The Akron Legal News

Meth manufacturer properly convicted, rules 5th District Court

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: June 19, 2013

The 5th District Court of Appeals has affirmed the drug conviction of Ricky Foughty in the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas.

Foughty was found to be manufacturing methamphetamine in violation of R.C. 2925.04 and was indicted on one count of illegal manufacture of a controlled substance and one count of illegal assembly or possession of chemicals used to manufacture a controlled substance with intent to manufacture.

R.C. 2925.04(A) states, “No person shall ... knowingly manufacture or otherwise engage in any part of the production of a controlled substance and of the illegal assembly or possession of chemicals used to manufacture controlled substance with intent to manufacture.”

The trial jury found Foughty guilty of complicity for both counts and according to an entry filed by June 24, the trial court found the offenses to be allied.

The state decided to have Foughty sentenced on the complicity of the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine count and subsequently sentenced him to a three-year prison term.

In his appeal, Foughty assigned one error to the trial court and stated that the trial court’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence and was not supported by sufficient evidence.

Written on behalf of the court of appeals’ three-judge panel, the opinion issued by Judge Sheila Farmer disagreed with Foughty’s assignment of error.

“On review for sufficiency, a reviewing court is to examine the evidence at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would support a conviction,” wrote Farmer.

Citing precedent in earlier court cases, Farmer explained that the relevant inquiry is whether, “after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“On review for manifest weight, a reviewing court is to examine the entire record,” she stated. “And to determine ‘whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.’”

Farmer held that the granting of a new trial should be exercised only in exceptional cases.

According to the appellate court’s summary of events, police were dispatched to a residence based on an anonymous tip that methamphetamine was being produced inside on March 16, 2012.

Foughty opened the door and permitted the officers to enter. He explained that he rented a room in the residence.

When police explained that they were looking for an individual named “Chastity” in connection with allegations that she was illegally manufacturing meth, Foughty went to his room and “told Chastity overly loudly to get dressed because the police wanted to talk to her.”

Chastity emerged but then went back into the room to retrieve her identification.

“Upon entering the appellant’s room, the officers were overcome by smoke and a chemical smell,” Farmer wrote.

Detectives arrived on the scene and discovered materials in the room used to make meth.

At trial, Chastity Perkins, Foughty’s co-defendant, admitted to knowing how to cook meth and that she was “a good meth cooker.”

She testified that, on that evening, Foughty took her to his room to correct a “messed up” batch.

According to Perkins, the only supplies she provided where some jars, tubing and wire cutters and that Foughty and a man named “Louie” provided her with the Sudafed needed for her to cook.

“Many items needed to cook methamphetamine, lithium batteries, heating utensils, paint thinner, bottles and Sudafed were provided to her when she got to the room,” wrote Farmer.

Via a plea deal, the jury had the opportunity to question Perkins’ credibility and she was cross-examined by Foughty’s defense counsel.

“Given Ms. Perkins’ testimony, corroborated by the many items found in appellant’s room to manufacture methamphetamine, the noticeable smoke and chemical smell and appellant’s attempt to ‘cover up’ the production of meth after the officers arrived,” wrote Farmer. “We find sufficient credible evidence to sustain the convictions, and no manifest miscarriage of justice.”

Foughty’s sole assignment of error was denied and the panel affirmed the conviction and sentence of the trial court.

Presiding Judge Scott Gwin and Administrative Judge William Hoffman concurred with Farmer.

The case is cited State v. Foughty, 2013-Ohio-2297.

[Back]