State v. Arcaro

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Ohio » 11th District Court of Appeals » 2013 » State v. Arcaro

State v. Arcaro

State: Ohio

Court: Ohio Southern District Court

Docket No: 2013-Ohio-1842

Case Date: 05/06/2013

Plaintiff: State

Defendant: Arcaro

Preview:[Cite as State v. Arcaro, 2013-Ohio-1842.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO,                                                                                   :      O P I N I O N
Plaintiff-Appellee,                                                                              :
                                                                                                        CASE NO.  2012-A-0028
- vs -                                                                                           :
CHESTER A. ARCARO, III,                                                                          :
Defendant-Appellant.                                                                             :
Criminal Appeal from the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, Case No.                        2011
CR 499.
Judgment:   Affirmed.
Thomas  L.  Sartini,  Ashtabula  County  Prosecutor,  and  Shelley  M.  Pratt,  Assistant
Prosecutor, Ashtabula County Courthouse, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH
44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Michael A. Hiener, P.O. Box 1, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Defendant-Appellant).
DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.
{¶1}   Defendant-appellant,  Chester  A.  Arcaro,  III,  appeals  his  conviction,
following  a  jury  trial  in  the  Ashtabula  County  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  for  Illegal
Manufacture of Methamphetamine.    The issues to be determined by this court are
whether  trial  counsel  is  ineffective  when  he  elicits  testimony  detrimental  to  the
defendant during cross-examination of a witness and whether a conviction for Illegal
Manufacture of Methamphetamine is supported by the evidence when a witness who
was using drugs and who gave testimony in exchange for leniency was the only witness

who testified to seeing the defendant manufacturing the methamphetamine.   For the
following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
{¶2}   On December 15, 2011, the Ashtabula County Grand Jury indicted Arcaro
on  one  count  of  Illegal  Manufacture  of  Methamphetamine,  a  felony  of  the  second
degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.04(A) and (C)(3)(a).
{¶3}   A jury trial was held in this matter on June  5-8,  2012.    The following
pertinent testimony and evidence was presented.
{¶4}   Conneaut  Patrolman  Timothy  Rose  testified  regarding  the  events  that
occurred  on  October  22,  2011,  leading  to  the  present  charge  against  Arcaro.    At
approximately 2:00 a.m., he noticed a vehicle, containing a female driver and a male
passenger making “suspicious maneuvers.”   After the driver failed to use a turn signal,
Patrolman Rose initiated a traffic stop.   Shianne Schaffer was the driver of the car.
Soon  after  the  stop  ended,  Patrolman  Rose  observed  Schaffer’s  car  at  Fuller
Apartments in Conneaut, Ohio.   It was parked in front of Apartment 8, which was known
to be occupied by Marissa Marcy.    Patrolman Rose suspected drug activity in that
apartment from prior interactions, and decided to conduct surveillance.
{¶5}   While  watching  the  apartment,  Patrolman  Rose  noticed  two  males
carrying plastic grocery bags exit the apartment, one wearing all camouflage and the
other wearing a dark hoodie and shorts.   After awhile, the two men returned to the
apartment without the bags.   The two men exited again, and returned a short period of
time later.   Patrolman Rose subsequently saw them exit a third time, carrying two white
garbage bags.   The men threw both bags in the dumpster.   Patrolman Rose removed
the bags from the dumpster and took them to the police station.   Upon removing items
2

from the bags, he believed several of the items were consistent with those used in the
production of methamphetamine.   In the first bag were a box of CVS Cold Relief tablets,
which contain pseudoephedrine, several pieces of plastic bag tied into small knots, a
cold compress that was torn open, empty syringes, and small pieces of cut drinking
straws.                                                                                        In   the   second   bag,   there   were   filtration   masks,   another   box   of
pseudoephedrine, coffee filters, an acorn shaped  “plastic novelty container,” lithium
batteries that had been torn open, and soaked paper towels with a chemical odor, which
Patrolman Rose believed to be methamphetamine.
{¶6}   While at the station, Patrolman Rose received notification that a traffic
stop had been conducted by Patrolman Brian Distelrath, who had also been conducting
surveillance of the apartment.    Patrolman Rose went to the site of the stop, where
Schaffer was again the driver.   Also inside of the car were Arcaro, Billy Googe, and
Brandon Haley.     Patrolman Rose identified Arcaro as being one of the men he had
seen at the apartment throwing away trash bags, and explained that he recognized him
because he was wearing the same clothing.   Arcaro had in his possession an acorn-
shaped container, similar to the one found in the garbage bags, that had a chemical
odor inside, as well as a walkie talkie.   Patrolman Rose had his dog conduct an “open-
air sniff” outside of the car, and it alerted at the rear passenger door, where Arcaro was
sitting.   Located inside of the car were a digital scale, syringes, coffee filters, plastic
baggies,   a   vial   with   methamphetamine,   and   a                                        “shopping   list”   containing
methamphetamine manufacturing ingredients.   Under the hood of the car, a plastic key
holder wrapped with blue tape was found, containing methamphetamine, which was still
wet.
3

{¶7}   A subsequent search of Marcy’s apartment revealed a meth lab, which
included a green soda bottle containing a white substance.    A backpack inside the
apartment also contained butane and a funnel.   Various paraphernalia, including pipes
and cut straws, were found in the apartment.   A camouflage jacket with a walkie talkie,
identical to the one carried by Arcaro, was also found.
{¶8}   Conneaut Patrolman Brian Distelrath was called to assist Patrolman Rose
on the surveillance of Marcy’s apartment on October 22.   He also witnessed the two
men exiting the apartment and throwing away the garbage bags.   He remained at the
apartment after Patrolman Rose left.   He later saw one female and three males exit the
apartment and get into Schaffer’s car.   Before entering, one male placed something
under the hood of the car.   Patrolman Distelrath followed the car and initiated a traffic
stop.
{¶9}   Conneaut  Patrolman  Denny  Moore,  a  certified  methamphetamine  lab
technician,   testified   regarding   his   experience   and   training   in   the   area   of
methamphetamine.   He explained the process for manufacturing methamphetamine and
noted the process often involves more than one person, due to the steps that must be
taken.   He explained that many of the items found in the garbage bags retrieved by
Patrolman Rose were consistent with those used to make methamphetamine, including
the lithium batteries, the opened ice packs, and the coffee filters.   He testified that the
methamphetamine found in the hood of the car appeared to be “freshly made.”
{¶10}  Upon conducting a search of Marcy’s apartment, Patrolman Moore noted
the smell of methamphetamine inside and saw a meth lab.   This consisted of a soda
bottle with pseudoephedrine and lithium inside.   There was also a gas generator, which
4

was still emitting gas at the time of the search.   He explained various other items used
for making methamphetamine were found in the apartment.   No fingerprint analysis was
done on the various items and there was nothing to directly show the items belonged to
Arcaro.
{¶11}  Marissa Marcy, Arcaro’s friend and a resident of the apartment where the
meth lab was found, testified regarding the events surrounding the night of October 22.
On the prior day, she purchased pseudoephedrine and gave it to Arcaro.   She testified
that he was going to use it to make meth, and she was going to receive some in
exchange for the pseudoephedrine.   She explained that Arcaro brought Googe over to
her apartment to make drugs on October  22 and that they were in her apartment
“cooking meth” when she returned from a bar.   She saw Arcaro shaking the bottle used
to make the meth and also saw him  “smoking it,” or releasing smoke from it in the
process of cooking.   She asked Arcaro and Googe to leave and they took with them
some of the items used to make the meth.   Arcaro told Marcy that he had brought the
items used to make the meth with him.    She saw Arcaro use a scale to weigh out
methamphetamine, she purchased some, and Arcaro took some with him when leaving
the apartment.
{¶12}  On cross-examination, Marcy admitted that she was under the influence of
methamphetamine on October 22.   She also explained that in her initial statement to
police, she said that “Billy [Googe] was the only person I observed cooking meth” and
testified that this had been an untrue statement.   She also admitted that she made an
untrue statement to police when she stated that items used to manufacture meth found
in  her  apartment  were  Googe’s,  since  they  also  belonged  to  Arcaro.    She  later
5

explained that she initially did not talk to police about Arcaro’s involvement because he
was her friend and she did not want to get him in trouble.    She explained that the
methamphetamine  she  had  taken  on  that  date  had  clouded  her  judgment  and
perception.
{¶13}  Marcy also admitted that she pled guilty to charges related to this case
and that the prosecutor’s recommendation for her sentence was conditioned upon her
testifying against Arcaro.   She did state, however, that she was testifying against Arcaro
because “it was the right thing to do.”
{¶14}  At the conclusion of the State’s case, the defense called Patrolman Rose
as a witness.   He confirmed that during the interview, Marcy stated that Googe was the
one cooking meth.   He explained that she was not cooperative in providing information
about Arcaro at that time.
{¶15}  On June  8,  2012, the jury found Arcaro guilty of Illegal Manufacture of
Methamphetamine, a felony of the second degree.   This verdict was memorialized in the
trial court’s June 11, 2012 Judgment Entry.
{¶16}  Following a sentencing hearing on June 22, 2012, a Judgment Entry of
Sentence was issued by the trial court.   Arcaro was ordered to serve a term of six years
of imprisonment and to pay court costs.
                                                                                              {¶17}  Arcaro timely appeals and raises the following assignments of error:
{¶18}                                                                                         “[1.]   Appellant’s trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
{¶19}                                                                                         “[2.] The verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence and the
sufficiency of the evidence.”
6

{¶20}  In his first assignment of error, Arcaro asserts that his trial counsel was
ineffective  because  he  elicited  damaging  testimony  from  Marcy  during  cross-
examination, allowed her to repeat such information, and  “spent more time eliciting
damaging testimony against Appellant than the prosecutor did.”   He provides as an
example  that  counsel  asked  where  the  items  used  for  the  manufacture  of  the
methamphetamine came from, and she responded that Arcaro said he brought them.
Also,   defense   counsel   asked   if   Marcy   heard   a   conversation   regarding
methamphetamines being made in her apartment, and she responded that defendant
was selling meth inside of the apartment.
{¶21}  The  State  argues  that  trial  counsel  was  not  ineffective  in  his  cross-
examination, since he made a valid effort at trying to discredit Marcy’s testimony and
exposed numerous lies she told to police.
{¶22}  The Ohio Supreme Court has adopted a two-part test to decide whether
an attorney’s performance is below the constitutional standard for effective assistance
of  counsel.    To  reverse  a  conviction  due  to  ineffective  assistance  of  counsel,  the
defendant must prove “(1) that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard
of  reasonableness,  and                                                                          (2)  that  counsel’s  deficient  performance  prejudiced  the
defendant resulting in an unreliable or fundamentally unfair outcome of the proceeding.”
State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378, 388-389, 721 N.E.2d 52 (2000), citing Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).   “In any
case presenting an ineffectiveness claim, the performance inquiry must be whether
counsel’s performance was reasonable considering all the circumstances.   * * *   Judicial
scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential.”   Strickland at 688-689.
7

“There is a strong presumption that the attorney’s performance was reasonable.”   State
v. Gotel, 11th Dist. No. 2006-L-015, 2007-Ohio-888, ¶ 10.
{¶23}  In  the  present  matter,  while  some  damaging  information  was  elicited
during  defense  counsel’s  cross-examination  of  Marcy,  we  cannot  say  that  this
constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.                                                  “The scope of cross-examination clearly
falls within the ambit of trial strategy.”   State v. Hoffner, 102 Ohio St.3d 358, 2004-Ohio-
3430, 811 N.E.2d 48, ¶ 45; State v. Erich, 11th Dist. No. 2011-L-146, 2012-Ohio-4006,
¶  23.                                                                                          “[D]ebatable  trial  tactics  do  not  establish  ineffective  assistance  of  counsel.”
(Citation omitted.)   State v. Johnson, 11th Dist. No. 2009-A-0050, 2010-Ohio-3046, ¶
37.
{¶24}  In the present matter, defense counsel’s strategy included an attempt to
discredit Marcy and show that she had both lied to the police about the events of
October 22 and that she was not a reliable witness.   Much of the information about
which Arcaro complains was elicited while defense counsel was attempting to carry out
this strategy.    For example, before Marcy’s statement regarding Arcaro bringing certain
chemicals into her apartment, counsel first asked  “you have no personal knowledge
about whose chemicals they were?” to try to show that Marcy’s testimony was of limited
value   and   that   she   was   unaware   of   exactly   who   was   manufacturing   the
methamphetamine.   Similarly, regarding the second statement that Arcaro was selling
drugs in the apartment, this line of questioning began with defense counsel asserting
that Marcy’s statement about purchasing drugs from Arcaro was inconsistent with her
statements to police.   Regardless of whether the strategy of asking such questions was
ultimately entirely beneficial to Arcaro, the strategy did not render the assistance of
8

counsel ineffective, especially given that the damaging statements resulted from lines of
questioning that were intended to elicit information reflecting negatively upon Marcy’s
credibility.   See State v. Abdullah,  10th Dist. No.  05AP-1316,  2006-Ohio-5412,  ¶  36
(where the challenged cross-examination attempted to cast doubt upon the witness’s
credibility  but  defense  counsel’s  strategy  failed  when  he  encountered  damaging
answers,  the  appellate  court  held  that                                                 “an  unsuccessful  strategy  does  not  render
counsel’s  assistance  constitutionally  ineffective”);   State  v.  Broadnax,              2nd  Dist.  No.
18169, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 564, *6 (Feb. 16, 2001) (when cross-examination was
intended to diminish the credibility of the witness but elicited damaging answers, it was
still a proper tactical decision by counsel).
{¶25}  Further, there was some value to counsel’s strategy, since during the
cross-examination, defense counsel was able to show that Marcy contradicted herself
and revealed lies made in her statement to the police, including the statement that only
Googe  had  manufactured  the  drugs.    Counsel  also  was  able  to  point  to  Marcy’s
potential motive or incentive for lying, that she was testifying in exchange for a more
lenient sentence.   It cannot be said that, even if some negative information came out
during cross-examination, counsel was ineffective in his cross-examination of Marcy.
{¶26}  Even  if  trial  counsel’s  performance  had  been  deficient,  however,  we
cannot find that prejudice resulted.   See State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412, 2006-
Ohio-2815, 848 N.E.2d 810, ¶ 102 (where the jury had before it testimony similar to that
elicited by defense counsel during cross-examination, no prejudice resulted from such
potentially damaging testimony).   Marcy had already given, during direct examination, a
statement that Arcaro had brought over the various items used to manufacture the
9

methamphetamine,  as  she  explained  in  cross-examination.    Additionally,  she  had
already stated that she had purchased meth from Arcaro after it was made, which was
similar to the testimony that he was selling the meth to different individuals.   Further,
such testimony was not even necessary to establish whether Arcaro was manufacturing
methamphetamine.
{¶27}  The first assignment of error is without merit.
{¶28}  In his second assignment of error, Arcaro argues that the guilty verdict
was against the weight and sufficiency of the evidence because the sole evidence that
Arcaro was manufacturing methamphetamine came from Marcy’s unreliable testimony.
There was no physical evidence connecting Arcaro to the manufacture, and the police
did not observe him manufacturing the methamphetamine.
{¶29}  The State argues that the testimony of Marcy, coupled with the existence
of the meth lab, the trash thrown away by Arcaro, and the plastic acorn found in his
possession, were sufficient to support a conviction.
{¶30}                                                                                           “‘[S]ufficiency’ is a term of art meaning that legal standard which is applied
to determine whether the case may go to the jury,” i.e., “[w]hether the evidence is legally
sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law.”   State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio
St.3d  380,  386,  678 N.E.2d  541  (1997), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary  (6 Ed.1990)
1433.   In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, “[t]he
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 the
crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”   State v. Jenks,  61 Ohio St.3d  259,  574
N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.
10

{¶31}  Weight  of  the  evidence,  in  contrast  to  its  sufficiency,  involves                  “the
inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence.”                                          (Citation omitted.) (Emphasis
deleted.) Thompkins at  387.    Whereas the  “sufficiency of the evidence is a test of
adequacy as to whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support a verdict as a matter
of law, * * * weight of the evidence addresses the evidence’s effect of inducing belief.”
(Citation omitted.)   State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382, 2007-Ohio-2202, 865 N.E.2d
1264, ¶ 25. “In other words, a reviewing court asks whose evidence is more persuasive
-- the  state’s  or the defendant’s?”    Id.    The  reviewing court  must  consider all the
evidence in the record, the reasonable inferences, and the credibility of the witnesses,
to determine whether, “in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [trier of fact] clearly lost
its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be
reversed and a new trial ordered.”   (Citation omitted.)   Thompkins at 387.
{¶32}                                                                                             “Since there must be sufficient evidence to take a case to the jury, it
follows that  ‘a finding that a conviction is supported by the weight of the evidence
necessarily  must  include  a  finding  of  sufficiency.’”                                        (Emphasis  sic.)    Willoughby  v.
Wutchiett, 11th Dist. No. 2002-L-165, 2004-Ohio-1177, ¶ 8, quoting State v. Roberts,
9th  Dist.  No.                                                                                   96CA006462,  1997  Ohio  App.  LEXIS                                      4255,   *5   (Sept.   17,   1997);
Thompkins at 388 (“[a] reversal based on the weight of the evidence * * * can occur only
after the State both has presented sufficient evidence to support conviction and has
persuaded the jury to convict”) (emphasis sic), quoting Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42-
43, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L. Ed.2d 652 (1982).
{¶33}  In order to convict Arcaro of Illegal Manufacture of Methamphetamine, the
State  was  required  to  prove,  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  that  he                         “knowingly
11

manufacture[d] or otherwise engage[d] in any part of the production of a controlled
substance,” in the present matter, methamphetamine.   R.C. 2925.04(A).
{¶34}  Arcaro’s  primary  argument  regarding  why  his  conviction  was  not
supported by the evidence is that Marcy was the only witness who saw him allegedly
manufacturing drugs and she was not credible, due to her conflicting statements and
because she was under the influence of methamphetamine on October 22.   However, it
must initially be emphasized that the determination of a witness’ credibility lies with the
finder of fact and an appellate court may not substitute its own judgment for the jury’s.
State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120, 123, 489 N.E.2d 277 (1986).                                 “[T]he factfinder is free
to believe all, part, or none of the testimony of each witness appearing before it.”
(Citation omitted.)   State v. Higginbottom, 11th Dist. No. 2012-P-0028, 2012-Ohio-5834,
¶  55.   Although there were some inconsistencies between Marcy’s statement to the
police and her testimony at the trial, Marcy explained that she was initially hesitant to
state that Arcaro was manufacturing methamphetamines because they were friends, but
she later decided that “it was the right thing to do.”   Based on such statements, the jury
was in the best position to determine how much credibility she had and how much
weight to give her testimony.
{¶35}  Marcy’s  testimony  established  that  she  personally  witnessed  Arcaro
shaking the soda bottle used to make the meth and helping to release gasses or smoke
from the bottle, also a step in the meth making process.   She also saw him weigh the
meth on a scale.   She testified to providing Arcaro with pseudoephedrine, an ingredient
necessary for making meth, and he told her he was using that item to manufacture the
12

meth.      All of this testimony, if believed by the jury, supported a conclusion that Arcaro
manufactured methamphetamine.
{¶36}  This  testimony,  and  Arcaro’s  conviction,  are  further  supported  by
Patrolman Rose’s testimony that Arcaro had been in Marcy’s apartment on October 22,
where the meth lab was discovered.   There is no dispute that a meth lab did exist inside
of Marcy’s apartment.   Additionally, Arcaro had entered and exited the apartment on
that  date  on  several  occasions,  carrying  different  bags,  and  also  threw  away  the
garbage  that  contained  several  items  commonly  used  in  the  manufacture  of
methamphetamine.   Upon the stop of Schaffer’s vehicle, following the collection of the
meth items in the garbage, Patrolman Rose’s dog alerted near Arcaro’s position in the
car.   In addition, Patrolman Rose testified that Arcaro was found with an acorn shaped
container which smelled like meth and was similar to a container found in the garbage
bags as well.    Although this evidence alone does not establish the manufacture of
methamphetamine, when combined with the testimony of Marcy, we cannot find that
there   was   insufficient   evidence   to   convict   Arcaro   of   Illegal   Manufacture  of
Methamphetamine or that his conviction was against the weight of the evidence, since
he knowingly manufactured and engaged in the production of methamphetamine.
{¶37}  As to Arcaro’s contention that there was no physical evidence, such as
fingerprints or DNA on the items used to manufacture the methamphetamine, we note
that the officers testified that most of the items could not be tested for such evidence
because they had to be destroyed, due to contamination from the chemicals and the
danger they posed.    Further, it must be emphasized that no physical evidence was
required in order to convict Arcaro for Illegal Manufacture, especially given all of the
13

foregoing  evidence.                                                                “[P]hysical  evidence  is  not  required  to  sustain  a  criminal
conviction.”                                                                        (Citations omitted.)   State v. Long, 11th Dist. No. 2007-P-0105, 2008-Ohio-
2919, ¶ 29.
{¶38}  The second assignment of error is without merit.
{¶39}  For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of
Common Pleas, finding Arcaro guilty of Illegal Manufacture of Methamphetamine, is
affirmed.   Costs to be taxed against appellant.
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J.,
COLLEEN MARY O’TOOLE, J.
concur.
14

Download 2012-a-0028.pdf