COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 61312 STATE OF OHIO : : : PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : JEROME LOVE : OPINION : : DEFENDANT-APPELLANT : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: AUGUST 20, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE NO. CR-259501 JUDGMENT: AFFIRM DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES Cuyahoga County Prosecutor BY: MARK FELLENBAUM Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 For Defendant-Appellant: HYMAN FRIEDMAN, Cuyahoga County Public Defender BY: MARGARET O. ISQUICK Assistant Public Defender The Marion Building, Room 307 1276 West Third Street Cleveland, OH 44113 - 2 - SPELLACY, J.: Defendant-appellant Jerome Love ("appellant") appeals from his conviction for possession of cocaine (R.C. 2925.11). Appellant raises the following assignments of error: I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY OVERRULING APPEL- LANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND THEREBY VIOLATED APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 14 OF THE OHIO CONSTI- TUTION. II. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR DENYING APPELLANT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND A FAIR TRIAL BY REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ASSEMBLY. III. THE VERDICT IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. Finding that appellant's assignments of error lack merit, we affirm his conviction. I. At a hearing held to address appellant's motion to suppress, Detective Carosielli testified that he, Detective Patterson, and Sergeant Gercar, were responding to complaints of drug sales and usage in an area known for drug activity, when they observed appellant and three other males standing in front of an apartment building. Detective Carosielli stated that when they approached the group, appellant dropped an object to the ground and ran into the nearby apartment building. -3- Detective Carosielli further testified that he chased appellant, while Detective Patterson retrieved the object appellant dropped and Sergeant Gercar secured the three males who had not fled. Detective Carosielli stated that he found appellant on the third floor landing of the apartment building with three additional males. Detective Carosielli further stated that he ordered all four individuals to place their hands on a wall. Detective Carosielli testified that when Detective Patterson arrived and showed him the object appellant dropped, a one dollar bill wrapped around three rocks of crack cocaine, he placed appellant under arrest. Detective Carosielli further testified that when he subsequently searched appellant he discovered a glass "sharpshooter." Detective Patterson testified that he retrieved the object appellant dropped and then continued in the chase of appellant. Detective Patterson further stated that when he arrived on the landing where Detective Carosielli, appellant, and the other three individuals, were standing, he looked at the object and discovered that it was a one dollar bill wrapped around three rocks of crack cocaine. At the conclusion of the hearing the trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress. II. At trial Detective Carosielli and Detective Patterson's testimony was substantially the same as their testimony at the suppression hearing. -4- Sergeant Gercar testified that he was twelve to thirteen feet from appellant when he observed appellant drop the object to the ground. Scott Miller, from Cleveland's forensic laboratory, testified that the three rocks found inside the one dollar bill tested positive for cocaine and that the glass sharpshooter contained cocaine residue. Appellant testified that his real name is Curtis Ford and that Jerome Love is one of the aliases he uses to avoid being caught for violating parole. He also stated that he had been convicted of robbery, attempted burglary, and drug abuse. Appellant went on to testify that he had been standing on a street corner with eight or nine individuals when he saw the police officers approaching. Appellant stated that he told everyone the police were coming and then ran into the apartment building with three other individuals. Appellant further stated that one of these three individuals dropped the glass sharpshooter when Detective Carosielli ordered them to place their hands on a wall. Appellant testified that Detective Carosielli was saying that the glass sharpshooter belonged to him because he had gotten "smart" with the detective. Appellant also denied dropping any objects outside the apartment building. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found appellant guilty of possessing cocaine. III. -5- In his first assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. Appellant supports his contention by arguing that Detective Carosielli lacked the requisite basis for conducting an investigative stop. We disagree. A police officer may make an investigative stop if it is possible "to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion." Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1, 21. The issue before the court is: "Would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure *** 'warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief' that the action taken was that "[t]he propriety of an investigative stop by a police officer must be viewed in light of the totality of the circumstances." State v. Bobo (1988), 37 Ohio St. 3d 177, paragraph one of the syllabus. Relevant circumstances in this case include the area's reputation for drug activity, appellant's disposing of an object after observing the police officers approaching, and appellant's fleeing the police officers. All of these factors have been identified as articulable facts which compose the totality of the circumstances surrounding an investigative stop. State v. Andrews (1991), 57 Ohio St. 3d 86, 90. After a review of these relevant circumstances, we conclude the investigative stop was proper. -6- Appellant also argues that Detective Carosielli found the glass sharpshooter as the result of an improper search. Detective Carosielli, however, did not search appellant until after he placed him under arrest for possessing the three rocks of crack cocaine. The glass sharpshooter, therefore, was discovered as the result of a legitimate search incident to an arrest. Chimel v. California (1969), 395 U.S. 752, 763. Accordingly, appellant's first assignment of error is not well taken. IV. In his second assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on his right to assembly. "In a criminal case, if requested special instructions to the jury are correct, pertinent and timely presented, they must be included, at least in substance, in the general charge." Cincinnati v. Epperson (1969), 20 Ohio St. 2d 59, paragraph one of the syllabus. Appellant's right to assemble was not pertinent to the issues raised at trial. The trial court, therefore, did not err when it refused to instruct the jury as requested. Accordingly, appellant's second assignment of error is not well taken. V. In his third assignment of error, appellant contends his conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence. -7- "On the trial of a case, either civil or criminal, the weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are primarily for the trier of the facts." State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 230, paragraph one of the syllabus. When determining whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the reviewing court reviews: the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines 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. State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App. 3d 172, 175. After a review of the record, we find the jury, as trier of fact, could properly conclude that appellant was guilty of possessing cocaine. Accordingly, appellant's third assignment of error is not well taken. Judgment affirmed. -8- 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 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. NAHRA, P.J., CONCURS; BLACKMON, J., CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY. LEO M. SPELLACY JUDGE 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. .