The Akron Legal News

Court of appeals upholds drug possession, trafficking convictions

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: December 17, 2014

In Ohio’s 8th District Court of Appeals, a panel of three judges recently ruled that the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas properly convicted defendant Jerael Dues of multiple drug offenses.

According to case summary, three members of the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Impact Unit, along with a detective from the Richmond Heights Police Department, went to Dues’ apartment in July 2012 to execute a warrant for Dues’ arrest on a misdemeanor assault charge.

Upon arrival, the officers heard loud music and people talking inside the apartment.

When they knocked on the door and identified themselves as police, the music was turned down and someone looked out from the door’s peephole.

The officers heard people running around and dishes clanging together.

In response to the commotion, a resident from the next unit came out.

Det. Scott Vargo asked the neighbor for permission to go to the neighbor’s balcony to observe Dues’ apartment and the neighbor gave consent.

Case summary states that, as soon as Vargo went to the neighbor’s balcony, he saw a male, later identified as Deaunte Bullitt, throwing a box off of Dues’ balcony.

Vargo yelled to the other officers that a male was throwing things off of Dues’ balcony and the other officers then quickly forced their way into Dues’ apartment.

Inside, they found Dues sitting on the couch and took him into custody. Bullitt was arrested on the balcony.

A search of the ground below Dues’ balcony yielded a box containing 100 grams of cocaine and a bag containing $22,000 in cash.

Based on the discovery of the drugs and money, the police obtained a warrant to search the apartment where they found drug paraphernalia coated with cocaine around the apartment.

They also found many small, plastic bags with blue stars on them, consistent with the packaging of heroin. Those bags were found in Dues’ 3-year-old child’s bedroom.

Dues was charged with trafficking and possessing over 100 grams of cocaine, including major drug offender specifications, a juvenile specification and several forfeiture specifications.

He was also charged with trafficking and possessing between five and 10 grams of heroin, possession of criminal tools and endangering children.

Dues and Bullitt were tried together and both were sentenced to 11 years in prison.

On appeal, Dues challenged the trial court’s decision to conduct a joint trial. He argued that the court should have ordered a separation of the trial.

“Here, the trial transcript reflects that, less than a week before trial, codefendant Bullitt’s counsel filed a motion for a separate trial,” wrote Judge Tim McCormack for the court of appeals.

Bullitt’s counsel indicated that Bullitt’s defense would be that, contrary to what the officers would testify, it was actually Dues who threw the cocaine and money off of the balcony, and Bullitt intended to testify to those facts.

According to Bullitt’s counsel, a joint trial would hamper Bullitt’s ability to present a complete defense because Dues would testify that Bullitt was the one who threw the money and drugs.

Dues’ counsel eventually joined the motion for a separate trial but the trial court denied the motion and, in the end, neither Bullitt or Dues testified.

The only evidence presented at trial was the testimony of the officers who told the trial court that it was Bullitt who threw the money and drugs.

“Essentially, Dues is arguing that he and his codefendant, by each attempting to exculpate himself and inculpate the other, had antagonistic defenses, and he was therefore prejudiced by a joint trial,” wrote McCormack.

But the appellate panel was unable to determine how Dues was prejudiced since the trial testimony only established that Bullitt was the man on the balcony.

“Therefore, it is hard to see how Dues was prejudiced by the joint trial or how a separate trial would have resulted in a more favorable outcome for Dues,” wrote McCormack. “Having reviewed the record, we conclude the trial court properly exercised its discretion in not ordering a separate trial.”

The appellate panel went on to overrule Dues’ remaining arguments, which included challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and the jury instructions regarding the amount of drugs.

Presiding Judge Kathleen Ann Keough and Judge Eileen T. Gallagher joined McCormack in affirming the judgment of the Cuyahoga County court.

The case is cited State v. Dues, 2014-Ohio-5276.

[Back]