COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 59964 STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION ANTHONY JOHNSON : : Defendant-appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : MARCH 12, 1992 OF DECISION : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from Court of Common Pleas : Case No. 59964 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: For defendant-appellant: Stephanie Tubbs Jones John Gibbons, Esq. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 2000 Standard Building Deborah Naiman Cleveland, OH 44113 Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 - 2 - PATTON, P.J., Defendant-appellant, Anthony Johnson, appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine under the bulk amount with a specification in violation of R.C. 2925.11. On March 26, 1990, a bench trial was conducted and appellant was found guilty as charged. Subsequently, appellant was sentenced to a one-year term in the Lorain Correctional Institution. The evidence adduced at trial was as follows: The state produced the testimony of Detectives Charles Charney, Gregory Whitney and Nicholas Bartkew of the Narcotics Unit of the Cleveland Police Department. They each testified that on September 26, 1989, they were assigned to the street squad of the Narcotics Unit. As members of the street squad it was their responsibility to apprehend street drug sellers. At approximately 7:20 p.m., on September 26, 1989, the detectives were patrolling in an unmarked car northbound on East 88th Street. The detectives observed a group of males flagging down automobiles. They also observed an auto stopped in the southbound lane of East 88th Street. Approximately three to five males were standing at the driver's side door, an activity which to the detectives indicated a possible drug transaction. As the detectives approached in their car, the group of males recognized the approaching vehicle as a police car and disbursed. The appellant ran from the group and proceeded eastbound, cutting through back yards. Detectives Whitney and - 3 - Bartkew exited from their vehicle, identified themselves as police, and began chasing the appellant. The appellant was wearing blue jogging pants and a dark leather jacket. As the two detectives chased the appellant on foot, Detective Charney continued northbound on East 88th Street to Superior Avenue and then to East 89th in an attempt to block appellant's path. Detectives Whitney and Bartkew chased the appellant through several back yards. Both detectives stated they lost sight of appellant for a period of seconds. At that time they discovered appellant's pants on a chain link fence in a back yard on East 89th Street. They then began searching the area when they heard a noise come from under a boat on a trailer. The detectives looked under the boat and discovered the appellant, without pants and with his jacket lying next to him. As the appellant was removed from underneath the boat, the detectives observed three pieces of suspected crack cocaine on the ground next to where the appellant was discovered. The appellant was arrested and the suspected crack cocaine was confiscated. The rocks were later tested by the Scientific Investigation Unit and it was determined that the three rocks contained cocaine having a weight of .44 grams. At trial, the parties stipulated to the positive test results. The appellant testified on his own behalf. He testified he was standing in front of a house on East 88th Street talking to some friends. He stated that drug-related activity was occurring - 4 - about six houses up the street, but he denied any involvement and denied being near an automobile stopped in the street. He admitted running away, but testified he did so because he was fearful of being associated with drug activity since he was on probation. He further stated that he did not know the police were chasing him, that his pants did get caught on the fence, that the detectives never found any cocaine, and that he was not discovered under a boat. Appellant raises one assignment of error. It provides: THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. Appellant contends his conviction for possession of cocaine is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Specifically, appellant contends that in light of his testimony, the weight of the evidence does not establish appellant possessed cocaine. Appellant's argument lacks merit. A reviewing court will not reverse a verdict where there is substantial evidence upon which the trier of fact could reasonably conclude that all the elements of an offense have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Eley (1978), 56 Ohio St. 2d 169. In State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App. 3d 172, the court set forth the test to be utilized when addressing the issues of manifest weight of the evidence. The Martin court stated as follows: The court, reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and - 5 - determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [trier of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. *** See, Tibbs v. Florida (1982), 4547 U.S. 31, 38, 42. State v. Martin, supra, at 175; see, also, State v. Davis (1988), 38 Ohio St. 3d 361, 365. Moreover, the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are primarily for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 230, paragraph one of the syllabus. Review of the record reveals substantial conflicts between the detectives' version of the events and appellant's version. However, after reviewing the entire record, weighing the evidence and considering the credibility of the witnesses, we are not persuaded that the trier of fact created a manifest miscarriage of justice mandating reversal of appellant's conviction. The testimony of the detectives, if believed, establishes that the appellant knowingly possessed cocaine. The detectives testified that they observed the appellant engaging in suspected drug activity. As they approached in their unmarked car, the appellant ran. Two of the detectives chased the appellant through back yards on foot. They lost sight of the appellant for only a few seconds, at which time they discovered the appellant's blue jogging pants on a chain link fence. While searching the immediate area, they discovered the appellant underneath a trailered boat. When the appellant was removed from under the boat, three rocks of crack cocaine were found in a - 6 - location where the appellant's right hand had previously been. Based on the above, we concude that there was substantial evidence upon which a trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the appellant possessed cocaine. Accordingly, appellant's conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and his assignment of error is overruled. 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 Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 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. CONCUR AUGUST PRYATEL, J.* CONCUR PRESIDING JUDGE JOHN T. PATTON *Sitting by Assignment: August Pryatel, retired Judge of the Eighth Appellate District. N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journaliza- tion, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .