Ms. Booker knew of the gun and had constructive possession of the gun.
State v. Booker
Eighth District Appellate Court
Cuyahoga County, Ohio
July 24, 2025
Why is this case important?
State v. Booker establishes that law enforcement may arrest and prosecution may convict a defendant for Constructive Possession of a firearm if the person ‘knows’ the location without actually seeing the firearm. The Booker case is also a reminder that the Ready at Element is not required to convict a defendant of Having Weapons While Under Disability.
Ran a Red Light on a Suspended License
Middleburg Heights police officer Nicholas Spronz (“Officer Spronz”) testified that on May 28, 2022, around 9:00 p.m., he conducted a traffic stop on the entrance ramp to Interstate-71 from Bagley Road. He observed Ms. Sherita Booker, who was driving an Audi SUV, run a red light on Bagley Road. Officer Spronz was wearing his body camera at the time, and video of the traffic stop was played for the court. In the video, Officer Spronz can be observed approaching the Audi SUV and asking Ms. Booker for her driver’s license and proof of insurance. Ms. Booker handed Officer Spronz her license, showed him her proof of insurance, and told Officer Spronz that the car was a private rental. Officer Spronz testified that Ms. Booker’s license check came back as suspended. As a result, Officer Spronz could not allow Ms. Booker to drive the vehicle home and asked her to exit it so it could be towed. According to Officer Spronz, officers typically do an inventory of the vehicle prior to the tow.
Not My Gun is Inside the Locked Glove Box
In the video, Officer Spronz can then be observed asking Ms. Booker, who was standing at the side of the road at this point, if there was anything on her person or in the car he should know about before allowing Ms. Booker to get her cell phone. Ms. Booker replied, “[M]y husband’s gun is in there and I meant to take it out.”Ms. Booker then said that the gun “is in the glove compartment” and “it actually [belongs] to my stepfather, it’s his gun.” Ms. Booker said that the glove compartment was “locked” and she also had some marijuana in the car. However, Ms. Booker can then be observed opening the glove compartment without using a key showing Officer Spronz where the firearm was located. Officer Spronz can be observed removing the cartridge, which appeared to be loaded and removing a bullet from the chamber. Officer Spronz testified that Ms. Booker would have been able to reach the firearm from the driver’s seat. The firearm was determined to be loaded and was later tested and found to be operable.
Note #1: Middleburg Heights Police Officer Tyler Gannon arrived as a backup officer to Officer Spronz and assisted throughout the arrest process, though he is not identified in the Eighth District decision.
Note #2: The firearm is not specifically identified in the Eighth District Appellate Court case but it was a Taurus G2C 9mm handgun. I obtained this information through a public records request from the Middleburg Heights Police.
Photos are courtesy of the Middleburg Heights Police Department via a public records request and are screen shots from the body camera video. The left photo is when Officer Spronz observed the Taurus G2C 9mm handgun nestled inside the glovebox. The photo on the right is when Officer Spronz made the weapon safe.
Mr. Watkins Testimony
Ms. Booker and her stepfather Curtis Watkins (“Mr. Watkins”) testified for the defense. Mr. Watkins testified that he borrowed Ms. Booker’s car the night of the incident. According to Mr. Watkins, the gun that was found in the SUV was his. On the day in question, Mr. Watkins testified that around 7:30 p.m. he drove Ms. Booker’s vehicle to the store and placed the gun in the glove compartment. Afterwards, he came back home and returned the vehicle back to Ms. Booker, forgetting that his firearm was still in the glove compartment. Approximately 30 minutes later, he realized that he did not have his gun. Mr. Watkins called Ms. Booker and told her that he left his firearm in the glove compartment. Ms. Booker told him that she was going to bring it back to him.
Ms. Booker acknowledged that she knew the gun was in the glove compartment
Ms. Booker testified that on the day in question she gave Mr. Watkins her keys so he could go to the store. When Mr. Watkins returned home, he returned the keys to her. Ms. Booker left at that point to return to the hotel room she was renting. She stopped at the gas station on her way to the hotel room. Ms. Booker acknowledged that she knew the gun was in the glove compartment once Mr. Watkins contacted her around 8:15-8:30 p.m., and that she was not allowed to have a gun. Mr. Watkins told her “the gun is in the car, I forgot to take it out of the glove compartment; when you get a chance, bring it back.” Ms. Booker told him that she would call him back but she “never made it to the hotel room for [her to even] call [Mr. Watkins] and say come and get [your] gun.” Approximately an hour later, Ms. Booker was pulled over for running the red light. According to Ms. Booker, she did not know her driver’s license was suspended because she was “renting a car and in order for you to rent these cars your license [has] to be valid.”
Guilty and Appeal
Following the conclusion of trial, the court found Ms. Booker guilty of both counts, ordered her to forfeit the gun, and sentenced her to a total of two years of community-control sanctions.
It is from this order that Ms. Booker appeals, raising two assignments of error for review.
Appeal – Insufficient Evidence
In the first assignment of error, Ms. Booker argues there was insufficient evidence to support her convictions for Having Weapons While Under Disability [HWWUD] and improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle. She contends that the State’s own witnesses failed to establish the fundamental elements of the crimes charged.
Did Ms. Booker ‘Knowingly’ Transport a Loaded Firearm?
In order to convict Booker of HWWUD, the State was required to present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Booker “knowingly acquire[d], ha[d], carr[ied], or use[d] any firearm or dangerous ordnance, if . . . [Booker] . . . has been convicted of any felony offense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking in any drug of abuse.” O.R.C. §2923.13(A)(3). To convict Ms. Booker of improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle, the State was required to present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Booker “knowingly transport[ed] or ha[d] a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle in such a manner that the firearm is accessible to the operator or any passenger without leaving the vehicle.” O.R.C. §2923.16(B).
Knowledge – Dominion and Control – Ready at Hand
Ms. Booker argues the evidence was insufficient because of the absence of the following: (1) “knowledge” — essentially she claims that she did not have “actual knowledge” of the gun, but rather assumed it was in the glove compartment of the vehicle because she never physically opened the glove compartment to check for it after Mr. Watkins told her that he left it in the car; (2) “dominion and control” — Ms. Booker claims that she never had possession of the gun because she never physically handled it; and (3) “ready at hand” — Ms. Booker asserts that the gun was not “ready at hand” or conveniently accessible. The State counters that (1) the Ohio Revised Code does not require “actual knowledge” and that knowledge of a fact can be based on the circumstances surrounding the situation; (2) Ms. Booker had constructive possession over the gun, and as the driver of the vehicle, the gun was within arm’s reach and in her control; and finally (3) “ready at hand” is not a requirement under statute. We find the State’s arguments more persuasive.
Knowledge
A person acts knowingly 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. When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person subjectively believes that there is a high probability of its existence and fails to make inquiry or acts with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the fact.O.R.C. §2901.22(B).
Actually Know or Just Know?
Ms. Booker argues she did not genuinely know that there was a gun in the car because she never confirmed if the gun was actually in the glove compartment by opening it to verify what Mr. Watkins told her. Instead, she claims she took Mr. Watkins’s words at face value, assumed there was a gun, and relayed that information to the police.
“actual knowledge” is not required
Contrary to Ms. Booker’s assertions, “actual knowledge” is not required. O.R.C. §2901.22(B) states that knowledge of a fact can be based on circumstances and knowledge can be established “if a person subjectively believes that there is a high probability of its existence and fails to make inquiry or acts with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the fact.” O.R.C. §2901.22(B). This is precisely what the evidence demonstrates in the matter before us.
Mr. Watkins called Ms. Booker around 8 p.m. and told her that he accidentally left his gun in the glove compartment of her vehicle. The moment Mr. Watkins told Ms. Booker is the moment she had knowledge of the gun in the glove compartment. She did not need to verify if the firearm was actually in her vehicle. Ms. Booker’s own testimony confirms that she believed that the firearm was in the glove compartment when Mr. Watkins called her. Ms. Booker testified:
[STATE]: So you knew the gun was in the glove compartment –
[MS. BOOKER]: When he contacted me, yes.
Ms. Booker further testified:
[STATE]: So you’re at the gas station and you chose to get back in the car knowing the gun was in the glove compartment?
[MS. BOOKER]: Yes, because I had to get home.
Glove Compartment Button
Additionally, the body-camera video demonstrates Ms. Booker’s knowledge of the gun. When asked by Officer Spronz if there was anything on her person or in the car he should know about before allowing Ms. Booker to get her cell phone, Ms. Booker replied, “[M]y husband’s gun is in there and I meant to take it out.” Ms. Booker then said that the gun “is in the glove compartment” and “it actually [belongs] to my stepfather, it’s his gun.” In the video, Ms. Booker said that the glove compartment was “locked” and can then be observed opening the glove compartment by only pressing a button and showing the officer where the firearm was located. It is clear from Ms. Booker’s own words and actions that she had knowledge of the gun in her vehicle.
Dominion and Control
Ms. Booker exercised dominion and control over the gun and had constructive possession of it.
Ms. Booker next argues the State failed to introduce any evidence that she actually exercised any dominion or control over the gun itself. In support of her argument, she cites to two cases — State v. Duganitz, 76 Ohio App.3d 363 (8th Dist. 1991), and State v. Hardy, 60 Ohio App.2d 325 (8th Dist. 1978) — for the proposition that the evidence in the instant case was insufficient to demonstrate that she exercised dominion and control over the gun.
Established Case Law – Dominion and Control
In Duganitz, the appellant, who was the driver of a vehicle, was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. After a traffic stop, the police found a gun in the car, under a blanket between the driver’s and passenger’s seat. On appeal, this court reversed the conviction, finding that: the record does not contain any direct evidence of Duganitz’s ownership, possession, or control of the weapon. The extent of the circumstantial evidence, in this case, is first that the appellant exited the car quickly. The appellant was the driver of the car. He allegedly made a statement that he was in the area to buy some crack cocaine. The time was approximately five o’clock a.m. The appellant also denied ownership of the weapon. The weapon was found in a place in the car accessible to both the appellant and passenger. Id. at 369-370.
Constructive possession may be achieved by means of an agent.
In reaching its decision, the Duganitz Court relied on Hardy. In Hardy, the appellant was convicted of HWWUD. The appellant was an employee at a beverage store, who was approached by another employee. This employee claimed that he needed money for rent. The appellant informed the employee that he would give him an advance at the end of the day. Thereafter, an altercation between the two of them ensued that resulted in the appellant picking up a rifle located in the corner and wounding the employee. On appeal, the Hardy Court found that appellant did not “have” the weapon prior to the point when he grabbed it. This court reasoned that:
[I]n order to “have” a firearm, one must either actually or constructively possess it. Actual possession requires ownership and, or, physical control. Constructive possession may be achieved by means of an agent. The facts in the case at bar demonstrate only that appellant, along with other employees, had knowledge of and physical access to a loaded rifle. The record fails to disclose any evidence demonstrating that appellant ever exercised dominion or the sort of control over the weapon that comes with ownership or actual possession. Nor was there a showing that the unidentified owner had ever given appellant permission to use the weapon. Id. at 327.
Constructive possession may also be inferred when a person has dominion or control over the premises upon which the object in question is found and knows that the object is on those premises.
We find these cases distinguishable. Unlike in Duganitz and Hardy, there is sufficient evidence in this case to find that Ms. Booker had constructive possession of the gun. Constructive possession may be established by demonstrating that: the defendant was able to exercise dominion or control over the items, even though the items may not be within the defendant’s immediate physical possession. State v. Wolery (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 316, 348 N.E.2d 351; see, also, State v. Brown, 8th Dist. No. 87932, 2007 Ohio 527, ¶ 7, citing State v. Hankerson (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 87, 434 N.E.2d 1362, syllabus; State v. Messer (1995), 107 Ohio App.3d 51, 56, 667 N.E.2d 1022. Constructive possession may also be inferred when a person has dominion or control over the premises upon which the object in question is found and knows that the object is on those premises. State v. Scalf (1998), 126 Ohio App. 3d 614, 710 N.E.2d 1206. Further, a person may knowingly possess or control property belonging to another; the state need not establish ownership to prove constructive possession. See State v. Robinson, 8th Dist. No. 90751, 2008-Ohio- 5580. Moreover, circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a finding of constructive possession. State v. Mason (July 5, 2001), 8th Dist. No. 78606, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 3019, citing Jenks, supra.
Established Case Law – Constructive Possession
State v. Bray, 2009-Ohio-6461, ¶ 23-24 (8th Dist.); see State v. Long, 2005-Ohio- 5344, ¶ 17 (8th Dist.)(“Ohio courts have routinely held that constructive possession can be established by the fact that a defendant had access to a weapon and had the ability to control its use.”), citing State v. Thomas, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 4545 (11th Dist. Oct. 11, 1996); State v. Williams, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 4467 (10th Dist. Sept. 30, 1997); State v. Wolery, 46 Ohio St.2d 316 (1976) (holding that physical possession or ownership of the weapon is not necessary, and mere access to a weapon can establish guilt). Moreover, whether a person “knowingly acquired, had, carried, or used any firearm or dangerous ordnance ‘is to be determined from all the attendant facts and circumstances available.’” Bray at ¶ 21, quoting State v. Teamer, 82 Ohio St.3d 490, 492 (1998).
[T]he facts establish that Ms. Booker had constructive possession of the gun found in the car she was driving
After applying these standards, the facts establish that Ms. Booker had constructive possession of the gun found in the car she was driving. Contrary to Ms. Booker’s assertions, her own testimony establishes that she knew that the gun was in the glove compartment of the car. In addition, Officer Spronz’s testimony established that the gun was easily accessible from the driver’s seat. Although Ms. Booker stated that the glove compartment was locked, according to Officer Spronz, the glove compartment opened with the touch of a button on the dashboard and Ms. Booker would have been able to reach the gun “[F]rom the driver’s seat.”
Taking all of these circumstances into account: (1) Ms. Booker knew the gun was in the vehicle after Mr. Watkins called her; (2) that the glove compartment was within arm’s reach; and (3) the gun was easily accessible through the touch of a button, Ms. Booker exercised dominion and control over the gun and had constructive possession of it.
Ready at Hand
[W]e find Ms. Booker’s arguments regarding “ready at hand” misplaced.
Lastly, Ms. Booker argues that the gun was not “ready at hand” because the gun was in the glove compartment, which required pressing a button on the dashboard. In support of her argument, Ms. Booker relies on State v. Miller, 2003- Ohio-6239 (2d Dist.) “Ready at hand,” however, is not a requirement under either statute, and the Miller case Ms. Booker cites involves elements for a completely different offense — carrying a concealed weapon. Therefore, we find Ms. Booker’s arguments regarding “ready at hand”misplaced.
Conclusion and Holding
When viewing the foregoing evidence in a light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found that Ms. Booker knew of the gun and had constructive possession of the gun, which was found in her glove compartment. The evidence admitted at trial, if believed, supported her convictions for HWWUD and improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle.
Therefore, the first assignment of error is overruled.
Note: There was a second appeal: Manifest Weight of the Evidence that was also denied by the Eighth District Appellate Court. That second appeal is not evaluated in this article.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Booker, 2025 – Ohio – 2595.
State v. Booker, 2025 – Ohio – 2595 was issued by the Eighth District Appellate Court on July 24, 2025 and is binding in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
Lessons Learned:
- Constructive Possession Doctrine – 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 firearm was inside of the glovebox and Ms. Booker was driving the vehicle and was the only occupant. She clearly had dominion and control over the firearm that was within her wingspan. To satisfy the ‘conscious’ element, Ms. Booker admitted that there was a firearm inside the glovebox. Had Ms. Booker not admitted to knowing the firearm was inside the glovebox she may have had a reasonable argument that she was unaware of the firearm, because the rental vehicle was not rented in her name.
- What Does Knowledge Mean? Ms. Booker feebly attempted to argue that she did not have ‘actual knowledge’ that the firearm was inside the glovebox. Ms. Booker’s argument is grounded in the fact that she only told the firearm was inside the glovebox and did not confirm that the firearm was ‘actually’ inside by looking and seeing it. The Eighth District Appellate Court dismissed this argument “Contrary to Ms. Booker’s assertions, “actual knowledge” is not required. O.R.C. §2901.22(B) states that knowledge of a fact can be based on circumstances and knowledge can be established “if a person subjectively believes that there is a high probability of its existence and fails to make inquiry or acts with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the fact.” O.R.C. §2901.22(B). This is precisely what the evidence demonstrates in the matter before us.”.
- Ready at Hand – Ms. Booker was charged with Having Weapons While Under Disability [HWWUD]. Ms. Booker argued that the firearm inside the glovebox that was within her wingspan and reach was not ‘Ready at Hand’. Even if we intentionally ignore the facts, the HWWUD charge does not include a Ready at Hand element. As the Eighth District Appellate Court explained ““Ready at hand,” however, is not a requirement under either statute, and the Miller case Ms. Booker cites involves elements for a completely different offense — carrying a concealed weapon. Therefore, we find Ms. Booker’s arguments regarding “ready at hand” misplaced.”.
- Pre-Sent Arms! Middleburg Heights Police Officer Nicholas Spronz, Officer Tyler Gannon and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office should be highly commended for the arrest, conviction and appeal success of Ms. Booker. Well done!
Does your agency train on Constructive Possession?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!