State v. Upkins

Summary

The Ohio Third District Court of Appeals affirmed Lamone E. Upkins's convictions and aggregate 60-month prison sentence for five drug-trafficking offenses. Upkins argued that the convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence, that prosecutorial misconduct denied him a fair trial, and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object. The court overruled all assignments of error.

Holdings

1. The convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The jury was entitled to credit the confidential informant and law-enforcement witnesses, and the recordings and forensic evidence corroborated the State's case.
2. Even assuming that the prosecutor's comments referring to jurors as victims, characterizing the defense as throwing red herrings, and referring to Upkins's prior drug trafficking were improper, they did not constitute reversible plain error because Upkins failed to show that the outcome would have been different absent the comments.
3. Upkins did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to demonstrate prejudice. There was no reasonable probability that an objection or limiting instruction would have changed the trial outcome.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Upkins's five drug-trafficking convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence because of alleged credibility problems with the confidential informant and poor-quality recordings.
2. Whether alleged prosecutorial misconduct during opening statement and closing argument constituted plain error that denied Upkins a fair trial and due process.
3. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the prosecutor's allegedly improper statements.

Disposition

affirmed