.
{¶7} Next, Officer Zachary Chambliss, also of the Massillon Police Department,
testified that he responded to Officer Anthony’s call for assistance. Officers broke off the
pursuit of the appellant due to concerns over public safety. They later located the vehicle
and began to establish a two-block perimeter. Officer Chambliss located the appellant,
identified her, and placed her in cuffs.
{¶8} Officer Kathryn Smart of the Massillon Police Department testified that she
responded to a call regarding the pursuit. After police placed the appellant under arrest,
Officer Smart searched the appellant’s person and her backpack. Inside her backpack,
the officers discovered a pipe with white residue used to inhale illegal substances, a
teaspoon with white residue, and an unlabeled pill bottle containing marijuana.
{¶9} Next, Detective Aaron Franklin of the Massillon Police Department testified
that he responded to a call about the pursuit and joined. He activated his lights and sirens,
but the appellant continued at a high rate of speed, running at least one stop sign. The
detective terminated his pursuit due to concerns for public safety.
{¶10} Detective Matthew Kruger, also of the Massillon Police Department, was
not involved in the pursuit of the appellant. He arrived on the scene after the vehicle had
been located. He searched the appellant’s vehicle and found about one ounce of
methamphetamine, a digital scale, and several plastic baggies in a black magnetic box
under the passenger seat, accessible from the driver’s seat. The appellant told Detective
Kruger that the amount of methamphetamine recovered from the vehicle would keep her
high for a couple of weeks and that methamphetamine was her current drug of choice.
{¶11} Finally, Alexis Kimble of the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab testified that
the substance recovered from the appellant’s vehicle was over twenty-two grams of
methamphetamine, more than seven times the bulk amount.
{¶12} The State rested its case.
{¶13} The appellant presented no evidence.
{¶14} The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the charges of Aggravated
Possession of Drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and Failure to Comply with an Order
or Signal of a Police Officer, in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B).
{¶15} The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and raised the following
assignment of error:
{¶16} “I. APPELLANT’S CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.”
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶17} The appellant challenges her convictions as against the manifest weight of
the evidence.
{¶18} Manifest weight of the evidence addresses the evidence’s effect of inducing
belief. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St. 3d 380 (1997). The Court stated:
Weight of the evidence concerns “the inclination of the greater
amount of credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the
issue rather than the other. It indicates clearly to the jury that the party
having the burden of proof will be entitled to their verdict, if, on weighing the
evidence in their minds, they shall find the greater amount of credible
evidence sustains the issue which is to be established before them. Weight
is not a question of mathematics, but depends on its effect in inducing
belief.” (Emphasis added.) Black’s, supra, at 1594.
Id. at 387.
{¶19} The Court stated further:
When a court of appeals reverses a judgment of a trial court on the
basis that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the
appellate court sits as a “ ‘thirteenth juror’ ” and disagrees with the fact
finder’s resolution of the conflicting testimony. Tibbs, 457 U.S. at 42, 102
S.Ct. at 2218, 72 L.Ed.2d at 661. See, also, State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio
App.3d 172, 175, 20 OBR 215, 219,
485 N.E.2d 717, 720-721 (“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 clearly lost its way and created
such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed
and a new trial ordered. 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.
“…[I]n determining whether the judgment below is manifestly
against the weight of the evidence, every reasonable intendment and every
reasonable presumption must be made in favor of the judgment and the
finding of facts. …
“If the evidence is susceptible of more than one construction, the
reviewing court is bound to give it that interpretation which is consistent with
the verdict and judgment, most favorable to sustaining the verdict and
judgment.”
Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80 (1984), fn. 3, quoting 5 Ohio
Jurisprudence 3d, Appellate Review Section 60, at 191-192 (1978).
ANALYSIS
{¶20} R.C. 2925.11(A) states,
“No person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use a controlled substance
or a controlled substance analog.”
{¶21} “Possession” 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).
“Possession may be actual or constructive.” State v. Ward, 2022-Ohio-3884, ¶17 (5th
Dist.). Constructive possession may be proven solely by circumstantial evidence. State
v. Myles,
2020-Ohio-3323, ¶31 (3rd Dist.). The prosecution may demonstrate constructive
possession by showing that the person had knowledge of the object which she is alleged
to have possessed. State v. McDermott,
2002-Ohio-6982, ¶22 (5th Dist.). An individual’s
knowledge of contraband may be inferred from her deceptive behaviors in her interaction
with the police. State v. Davis,
2022-Ohio-577, ¶27 (5th Dist.). Attendant facts and
circumstances are evidence of whether a defendant had constructive possession of an
object. State v. King,
2011-Ohio-3323, ¶27 (5th Dist.).
{¶22} R.C. 2921.331 states, in pertinent part:
(B) No person shall operate a motor vehicle so as willfully to elude or flee a
police officer after receiving a visible or audible signal from a police officer to bring
the person’s motor vehicle to a stop
…
(C)(5)(a) A violation of division (B) of this section is a felony of the third
degree if the jury or judge as trier of fact finds any of the following by proof beyond
a reasonable doubt.
…
(ii) The operation of the motor vehicle by the offender caused a substantial
risk of serious physical harm to persons or property.
{¶23} In the case sub judice, the State presented evidence that the appellant
ignored officers’ signals to pull over, ran at least one stop sign, and traveled at a high rate
of speed through Massillon at four o’clock in the afternoon. Officer Smart testified she
was driving sixty miles per hour in pursuit of the appellant in excess of the posted twenty-
five-mile-per-hour speed limit before terminating her pursuit. Law enforcement had to end
their pursuit of the appellant due to concerns for public safety.
{¶24} The appellant was identified as driving the vehicle. During the pursuit, she
slowed to let her passenger flee on foot. Officers found over twenty-two grams of
methamphetamine in a small container under the passenger seat, readily accessible from
the driver’s seat. The appellant was observed making furtive movements when she
realized police were watching her. Additionally, officers found a meth pipe and a teaspoon
in the backpack the appellant carried. Both had a white residue on them. During an
interview with police, the appellant admitted that the meth pipe belonged to her and that
methamphetamine was her current drug of choice. She stated that the amount of
methamphetamine found in the vehicle would keep her high for a couple of weeks.
{¶25} Our review of the record fails to persuade us that the jury lost its way and
created a manifest miscarriage of justice. The appellant was not convicted against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶26} Accordingly, the appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
CONCLUSION
{¶27} Based upon the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of
Stark County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.
{¶28} Costs to Appellant.
By: Baldwin, P.J.
King, J. and
Montgomery, J. concur.
