[Cite as State v. Perenkovich,
2025-Ohio-521.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
STATE OF OHIO : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
: Hon. Michael D. Hess, V.J.
Plaintiff-Appellant : Hon. Jason P. Smith, V.J.
:
-vs- : Judge Hess and Judge Smith
: Sitting by Assignment of the
NICOLE PERENKOVICH : Supreme Court of Ohio
:
Defendant-Appellee : Case No. 2024 CA 00046
:
:
: OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from the Stark County
Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 23-CR-
2195
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 13, 2025
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
KYLE L. STONE JACOB T. WILL
Prosecuting Attorney 121 South Main Street, Suite 520
BY: LISA A. NEMES Akron, OH 44308
Assistant Prosecutor
110 Central Plaza South, Ste. 510
Canton, OH 44702-1413
Stark County, Case No. 2024 CA 00026 2
Hess,V.J.,
{¶1} Appellant Nicole Perenkovich appeals her conviction and sentence from the
Stark County Court of Common Pleas. Appellee is the State of Ohio.
Facts & Procedural History
{¶2} Appellant was indicted by the Stark County Grand Jury on September 27,
2023, on the following charges: Count One – aggravated trafficking in drugs, in violation
of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2)(C)(1)(e), a felony of the first degree and Count Two – aggravated
possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(1)(d), a felony of the first degree.
Appellant entered a plea of not guilty to both charges.
{¶3} A jury trial was held in November of 2023 on the charges. However, it ended
in a mistrial when the jurors inadvertently were able to access information on an exhibit
(cell phone) that was not properly entered into evidence. Accordingly, the trial court re-
set the matter for trial.
{¶4} Counsel for appellant filed a motion to suppress on February 8, 2024,
seeking to suppress “the use of any evidence obtained during the search of [appellant’s]
home and vehicle on September 18, 2023” because officers entered and searched her
home and vehicle without permission or a warrant.
{¶5} On February 16, 2024, the trial court denied appellant’s motion to suppress.
The trial court found: when appellant met with her parole officer in front of her residence,
she admitted to smoking methamphetamines, and also had a pipe in her purse that she
used to smoke methamphetamines; her statements amounted to a violation of her parole
and triggered a proper search of appellant’s residence, person, and vehicle; it was only
after appellant made those admissions to her parole officer that he contacted other
Stark County, Case No. 2024 CA 00026 3
officers to assist due to his safety; and appellant previously signed a “conditions of
supervision” document in which appellant agreed “to the warrantless search of [her]
person, motor vehicle, place of residence, personal property, or property that I have been
given permission to use, by my supervision officer or other authorized personnel of the
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections at any time.”
{¶6} A jury trial was held from February 21 to February 22, 2024.
{¶7} Officer Dominic Paolucci is a parole officer with the State of Ohio and is on
the FBI Safe Streets Task Force. Paolucci supervises appellant’s probation. He met with
appellant on September 18, 2023, after contacting her to let her know he was going to
meet with her. Appellant initially was not at the home but pulled up in a silver sedan.
Appellant and Paolucci then entered the house. When they spoke in the living room,
Paolucci noticed appellant was speaking very fast. He asked appellant if she had used
any illegal drugs. Appellant admitted to using methamphetamine. Once appellant
admitted she used methamphetamine, she was in violation of her conditions of probation,
and thus Paolucci needed to conduct a “parole search” of her residence.
{¶8} As the conversation continued, appellant admitted to having a pipe in her
purse. Paolucci then radioed to other officers that he needed assistance. Agent Logan
Barnhill, Officer Jordan Shank, and Officer Jason Gerber conducted the search. While
they conducted the search, Paolucci was keeping watch of appellant since she was not
handcuffed. A scale was found in appellant’s home, and a bag of crystal-like substance
was found in her car. They also found three cellphones: one in appellant’s purse, one on
the coffee table in the living room of appellant’s home, and one in appellant’s vehicle.
Paolucci felt the scales and multiple cell phones were indicative of drug use.
Stark County, Case No. 2024 CA 00026 4
{¶9} On cross-examination, Paolucci testified he was not wearing a body
camera, and that when he reviewed the contents of one of the phones, he did not see
any conversations about drug sales or drug use on the phone.
{¶10} Jordan Shank of the Canton Police Department and the FBI Safe Streets
Taskforce was initially down the street when Paolucci made contact with appellant and
observed appellant pull into her driveway in a silver Chevy Malibu. He observed appellant
get out of the Chevy Malibu. He went to appellant’s home once Paolucci radioed that he
needed assistance with a parole violation search. Shank searched the one bedroom that
was in use and found a digital scale containing a crystal-like substance on the nightstand.
Shank testified a digital scale is indicative of both drug using and drug trafficking. Shank
located cell phones within some bins in the bedroom, but they were not taken into
evidence. Shank confirmed a bag containing two additional clear bags with
methamphetamine were located in the silver Chevy Malibu. Shank believes the amount
found is indicative of a drug trafficker. Shank testified to multiple cell phones found at the
scene. One phone was found in the glove box in the Chevy Malibu, one was found in the
living room of appellant’s home, and one found in appellant’s purse. Shank stated
multiple cell phones are indicative of drug trafficking.
{¶11} Shank transported appellant to the jail. During that ride, appellant asked to
make a phone call, which he permitted. While taking on the phone, appellant stated,
“Yeah they found it … Yeah, in my Malibu.” A week later, Shank listened to a recorded
phone call during which appellant stated the methamphetamine was hers and she gives
it to the people she associates with. During a second jail call, appellant was trying to get
someone to delete items from a phone.
Stark County, Case No. 2024 CA 00026 5
{¶12} Search warrants were obtained for the cell phones collected at the scene.
When Shank started to describe photos found on the living room phone, counsel for
appellant objected, stating the photographs were not properly authenticated because
Shank viewed the photos via a “photo dump” or a “data dump.” Counsel for appellee
stated Shank did not view the photographs as part of a “photo dump,” but rather he was
the one who actually viewed the photographs on the phone. Counsel for appellant stated,
“so he’s the guy that went through the phone?” Counsel for appellee answered, “Yeah,
and he’ll be able to testify to these.” No further discussion was held and the trial resumed.
{¶13} Shank testified Exhibits 8A, 8B, and 8C were “screen grabs” from the phone
of a thread within an app called Signal, which is an encrypted app often used to prevent
law enforcement from observing the messages. On September 17, a day prior to
appellant meeting with Paolucci, there were messages stating, “Ok money’s in the driver’s
door in the middle where the Walmart sign is lit up,” “Put it in there like in the passenger’s
seat or something, then cover it up with that Panda Express bag and then just lock the
driver’s door all the other doors are locked just press the actual lock down,” and “Hand-
to-hand is bad in North Canton.” Based on his training and experience, Shank interpreted
these messages as appellant directing the individual where to “drop the dope off” and
how to secure the vehicle. Officers located a Panda Express bag in the Chevy Malibu.
The methamphetamine was located in the Panda Express bag.
{¶14} Shank stated Exhibits 9A, 9B, 9C, and 9D were photos from the living room
phone. The photos were: a selfie of appellant with an African American male, a
photograph of appellant’s social security card, and a photograph of appellant’s state
identification. Shank testified Exhibits 10A, 10B, and 10C were photographs of a text
Stark County, Case No. 2024 CA 00026 6
thread on the living room phone on both September 17 and September 18 talking about
“half a pound in the house,” which is consistent with the amount of methamphetamine
found in the Chevy Malibu. Shank confirmed the photographs and messages were fair
and accurate representations of what they purportedly depict.
{¶15} On cross-examination, Shank stated that he did not contact the phone
company to determine who the phones were registered to. Also on cross-examination,
counsel for appellant introduced photographs taken from the living room phone and asked
Shank about the photographs because the photographs displayed individuals other than
appellant.
{¶16} FBI Agent Logan Barnhill is assigned to the FBI Safe Streets Task Force.
Initially, Barnhill was stationed down the street from appellant’s house on September 19,
2023. Barnhill observed appellant arrive at her residence in a silver Chevy Malibu. He
saw appellant exit the vehicle and proceed to make contact with Paolucci. After Paolucci
called for the parole violation search, Barnhill searched the Chevy Malibu. He located a
bag of methamphetamine in the front passenger area and a cellphone in the glove
compartment.
{¶17} Alexis Kimble, a forensic scientist from the Stark County Crime Laboratory,
tested the substance the officers found in the Chevy Malibu. She determined the
substance to be a total of 231 grams of methamphetamine. The bulk amount of
methamphetamine is 3 grams. She testified the digital scale had traces of
methamphetamine.
Stark County, Case No. 2024 CA 00026 7
{¶18} Larry Mackey, a forensic scientist at the Stark County Crime Laboratory,
reviewed evidence for fingerprints. He did not find any fingerprints on the plastic bags
containing the methamphetamine, which is common.
{¶19} At the close of appellee’s case, appellee introduced their exhibits into
evidence. Counsel for appellant did not object to the admission of Exhibits 8A-C, Exhibits
9A-D, or Exhibits 10-A-C. Counsel for appellee objected to the admission of State’s
Exhibit 12, a copy of a text message from the phone found in the car. Counsel argued it
was not authenticated by the officer or appellant. The trial court admittee Exhibit 12 over
appellant’s objection. Appellant made a Criminal Rule 29 motion. The trial court
overruled the motion.
{¶20} Diedre Patterson, appellant’s mother, testified she believes the drugs
located at appellant’s home and in the car belong to her stepdaughter. Further, that both
appellant and her stepdaughter had access to the Chevy Malibu in September of 2023,
during which time Patterson was the registered owner of the vehicle. On cross-
examination, Patterson testified she never contacted either the police or the FBI with any
of the information she testified to at the trial.
{¶21} Appellant testified that while she owned the home, her sister lived with her
in September of 2023. Appellant stated while she was driving the Chevy Malibu on
September 18, she had not previously used it that weekend. Appellant was on parole for
2019 aggravated drug trafficking and aggravated drug possession convictions at the time
of her arrest in this case. Appellant admitted she told Paolucci she had a pipe in her
purse and admitted to him she was getting high. Appellant testified the drugs and phone
found in the car were her sister’s, and that the exhibits introduced by counsel for appellee
Stark County, Case No. 2024 CA 00026 8
were not from her phone. Appellant admitted the scale and the shards found on the pipe
in her purse were her drugs, but testified she was not selling drugs. Counsel for appellant
renewed the Criminal Rule 29 motion at the conclusion of appellant’s case. The trial court
denied the motion.
{¶22} The jury found appellant guilty of: aggravated trafficking of drugs pursuant
to R.C. 2925.03(A)(2)(C)(1)(e), with the additional finding that the amount of
methamphetamine equaled or exceeded fifty times the bulk amount but was less than
one hundred times the bulk amount, and aggravated possession of drugs pursuant to
R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(1)(d), with the additional finding that the amount of
methamphetamine equaled or exceeded fifty times the bulk amount but less than one
hundred times the bulk amount.
{¶23} The trial court sentenced appellant on March 4, 2024, to a minimum eight-
year, maximum twelve-year prison term. The trial court issued a judgment of conviction
and sentencing entry on March 11, 2024.
{¶24} Appellant appeals her conviction and assigns the following as error:
{¶25} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SUBMITTING UNAUTHENTICATED
DOCUMENTS INTO EVIDENCE.
{¶26} II. APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
TRIAL COUNSEL.
{¶27} III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PREVENTING THE DEFENSE FROM
PRESENTING A DEFENSE TO THE CRIMES CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT.”
Stark County, Case No. 2024 CA 00026 9
I.
{¶28} In her first assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court committed
error in submitting “unauthenticated documents” into evidence. Specifically, appellant
contends State’s Exhibits 8A-8C, 9A-9D, and 10A-10C were not properly authenticated
because no testimony was offered about the phone numbers and no testimony was
offered regarding any attempts made by law enforcement to locate the individuals
involved in the conversations. Further, that the State improperly used photographs of a
writing, rather than the actual text message, to prove the content of the text message.
Appellant also cites to her own testimony that the phone at issue with the photographs
and messages contained on it did not belong to her, and argues that, due to her testimony,
the exhibits were not properly authenticated.
{¶29} The admission or exclusion of evidence lies in a trial court’s sound
discretion “so long as such discretion is exercised in line with the rules of procedure and
evidence.” Rigby v. Lake County, 58 Ohio St.3d 269 (1991); State v. Sage,
31 Ohio St.3d
173 (1987).
{¶30} Under Evidence Rule 901(A), “the requirement of authentication or
identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient
to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” This rule
invokes a very low threshold standard, requiring only sufficient foundational evidence for
the trier of fact to conclude that the item is what the proponent claims it to be. State v.
Nigro, 2022-Ohio-2864 (5th Dist.). This standard is less demanding than the
preponderance of the evidence standard.
Id. The proponent must demonstrate only a
“reasonable likelihood” that the evidence is authentic, which may be supplied by the
Stark County, Case No. 2024 CA 00026 10
testimony of a witness with knowledge. Id.; Evid. Rule 901(B). “Circumstantial, as well
as direct, evidence may be used to show authenticity.”
Id.
{¶31} Due to the low threshold for admissibility, this Court has found that there
are a multitude of ways in which cell phone text messages are authenticated by the
testimony of the recipient; however, this is by no means the only method of authentication.
State v. Nigro, 2022-Ohio-2864 (5th Dist.).
{¶32} Appellant argues that since her trial counsel objected to use of the
photographs and text messages, we should review the assignment of error under an
abuse of discretion standard. Appellee contends we should review the assignment of
error under a plain error review. Counsel for appellant did object to Shank’s testimony
with regards to these text messages and exhibits, stating there was not a proper
foundation laid for the testimony of the officer because the messages and photographs
came from a “photo dump.” Counsel for appellee explained that the exhibits were not the
actual phone data, and were not obtained via a “photo dump.” Rather, they were pictures
of the phone screen taken by Shank himself. Counsel for appellee stated Shank “was
the guy that went through the phone.” Counsel for appellant made no further arguments
and the trial court did not actually rule on the objection. Additionally, at the close of the
State’s case-in-chief, the State offered into evidence the photographs of the text
messages to which Shank testified and appellant did not object to the admission of these
exhibits.
{¶33} We find that under either scenario (either a plain error analysis or an abuse
of discretion analysis), the text messages and photographs were properly authenticated
pursuant to Evidence Rule 901(A)-(B).
Stark County, Case No. 2024 CA 00026 11
{¶34} Shank testified that the exhibits contained photographs of text messages
and images Shank himself took from the living room phone the officers collected during
the search of appellant’s home. The officers testified that, during the search, appellant
admitted that both of the phones found in the house (the living room phone and the phone
in her purse) were hers, but denied ownership of the phone found in the Chevy Malibu.
At trial, appellant disputed claiming ownership of the living room phone, and testified it
belonged to her sister. Shank testified that, after the search, he took custody of the
evidence and transported appellant to the jail. He obtained search warrants for the three
cell phones and was able to access the contents of the living room phone.
{¶35} Shank possessed personal knowledge that the photographs were taken
from the screen of a phone collected from appellant’s living room during the search.
Shank also established that the phone from the living room table held personal
identification and photographs linking the phone to appellant. State v. Fannon, 2018-
Ohio-5242 (4th Dist.) (text messages properly authenticated when an officer testified she
retrieved and identified the messages from the phone and she sufficiently linked the
defendant to the phone containing the text messages in question); State v. Norris, (text
messages properly authenticated when state presented testimony and evidence that
sufficiently linked appellant to the phone that contained the messages at issue). This
evidence was not obtained via a “photo dump” or “data dump,” but rather from Shank
himself testifying that he obtained the images from the phone during the investigation.
{¶36} Shank testified the State’s exhibits contained photographs of text messages
and photographs he obtained from the phone laying on appellant’s living room coffee
table. Thus, Shank properly authenticated the text messages and photographs under
Stark County, Case No. 2024 CA 00026 12
Evidence Rule 901(A) (“the requirement of authentication or identification as a condition
precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
matter in question is what its proponent claims”) and Evidence Rule 901(B)(1) (evidence
can be authenticated by testimony of a witness with knowledge who testifies that a matter
is what it is claimed to be). Shank had personal knowledge that the photographs of the
text messages and photographs were from a phone found during the search of appellant’s
home. See State v. Norris, 2016-Ohio-5729 (2nd Dist.); State v. Shaw,
2013-Ohio-5292
(7th Dist.) (photographs can be admissible as an admission of party-opponent under
Evidence Rule 801(D)(2) if they are properly authenticated). Thus, Shank properly
authenticated the photographs of the text messages.
{¶37} These facts are sufficient to overcome the low bar of authenticity imposed
by Evidence Rule 901. Any argument regarding the quality of the evidence goes to its
weight and persuasiveness and does not support appellant’s argument the text messages
and photographs should have been excluded. Specifically, appellant’s argument that
there was a lack of proof that she had actually sent the text message or photographs
concerns the weight of the evidence, rather than its authenticity. State v. Sherman, 2016-
Ohio-4967 (5th Dist.).
{¶38} As to appellant’s argument that the exhibits violated Evidence Rule 1002
because they “used photographs of a writing” instead of the actual text messages,
appellant did not object to the evidence on these grounds at trial, either during Shank’s
testimony or when the exhibits were entered into evidence. Thus, appellant forfeited all
but plain error, but neglected to develop a plain error argument on appeal. State v. Gillard,
2023-Ohio-2682 (5th Dist.).
Stark County, Case No. 2024 CA 00026 13
{¶39} Additionally, we note that counsel for appellant cross-examined Shank
regarding the photographs of the contents of the phone, as well as his knowledge of and
efforts to determine who owned and operated each of the phones. Appellant also
presented evidence (Defense Exhibits A-C) through Shank, relying on the same
authentication process appellant now challenges. Appellant relied on Shank’s testimony
to authenticate photographs coming from the image gallery of the living room phone.
{¶40} Appellant’s first assignment of error is overruled.
II.
{¶41} In her second assignment of error, appellant contends her trial counsel was
ineffective for two reasons. First, because the motion to suppress failed to address newly-
discovered evidence. Second, because trial counsel failed to object to hearsay testimony.
{¶42} To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must
demonstrate: (1) deficient performance by counsel, i.e., that counsel’s performance fell
below an objective standard of reasonable representation, and (2) that counsel’s errors
prejudiced the defendant, i.e., a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s errors, the
result of the trial would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668
(1984); State v. Bradley,
42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989). “Reasonable probability” is
“probability sufficient to undermine the confidence in the outcome.”
Id.
{¶43} Because there are countless ways to provide effective assistance in any
given case, judicial scrutiny of a lawyer’s performance must be highly deferential. Id.
“Decisions on strategy and trial tactics are granted wide latitude of professional judgment,
and it is not the duty of a reviewing court to analyze trial counsel’s legal tactics and
maneuvers.” State v. Quinones,
2014-Ohio-5544 (5th Dist.).
Stark County, Case No. 2024 CA 00026 14
{¶44} Appellant argues her trial counsel was ineffective for the failure to
specifically move to suppress the “new evidence” found after the mistrial, specifically the
text messages introduced by the State in Exhibits, 8A-C, 9A-9D, and 10A-C. “Counsel
can only be found ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress if, based on the record,
the motion would have been granted.” State v. Sinclair, 2020-Ohio-4860 (5th Dist.).
{¶45} We first note that counsel did file a motion to suppress, seeking to suppress
the “use of any evidence obtained during the search of appellant’s home and vehicle on
September 18, 2023.” Exhibits 8A-C, 9A-D, and 10A-C were obtained from a phone found
during the search of appellant’s home on September 18, 2023. Accordingly, counsel did
file a motion to suppress with regards to this evidence. Further, we find, based upon the
record, that the motion would not have been granted. As detailed in Assignment of Error
I, we found the trial court did not commit error in admitting the evidence because Shank
properly authenticated the evidence.
{¶46} Second, appellant argues her trial counsel improperly failed to object to the
contents of the text messages on a hearsay basis because the State failed to provide any
testimony from the cellular phone service provider.
{¶47} Trial courts are “vested with broad discretion in determining the admissibility
of evidence in any particular case,” including rulings on hearsay. Rigby v. Lake Cty., 58
Ohio St.3d 269 (1991). Evidence or testimony falling within the definition of “hearsay is
generally not admissible unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions.” Evidence
Rule 802. Several hearsay exceptions can apply to text messages, including text
messages “involving a statement by a party opponent.” State v. Norris,
2016-Ohio-5729
(2nd Dist.).
Stark County, Case No. 2024 CA 00026 15
{¶48} While appellant argues that the “unavailability of the declarant-recipient of
the text message was never addressed by the trial counsel or the court,” she does not
explain how Evidence Rule 804, or the availability of a declarant of text messages, would
have supported an objection to the admissibility of the text messages. As we found in
Assignment of Error I, Shank, based on his personal knowledge, properly authenticated
the photographs of the text messages and images, and linked them to appellant. This is
not a case where appellee sought to introduce phone records or data that would have
required identification from a source familiar with such records. Rather, in this case, the
witness identified the photographs or screenshots based on personal knowledge. The
images in the case (photograph of appellant and her boyfriend, photographs of appellant’s
social security and identification cards) are not statements. Thus, they are not hearsay.
The photographs of the text messages are either: (1) subject to the party-opponent
exception to the hearsay doctrine or (2) statements not offered for the truth of the matter
asserted, but rather to put the text messages into context. Id.; State v. Williams, 38 Ohio
St.3d 346 (1988).
{¶49} Accordingly, we find appellant has failed to demonstrate either deficient
performance by trial counsel or that trial counsel’s errors prejudiced appellant.
Appellant’s second assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶50} In her third assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court committed
error in preventing appellant from presenting a defense to the crimes charged in the
indictment.
Stark County, Case No. 2024 CA 00026 16
{¶51} The Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a “meaningful opportunity
to present a complete defense.” State v. Swann, 2008-Ohio-4837. However, this
constitutional right is not absolute and “does not require the admission of all evidence
favorable to the defendant.”
Id. “State and federal rulemakers have broad latitude under
the Constitution to establish rules excluding evidence from criminal trials. Such rules do
not abridge an accused’s right to present a defense so long as they are not ‘arbitrary’ or
‘disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve.’” Rock v. Arkansas,
483
U.S. 44 (1987).
{¶52} The first portion of appellant’s argument focused on appellant’s first trial.
However, that trial ended in a mistrial, and an entirely new trial was held. The second
portion of appellant’s argument is that she was prevented by the trial court from testifying
that when Shank was advised of Mr. McQuain’s (appellant’s sister’s boyfriend) potential
involvement with the case, Shank told appellant to “call [McQuain] and tell him to come
get his drugs.” The trial court sustained the State’s objection as to that testimony based
on hearsay, but permitted appellant to discuss, in detail, further information about other
potential suspects and the officers’ interactions with her. Subsequent to the trial court
sustaining this objection as to one-line of testimony, counsel for appellant did not offer
any argument in response to the objection, nor did appellant proffer evidence or attempt
to explain the relevance or admissibility of her intended testimony.
{¶53} Normally, an appellate court need not consider error that was not called to
the attention of the trial court at a time when the error could have been avoided or
corrected by the trial court. State v. Williams, 51 Ohio St.2d 112 (1977). Accordingly, a
claim of error in such a situation is usually deemed to be waived absent plain error.
Stark County, Case No. 2024 CA 00026 17
Criminal Rule 52(B). Appellant did not raise plain error with respect to any of the
testimony. Because she does not claim plain error on appeal, we need not consider it.
State v. Gillard,
2023-Ohio-2682 (5th Dist.).
{¶54} However, even if we were to consider appellant’s argument, she would not
prevail. In a plain error argument, appellant bears the burden to show that, but for a plain
or obvious error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, and reversal
must be necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice. State v. Quarterman,
2014-Ohio-4034.
{¶55} Appellant contends that because the trial court struck this sentence of her
testimony, she was prevented from providing testimony about potential alternate suspects
responsible for the methamphetamine. However, appellant was permitted to testify that
her sister stayed at the home and had access to the car, the phone with the text messages
and photos on them was her sister’s, and that her sister’s boyfriend lived in the home and
had access to the car. Further, Patterson was permitted to testify about appellant’s
sister’s continuing drug problems. Accordingly, we find appellant was permitted to
provide detailed evidence about potential other suspects. It is apparent from the facts
presented at trial that appellant cannot demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for
the exclusion or striking of the one sentence of her testimony about a potential other
suspect, the jury would have acquitted her on the charges. There is no manifest
miscarriage of justice in this case. Further, the trial court did not apply any rules that were
“arbitrary” or “disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve.”
{¶56} Appellant’s third assignment of error is overruled.
Stark County, Case No. 2024 CA 00026 18
{¶57} Based on the foregoing, appellant’s assignments of error are overruled.
The conviction and sentence entered by the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is
affirmed.
By Smith, V.J.,
Hoffman, P.J., and
Hess, V.J., concur
