State v. Bradley
Ninth District Appellate Court
Medina County, Ohio
December 31, 2024
Why is this case important?
The case underscores the importance of circumstantial evidence and documentation to successfully charge and uphold a conviction with the Constructive Possession Doctrine.
Overview
Medina County Deputy Nathanial Yarborogh stopped a vehicle on Interstate 71. The vehicle had two occupants: a female driver and her front seat passenger, Mr. Desmanne Bradley. The deputy ultimately removed both occupants from the vehicle and searched it. Relevant to this appeal, he found a backpack lying on the vehicle’s backseat. It contained a loaded handgun and four magazines. Deputy Yarborogh asked the driver and Mr. Bradley about the gun. His inquests led him to conclude that the gun belonged to Mr. Bradley.
Vehicle Stop
Deputy Yarborogh testified that he stopped the vehicle in which Mr. Bradley was a passenger on Interstate 71 north. He said the stop occurred while he was conducting his “[N]ormal patrol operations through the County of Medina” as a deputy for the Medina County Sheriff’s Office. Further, the driver testified the stop occurred on Interstate 71 about one mile before the highway exit for Akron/Lodi.
Weapons Under Disability
O.R.C. §2923.13 sets forth the crime of having a weapon under disability. Relevant to this appeal, it forbids any person who has been convicted of a felony from knowingly acquiring, having, carrying, or using a firearm. O.R.C. §2923.13(A)(2). “A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person is aware that the person’s conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when the person is aware that such circumstances probably exist.” O.R.C. §2901.22(B).
Established Case Law – Constructive Possession
“To ‘have’ a weapon under disability requires either actual or constructive possession.” State v. Cross, 2019-Ohio-3133. “‘Constructive possession exists when an individual knowingly exercises dominion and control over an object, even though that object may not be within his immediate physical possession.’” State v. Jackson, 2018-Ohio-1285, ¶ 38 (9th Dist.), quoting State v. Hankerson, 70 Ohio St.2d 87 (1982), syllabus. “Ownership does not need to be proven, and constructive possession may be established by circumstantial evidence.” Cross at ¶ 7.
Felonious Backpack
Deputy Yarborogh testified that he conducted a vehicle search because the driver admitted there was a marijuana blunt in the center compartment. He found the marijuana and proceeded to search the rest of the vehicle’s interior. On the backseat, he found the driver’s purse and a yellow backpack. Someone had written “Backpak Boyz” on the front of the backpack in black marker. Deputy Yarborogh testified that he opened the backpack’s front pocket zipper compartment as well as its main compartment. Inside the front compartment, he found a sock containing four magazines for a handgun. Two of those magazines were loaded. Inside the main compartment, he found a black and silver 9mm handgun. He testified that the gun was loaded and later determined to be operable.
Who owned the yellow backpack? This is an AI rendition of the backpack.
Prior Felony Conviction
Deputy Yarborogh testified that he relayed the handgun’s serial number to dispatch to determine whether it had been stolen. Dispatch was unable to find any record of the gun, meaning it had not been reported stolen. The deputy also had dispatch perform a criminal background search on the driver and Mr. Bradley to see whether they could lawfully possess the gun. The parties stipulated that Mr. Bradley had a prior felony conviction that would prohibit him from lawfully possessing a gun.
Driver Attempted to Lie for Mr. Bradley
Deputy Yarborogh interviewed the driver first. He testified that the driver initially said the handgun was hers. Yet, she did not know what model the gun was, what caliber it was, or how many magazines were in the backpack. When the deputy pressed her about those details, she admitted the gun belonged to Mr. Bradley.
Backpack Boyz was Circumstantial Evidence
Deputy Yarborogh next interviewed Mr. Bradley. When the deputy asked him whose handgun was in the vehicle, Mr. Bradley immediately said it belonged to the driver. He did not claim to be unaware of its presence. Deputy Yarborogh testified that he concluded the gun belonged to Mr. Bradley because the driver did not know any details about it. He also found it unlikely that a female would be transporting a gun in a marked-up backpack labeled “Backpak Boyz.” The evidence showed the backpack was in reach of both occupants as it was lying in the middle of the vehicle’s backseat. The deputy shared his view that the driver tried to take responsibility for the gun because she knew Mr. Bradley could not lawfully possess it.
Are Jail Phone Calls Recorded?
The State also called the driver to testify as a witness. She testified that Mr. Bradley was the father of her children. On the day of the traffic stop, they were driving to a medical appointment in her brother’s car. The driver testified that she saw the backpack in the backseat but did not know whose it was. She also testified that, at the time of the stop, she did not know whose handgun was inside the backpack. She admitted that she told Deputy Yarborogh the gun was hers before telling him it was Mr. Bradley’s. She said she only did so because she was nervous and scared. Even so, she admitted that Mr. Bradley called her from jail the day after his arrest and told her to lie to his parole officer. The State played the recording of their conversation for the jury. On the call, Mr. Bradley told the driver to contact his parole officer and “tell him what happened.” When the driver insisted that she did not know any details about the gun, Mr. Bradley told her that she just needed to say it was a black and silver 9mm. The driver admitted that Mr. Bradley had been able to accurately describe the gun, which had been concealed inside the backpack at the time of the traffic stop.
Conclusion
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could have concluded that the State proved Mr. Bradley had possession of a handgun while under disability. See Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d at 273. The gun was within his reach, and the evidence showed he was aware of its presence. When asked about the gun, Mr. Bradley immediately said it belonged to the driver. He did not react with questions or otherwise show that he was surprised to learn of its presence. Further, he was able to accurately describe the gun when he spoke to the driver the following day. Because the gun was concealed inside the backpack at the time of the traffic stop, one could reasonably conclude that Mr. Bradley’s ability to accurately describe it meant that he saw it before it was placed inside the bag. Further, the jury heard testimony that the driver did not know anything about the make, model, or caliber of the gun and eventually told Deputy Yarborogh the gun belonged to Mr. Bradley.
Holding
Based on the foregoing evidence, a rational trier of fact could have concluded that the State proved Mr. Bradley knowingly possessed a handgun. We reject his argument that his conviction for having a weapon under disability is based on insufficient evidence. Accordingly, his first assignment of error is overruled.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Bradley, 2024 – Ohio – 6087.
State v. Bradley, 2024 – Ohio – 6087 was issued by the Ninth District Appellate Court on December 31, 2024 and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Lorain, Medina, Summit and Wayne.
Lessons Learned:
- Constructive Possession – The Constructive Possession doctrine was established by the Supreme Court of Ohio in 1982. That court carved out a two-part Constructive Possession test; 1) When an individual knowingly exercises dominion and control over an object, even though that object may not be within his immediate physical control; 2) The defendant was conscious of the object’s presence. State v. Hankerson, 70 Ohio St.2d 87 (1982) The most challenging element is to prove that the person was conscious of the object. In this case the Ninth District Appellate Court took great care to review the facts to determine that Mr. Desmanne Bradley did possess the felonious backpack with the firearm and four magazines. The conscious element was established based on 1) The backpack labeled with ‘Backpack Boyz’ and the driver was a female. 2) The female driver did not know what type or caliber of firearm was inside the back pack. 3) The jail phone recording with inculpatory statements made by Mr. Bradley.
- Circumstantial Evidence – The fact that the backpack was labeled with Backpack Boyz is not conclusive that this backpack was owned by the female driver. No item labeled with a male or female name or color; blue or pink, is in and of itself definitively sex specific. However, it was the totality of circumstances that led Medina County Deputy Nathanial Yarborogh and the court to reasonably conclude Mr. Bradley was the owner of the backpack.
- Documentation – Dep. Yarborough’s documentation was the key to his investigation. Documenting his questioning of the driver, Mr. Bradley, location of the backpack, type of firearm inside the backpack, driver’s lack of knowledge of the contents of the backpack and Mr. Bradley’s inculpatory jail phone call, were al key to prosecution.
- Pre-Sent Arms! Medina County Deputy Nathanial Yarborogh should be highly commended for his outstanding investigative prowess. Well done!
Does your agency train on the Constructive Possession Doctrine?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!