COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 59472 STATE OF OHIO : : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : : and -vs- : : OPINION : RICHARD D. RAMSEY : : Defendant-Appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT November 27, 1991 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. 244695. JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Stephanie Tubbs-Jones Hyman Friedman Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Cuyahoga County Public Defender By: L. Christopher Frey By: Warren L. McClelland Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Assistant Public Defender The Justice Center The Marion Building 1200 Ontario Street Room 307 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 1276 West Third Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 - 1 - ANN McMANAMON, P.J.: Richard Ramsey timely appeals his convictions for drug trafficking (R.C. 2925.03) and possession of criminal tools (R.C. 2924.24). In two assignments of error, Ramsey alleges prosecutorial misconduct and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Neither argument has merit and we affirm. While on patrol at 1:00 a.m. September 22, 1989, Independence Police Officer Charles Wilson observed Richard Ramsey leave a second floor room at the Red Roof Inn. Wilson testified the defendant "nervously" looked around before entering a 1979 Buick automobile in the motel parking lot. The officer noticed the auto had no front license plate and the back Ohio license tag was not illuminated. Since the vehicle was in violation of Ohio license plate display laws, Officer Wilson checked the tag number with motor vehicle registration records. Wilson learned the license number was registered to a 1977 Mercury automobile. The officer then stopped Ramsey who had driven the auto out of the motel parking lot. Ramsey, who could produce no driver's license, gave the officer his name, birthdate, and an incorrect social security number. Upon learning Ramsey's license had been suspended, Officer Wilson arrested the defendant. Wilson asked the defendant if he had any drugs or weapons and Ramsey responded he had drugs. A search of Ramsey disclosed a pink container with what appeared to be crack - 2 - cocaine, a vial containing a white powder resembling cocaine, a case with marijuana cigarettes and a pipe commonly used to smoke cocaine. Ramsey also had a check for $300 and approximately $400 in cash in his pockets. Independence Police Officer John Ducas assisted in Ramsey's arrest and conducted an inventory of the Buick automobile. Ducas observed a brown bag partially underneath the driver's seat. The bag contained $3,129, two plastic bags of cocaine weighing a total of 49.6 grams and a pill vial. Detective Michael Savioli testified he spoke with Ramsey at the Independence police station after his arrest. According to Savioli, the defendant admitted ownership of the drugs found in the auto. The defendant also explained that he did not have title to the car but was in the process of buying it. At trial, Richard Ramsey told the jury he went to the Red Roof Inn with his girlfriend where they met two strangers named "Jim" and "Keri." The two couples "partied" in the defendant's motel room until approximately 1:00 a.m. when Jim decided he wanted some beer. Ramsey offered to get the beer but did not have an auto since his had been vandalized recently. Ramsey testified it was Jim's Buick he was driving when stopped by police. Ramsey denied any knowledge of the drugs and money found in the brown bag under the driver's seat. In his first assignment of error, Ramsey claims prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of a fair trial. - 3 - Ramsey argues the prosecutor improperly cross-examined him about the truthfulness of Officer Savioli's testimony. Specifically, Ramsey cites the following queries: "Q. You testified that you never sat down and had a conversation with this detective. "A. Not that I remember, no. "Q. So he is inaccurate about that, correct? "A. He didn't say that we sat down and talked. "*** "Q. The officer testified that he asked you about everything, is he inaccurate about that? "A. What I understood him to say, everything, I thought he meant what I had on my person and what I had in the room. "*** "Q. Mr. Ramsey, did you also have an [sic] conversation where you told the officer that you borrowed the plates and put them on the car so that you could use it? "A. No. "Q. So that officer who testified to that, he would "A. I did not say I borrowed the plates. I said I borrowed the car." (Tr. 190-192). Ramsey contends this alleged error was later compounded during the prosecutor's closing arguments. At the outset, we note the defendant voiced no objections to the prosecutor's questions nor to the closing arguments. Thus, he waived this argument on appeal. State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St. 2d 112, paragraph one of the syllabus. We, - 4 - nonetheless, find no misconduct by the prosecutor. The state's cross-examination of Ramsey was designed to test the truthfulness of his testimony and the limits of such queries rest within the sound discretion of the court. See State v. Garfield (1986), 34 Ohio App. 3d 300 (cross-examination may include asking a witness whether another witness is lying). Accordingly, we overrule this assignment of error. Ramsey's second assignment of error disputes the sufficiency of the evidence. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found that each element of the offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia (1979), 443 U.S. 307; State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St. 3d 259, paragraph two of the syllabus. Further, the assessment of witness credibility lies primarily with the trier of fact. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 230. Ramsey was convicted of drug trafficking under R.C. 2925.03, which provides in pertinent part: "(A) No person shall knowingly do any of the following "*** "(4) Possess a controlled substance in an amount - 5 - equal to or exceeding the bulk amount, but in an amount less than three times that amount. ***" The defendant also was found guilty of possessing cash as a criminal tool. R. C. 2924.24 prohibits the possession of criminal tools and provides: "(A) No person shall possess or have under his control any substance, device, instrument, or article, with purpose to use it criminally. "(B) Each of the following constitutes prima facie evidence of criminal purpose: "*** "(3) Possession or control of any substance, device, instrument, or article commonly used for criminal purposes, under circumstances indicating such item is intended for criminal use." Ramsey initially urges the state failed to prove he possessed the drugs or the cash found in the auto. It is well- established that possession of an object may be either actual or constructive. State v. Haynes (1971), 25 Ohio St. 2d 264.; State v. Bey (February 7, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 57973, unreported. Constructive possession requires that the defendant be able to exercise dominion or control over the object. State v. Wolery (1976), 46 Ohio St. 2d 316; State v. Pruitt (1984), 18 Ohio App. 3d 50. The evidence is sufficient to find that Ramsey exercised constructive possession over the brown bag and its contents. We note that the defendant was operating the vehicle with the bag partially concealed under the driver's seat. The jury reasonably could have rejected Ramsey's story that he borrowed the auto from a stranger he had just met. More importantly, Detective - 6 - Savioli testified Ramsey initially admitted ownership of the drugs found in the car. We also reject Ramsey's argument that the state did not prove he possessed the cash with an intent to use it criminally. The $3,129 in cash was found with the drugs in the brown bag, and the $400 in cash was located on the defendant's person. Detective Savioli testified: "Q. Can you explain to us the relationship between drugs and cash? "A. You have to have the drugs to sell to get cash. Usually the way people keep records of how much sales they have is a good example here. In this particular one, there is a one, one, two, three, four, five, five separate denominations of different amounts of bills. That usually shows each transaction how much was made. That is the way most people involved with drugs, in the sale of drugs, keep track rather than taking a written record in cash should they be arrested." (Tr. 143). In light of this evidence, we find the jury reasonably could conclude the defendant possessed the cash with a criminal purpose. See State v. Furst (November 15, 1990), Cuyahoga App. No. 59757, unreported; State v. Gonzales (May 19, 1988), Cuyahoga App. No. 53950, unreported. This assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. - 7 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JAMES D. SWEENEY, J., AND *JERRY HAYES, J., CONCUR. PRESIDING JUDGE ANN McMANAMON (*Sitting by assignment: Judge Jerry Hayes, Domestic Relations Court, Portage County). N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .