COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 60508 STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION GREATHOMAS RICHARDSON : : Defendant-appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : JULY 30, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CR-240,971 JUDGMENT : AFFIRM. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES Cuyahoga County Prosecutor JOHN REULBACH, Assistant Justice Center, Courts Tower 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellant: LAWRENCE REFALSKI Attorney at Law Post Office Box 93701 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 - 2 - ANN McMANAMON, J.: In two assignments of error, Greathomas Richardson timely appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine (R.C. 2925.11). Upon a review of the record, we affirm. We initially will address Richardson's second assignment of error, which challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence requires us to view the record in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether rational minds could have found each material element of an offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St. 3d 259; Jackson v. Virginia (1979), 433 U.S. 307. We are mindful that evaluation of witness credibility primarily lies with the trier of fact. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 230. Cleveland police officer Greg Whitney was patrolling the area of East 105th Street and South Boulevard with his partner, Detective Bartkiw, on the afternoon of June 21, 1989 when they observed two men standing on a corner. The men, who were engaged in conversation, began to walk away from the corner as the officers approached. Officer Whitney testified that he saw Richardson throw something on the ground. The officers stopped - 2 - the men, and Detective Bartkiw picked up a lottery ticket from the area near Richardson. The lottery ticket was wrapped around a rock of crack cocaine. Officer Whitney searched Richardson's companion, Ricky Winston, and found another lottery ticket wrapped around some cocaine. The defendant denied possessing the cocaine. Richardson told the jury he was driving to a funeral home when he saw Winston. Richardson claimed that he stopped his automobile to speak with Winston about repayment of money the defendant loaned Winston. According to Richardson, Winston told him to wait around until he got the money. The defendant went across the street and bought a beer while Winston made efforts to get the money. Richardson stated he was sitting on some steps by his car when the police officers approached him. The defendant testified he told the officers he was waiting for some money and drinking a beer. The officers allegedly responded, "We're not taking anybody down for beer, for drinking *** alcohol. If you're clean, you can go." (Tr. 67). Richardson averred that, after the officers searched him, he began to walk away from them when they accused him of throwing something on the ground. The defendant claimed it was only a beer cap, but that the officers, nonetheless, arrested him. Richardson argues that the state's evidence is deficient because Detective Bartkiw did not testify and it was he who picked up the cocaine from the ground. Officer Whitney told the - 3 - jury he observed the defendant throw an object on the ground and he saw where it landed. The officer averred that he watched his partner pick up this object. In light of this evidence, the state was not required to call Detective Bartkiw as a witness. We also find the record contains sufficient evidence to support Richardson's conviction for cocaine possession. Jenks, supra. It was well within the jury's province to believe the officer's testimony and reject the defense version of the events. DeHass, supra. Accordingly, this assignment of error is overruled. In his first assignment of error, Richardson asserts the court improperly permitted "unresponsive" answers from Officer Whitney. The defendant cites the following exchange: Q. Could you tell the ladies and gentlemen what happened. A. It was approximately 1620 hours. It is 20 after 4:00. We were checking the area of East 105, driving southbound on 105. My partner, Detective Bartkiw was driving. We observed two males standing on the southwest corner just having a conversation. As we approached the intersection, they looked up and saw our police vehicle. And the defendant sitting to my right in the blue jean jacket and white pants said something to the other male standing there. (sic.) Turned and started to walk towards 105. They were just west of 105 on South Boulevard. - 4 - At this time we observed him throw something from his right hand to the ground. I mentioned it to my partner. We stopped the vehicle. These actions are indicative of street drug sales in the area. People carrying drugs -- MR. WAGNER: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. A. If they have it on their person, they try to get rid of it. A lot of times you hear, "It's not on me. You don't have me with anything." Probably 85 per cent of our arrests happen this way. MR. WAGNER: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. (Tr. 13-14). It is within the court's discretion to control the interrogation of witnesses. Cf. State v. Miller (1988), 44 Ohio App. 3d 43. This court will not disturb the trial court's ruling absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Harcourt (1988), 46 Ohio App. 3d 52. Officer Whitney had been a policeman for nine years at the time of the defendant's arrest. The last two years, Whitney served in the narcotics unit. The disputed testimony related the officer's narcotics experience and included information not commonly known to the jurors. Further, it explained the - 5 - officer's decision to arrest the defendant. Thus, we find the court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the testimony. This assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. - 6 - 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. JOHN F. CORRIGAN, P.J. PATTON, J. CONCUR JUDGE ANN McMANAMON 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 journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .