[V]iewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, a reasonable fact finder could conclude [Michael] and his wife [Ms. Donnalyn Richardson] jointly possessed the drugs.
State v. Richardson
Seventh District Appellate Court
Belmont County, Ohio
January 15, 2026
Why is this case important?
State v. Richardson is important because it reinforces that constructive possession – based on dominion and control over a location – can be proven through circumstantial evidence without drugs being discovered in a hotel room. Richardson also highlights that joint occupancy of a hotel room can establish circumstantial evidence for possession of contraband.
Background
On July 6, 2023, Ms. Donnalyn Richardson was indicted by the Belmont County Grand Jury on two counts: count one, aggravated trafficking in drugs (methamphetamine), a felony of the second degree in violation of O.R.C. §2925.03(A)(2) and (C)(1)(d); and count two, aggravated possession of drugs (methamphetamine), a felony of the second degree in violation of O.R.C. §2925.11(A) and (C)(1)(c). Ms. Richardson failed to appear at her arraignment and a warrant was issued for her arrest. Ms. Richardson was subsequently appointed counsel and pled not guilty.
Plea Agreement is Withdrawn
Ms. Richardson later agreed to a plea that would have resulted in count one being dismissed and count two being amended to an attempt to commit aggravated possession of drugs (methamphetamine). A hearing was held on May 15, 2025. However, Ms. Richardson declined to proceed forward with the plea.
Jury Trial
A jury trial commenced on June 3, 2025. Appellee, the State of Ohio, moved to dismiss count one and the trial proceeded only on count two. The State presented 27 exhibits and four witnesses: (1) Opal Pierpoint, a guest services representative at the Red Roof Inn in St. Clairsville, Belmont County, Ohio (“Ms. Pierpoint”); (2) Logan Havas, a deputy with the Belmont County Sheriff’s Office (“Deputy Havas”); (3) Terry Fitch, the general manager at the Red Roof Inn (“Mr. Fitch”); and (4) Jason Schwarck, a detective with the Belmont County Sheriff’s Office (“Detective Schwarck”).
Red Roof Room 216 Home to the Richardson and a Former Cat
Feline was Gifted Through Facebook
Ms. Richardson and her husband, Michael Richardson (“Michael”) (together “the Richardsons”), shared room 216 at the Red Roof Inn. Guest services representative Ms. Pierpoint was aware that the Richardsons began staying at the hotel in November 2022 for roughly one month. Ms. Pierpoint found a cat running loose on hotel property. Not knowing that the cat belonged to the Richardsons, Ms. Pierpoint captured it and gave it away to someone via an ad on Facebook.
Mr. and Mrs. Richardson and their former cat resided at the Red Roof Inn, Room #216 located at 68301 Red Roof Lane in St. Clairsville, Ohio. Did the deputies lawfully enter the room to discover the methamphetamine?
Mr. Richardson Threatened the Cat Philanthropist and is Arrested
A few days later, Michael asked Ms. Pierpoint if she had seen the cat. After learning that Ms. Pierpoint had given the cat away, Michael reacted with threats. As a result, Ms. Pierpoint called the police. Ms. Richardson was arrested when police arrived because there was a warrant, unrelated to this case, out for her arrest. Ms. Pierpoint declined to press charges against Michael but asked for him to be removed from the hotel. Officers gave Michael an hour to gather his belongings and leave. Police were called a second time when it appeared to Ms. Pierpoint that Michael was threatening her again. Officers arrested Michael when they arrived.
Ms. Richardson signed all of the registration slips.
Ms. Pierpoint authenticated registration slips for the Richardsons’ stay at the hotel. The room was listed in Michael’s name and Ms. Richardson signed all of the registration slips. Ms. Pierpoint’s testimony helped to connect Ms. Richardson to the hotel through the fact that their cat was on the premises and through the room itself given that she signed the registration slips.
Quick Trip to Jail and a Return to Room 216 to Remove Belongings
Deputy Havas responded to the call that was received from Ms. Pierpoint on December 22, 2022. He testified that Ms. Richardson was arrested when police arrived on scene and learned that there was a warrant out for her arrest. Ms. Richardson was taken to jail and police returned to the hotel following Ms. Pierpoint’s second call. Ms. Richardson never indicated to him that she was not staying at the hotel. Deputy Havas returned to the hotel during the second call and then arrested Michael. After Michael was released on bail, Deputy Havas escorted him back to the hotel to obtain his belongings and ensured he left the site.
Hotel Registrations Slips become Evidence
Hotel manager Mr. Fitch testified that if a guest generally stays past the checkout time of 11:00 a.m., the room is locked out until the hotel staff can determine whether the guest intends to stay. In December 2022, Mr. Fitch became aware that the Richardsons had not continued payment on their room and locked them out after 11:00 a.m. Relying on a registration slip, Mr. Fitch testified that the Richardsons’ stay initially ended on December 2. (State’s Exhibit 13). A second registration slip extended their stay to December 6. (State’s Exhibit 14). A third registration slip extended their stay to December 9. (State’s Exhibit 15). Finally, a fourth registration slip extended their stay ultimately to December 22. (State’s Exhibit 16). Although their credit card was billed on December 23, the checkout date was December 22. The registration slips were signed by Ms. Richardson and her driver’s license was used to rent the room.
Room 216 is Locked and Detective Schwarck Arrives
Mr. Fitch locked the Richardsons out of their room on December 22. He did not access the property until the next day. Mr. Fitch called law enforcement after accessing the room and finding drugs and several other items. Mr. Fitch then led Detective Schwarck into the room when he arrived.
Room 216 had Drug Paraphernalia
Detective Schwarck testified regarding his examination of the room. He was initially on site to assist with detaining Michael when he was removed from the hotel property. Detective Schwarck returned to the site in the afternoon when Mr. Fitch called. Immediately upon entering the room, Detective Schwarck saw drug paraphernalia as well as vials containing what he suspected to be methamphetamine. Based on material found in the room, it appeared that a male and a female were staying in the room. Detective Schwarck learned that the room had been rented by the Richardsons and that they had been staying there for some time.
Methamphetamine and Materials Belonging to a Female
Detective Schwarck confirmed that drugs were also found on a plate in the room. Vials found in the room also contained methamphetamine. He noted that where the vials containing drugs were found, there was a pouch that seemed to belong to a female and an airline ticket with Ms. Richardson’s name on it. Totals of 6.11 grams, 4.34 grams, 6.01 grams, and 0.33 grams of methamphetamine were found in the room. Detective Schwarck’s body camera video was played for the jury. Among other things, it showed a pink razor, hair ties or clips, and other material appearing to belong to a female.
Request for Acquittal was Denied
At the conclusion of the State’s case, Ms. Richardson moved for an acquittal pursuant to Crim.R. 29 which was overruled by the trial court. The defense rested without presenting any evidence or witnesses.
Jury Found Ms. Richardson Guilty
On June 4, 2025, the jury found Ms. Richardson guilty of aggravated possession of drugs (methamphetamine) (amount involved equals or exceeds five times the bulk amount – 15 grams – but is less than 50 times the bulk amount – 150 grams). In her husband’s case, Michael was conviction was affirmed by this court. State v. Richardson, 2025-Ohio-3128 (7th Dist.) (Hanni, J., dissenting).
Ms. Richardson is Sentenced to Three Years in Prison
On June 18, 2025, the trial court sentenced Ms. Richardson to an indefinite prison term of three years (minimum) to four and one-half years (maximum) with 77 days of jail-time credit. The court suspended Ms. Richardson’s driver’s license for one year and imposed up to three years of post-release control.
Appeal – Ms. Richardson Did Not ‘Possess’ the Narcotics
Possession of Controlled Substances – O.R.C. §2925.11
Ms. Richardson takes issue with the guilty finding for aggravated possession of drugs (methamphetamine), a felony of the second degree in violation of O.R.C. §2925.11(A) and (C)(1)(c), which states: (A) No person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use a controlled substance or a controlled substance analog. C) Whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of one of the following
If the drug involved in the violation is a compound, mixture, preparation, or substance included in schedule I or II, with the exception of marihuana, cocaine, L.S.D., heroin, any fentanyl-related compound, hashish, and any controlled substance analog, whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of aggravated possession of drugs. The penalty for the offense shall be determined as follows: (c) If the amount of the drug involved equals or exceeds five times the bulk amount but is less than fifty times the bulk amount, aggravated possession of drugs is a felony of the second degree, and the court shall impose as a mandatory prison term a second degree felony mandatory prison term. R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(1)(c).
Knowingly Defined – O.R.C. §2901.22
The term “knowingly” is defined in O.R.C. §2901.22(B) as follows: “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.”
Established Case Law – Constructive Possession
Ms. Richardson believes the State failed to prove that she had constructive possession of the drugs. Possession can be individual or joint. State v. Wolery, 46 Ohio St.2d 316, 332 (1976). In the context of drug offenses, “possession” may be either actual possession or constructive possession. State v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-4504, ¶ 55 (7th Dist.). “Constructive possession exists when an individual exercises dominion and control over an object, even though that object may not be within his immediate physical possession.” Wolery at 329. “It must also be shown that the person was conscious of the presence of the object.” State v. Hankerson, 70 Ohio St.2d 87, 91 (1982).
A conviction for drug possession can be based on circumstantial evidence of possession. State v. DeSarro, 2015-Ohio-5470, ¶ 41 (7th Dist.). Richardson, 2025-Ohio-3128, at ¶ 51-52 (7th Dist.).
Application of Facts
As stated, the Richardsons had been staying in a guest room at the Red Roof Inn for roughly one month. Following police calls and arrests, guest services representative Ms. Pierpoint authenticated registration slips for the Richardsons’ stay at the hotel which were all signed by Ms. Richardson. Ms. Pierpoint’s testimony helped to connect Ms. Richardson to the hotel through the fact that their cat was on the premises and through the room itself given that she signed the registration slips.
Deputy Havas responded to the call that was received from Ms. Pierpoint on December 22, 2022. He testified that Ms. Richardson was arrested when police arrived on scene and learned that there was a warrant out for her arrest. Ms. Richardson was taken to jail and police returned to the hotel following Ms. Pierpoint’s second call. Ms. Richardson never indicated to him that she was not staying at the hotel. Deputy Havas returned to the hotel during the second call and then arrested Michael. After Michael was released on bail, Deputy Havas escorted him back to the hotel to obtain his belongings and ensured he left the site.
Hotel manager Mr. Fitch testified that if a guest generally stays past the checkout time of 11:00 a.m., the room is locked out until the hotel staff can determine whether the guest intends to stay. In December 2022, Mr. Fitch became aware that the Richardsons had not continued payment on their room and locked them out after 11:00 a.m. Relying on a registration slip, Mr. Fitch testified that the Richardsons’ stay initially ended on December 2. A second registration slip extended their stay to December 6. A third registration slip extended their stay to December 9. Finally, a fourth registration slip extended their stay ultimately to December 22. Although their credit card was billed on December 23, the checkout date was December 22. The registration slips were signed by Ms. Richardson and her driver’s license was used to rent the room.
Mr. Fitch locked the Richardsons out of their room on December 22. He did not access the property until the next day. Mr. Fitch called law enforcement after accessing the room and finding drugs and several other items. Mr. Fitch then led Detective Schwarck into the room when he arrived.
Objects in Room 216 Indicated a Female was Staying Therein
Detective Schwarck testified regarding his examination of the room. He was initially on site to assist with detaining Michael when he was removed from the hotel property. Detective Schwarck returned to the site in the afternoon when Mr. Fitch called. Immediately upon entering the room, Detective Schwarck saw drug paraphernalia as well as vials containing what he suspected to be methamphetamine. Based on material found in the room, it appeared that a male and a female were staying in the room. Detective Schwarck learned that the Richardsons rented the room and had been staying there for some time.
Body Camera – Methamphetamine and Hair Ties
Detective Schwarck confirmed that drugs were also found on a plate in the room. Vials found in the room also contained methamphetamine. He noted that where the vials containing drugs were found, there was a pouch that seemed to belong to a female and an airline ticket with Ms. Richardson’s name on it. Totals of 6.11 grams, 4.34 grams, 6.01 grams, and 0.33 grams of methamphetamine were found in the room. Detective Schwarck’s body camera video was played for the jury. Among other things, it showed a pink razor, hair ties or clips, and other material appearing to belong to a female.
Court Concluded in Michael Richardon’s Case “[V]iewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, a reasonable fact finder could conclude [Michael] and his wife [Ms. Richardson] jointly possessed the drugs.”
Based on the facts presented and the record before us, the State proved that Ms. Richardson had constructive possession of the drugs (methamphetamine). See Richardson, 2025-Ohio-3128, at ¶ 51-52 (7th Dist.). The evidence establishes that the location where the drugs were found was within Ms. Richardson’s dominion and control. The evidence reveals the hotel room was listed in Michael’s name and Ms. Richardson signed all of the registration slips. The couple resided in the room for roughly one month and Ms. Richardson exercised dominion and control over possessions in the room. There was no evidence presented at trial to support that the drugs were planted in the room. Ms. Richardson was shown to have had dominion and control of the room before hotel manager Mr. Fitch entered it and the manager testified that no one could have entered after Ms. Richardson was excluded from the room. As this court found in Michael’s case, “viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, a reasonable fact finder could conclude [Michael] and his wife [Ms. Richardson] jointly possessed the drugs.” Richardson at ¶ 53.
[T]here is sufficient evidence upon which the jury could reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the elements of aggravated possession of drugs (methamphetamine) were proven.
Pursuant to Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, there is sufficient evidence upon which the jury could reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the elements of aggravated possession of drugs (methamphetamine) were proven. Thus, the trial court did not err in overruling Ms. Richardson’s Crim.R. 29 motion. Also, the jury chose to believe the State’s witnesses. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, paragraph one of the syllabus. Based on the evidence presented, as previously stated, the jury did not clearly lose its way in finding Ms. Richardson guilty of aggravated possession of drugs (methamphetamine). Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387.
Conclusion and Holding
For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Richardson’s sole assignment of error is not well-taken. The June 4, 2025 and June 18, 2025 judgments of the Belmont County Court of Common Pleas convicting Ms. Richardson for aggravated possession of drugs (methamphetamine) and sentencing her to prison following a jury trial are affirmed.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Richardson, 2026 – Ohio – 134.
State v. Richardson, 2026 – Ohio – 134 was issued by the Seventh District Appellate Court on January 15, 2026 and is binding in the following Ohio counties: Belmont, Carroll, Columbiana, Harrison, Jefferson, Mahoning, Monroe and Noble.
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 factors that provided the ‘conscious’ legal element, by the circumstantial evidence of the belongings in Room 216 at the Red Roof Inn. The key in most cases is establishing the suspect(s) had knowledge of the contraband. The conscious prong can be established by explicit statements by the suspect or circumstantial evidence.
- Dominion and Control – On February 8, 1993 the Eighth District Appellate Court issued State v. Barr, 86 Ohio App.3d 227, 235 (8th Dist. 1993). There the court explained “Moreover, readily usable drugs found in very close proximity to a defendant may constitute circumstantial evidence and support a conclusion that the defendant had constructive possession of such drugs.”. In this case, Michael and Donnalyn Richardson were the only two occupants of a hotel room, since no one else had access to the room, both were in dominion and control of the methamphetamine.
- Extended Stay Hotel Room – When occupants are long term occupants of hotel rooms, the room will have Fourth Amendment protections analogous to a home. In this case the Richardson’s were long term occupants of the Red Roof Inn Room 216. Though there was a Fourth Amendment protection, the officers lawfully entered and obtained the evidence. The lawfully entry was based on the abandoned civil contract to renew the room for occupancy. The extended stay also worked against the Richardson’s since they were the only occupants of the room so the methamphetamine could not reasonable be possessed by another person.
- Pre-Sent Arms! Deputy Havas, Detective Schwarck and the Belmont County Prosecutor’s Office should all be highly commended for the investigation, arrest, conviction and successful appeal defense of Ms. Richardson. 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!