COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 74281 CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN PARK : ACCELERATED DOCKET DISTRICT : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION CRAIG T. YOUNG : : Defendant-Appellant : PER CURIAM DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 25, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BEREA MUNICIPAL COURT CASE NO. 97-TRD-3608 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: DENNIS F. BUTLER (#0002666) 75 Public Square, Suite 1320 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Defendant-Appellant: JAMES SAYRE (#0065444) 247 East Smith Road Medina, Ohio 44256 PER CURIAM: Defendant-appellant Craig T. Young ( appellant ) appeals from -2- his conviction for possession of marijuana. Appellant assigns the following errors for our review: I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT PERMITTED A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WHO WAS NOT A QUALIFIED EXPERT IN DRUG AUTHENTICATION, TO AUTHENTICATE ALLEGED DRUG EVIDENCE WHEN SAID OFFICER WAS NOT QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT IN DRUG AUTHENTICATION AND SAID OFFICER'S PROCEDURE FOR IDENTIFYING THE EVIDENCE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS REQUIRED BY OHIO EVIDENCE RULE 702. II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ADMITTING THE ALLEGED MARIJUANA BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE WAS NEVER AUTHENTICATED OR IDENTIFIED SUFFICIENTLY TO SUPPORT THE STATE'S CLAIM THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS IN FACT MARIJUANA. Finding appellant's appeal to lack merit, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. I. On October 17, 1997, appellant was issued two citations. In the first citation, appellant was charged with speeding. Appellant was also charged with possession of marijuana in violation of R.C. 2925.11. Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges set forth in the citations and, on January 29, 1998, appellant filed a motion to suppress the marijuana recovered from the interior of his vehicle. The trial court conducted the suppression hearing and trial on February 27, 1998. The only witness to testify at the suppression hearing was Shawn Thomas Flanagan, a park ranger with the Cleveland Metropolitan Park District. According to Ranger Flanagan, he has had extensive training in drug identification and arrests. In addition, Ranger Flanagan testified that he has arrested hundreds -3- of people for possession of marijuana. As a result of his training and experience in law enforcement, Ranger Flanagan asserted that he was familiar with the appearance and odor of marijuana. On October 17, 1997, at about 7:56 p.m., Ranger Flanagan was operating a radar unit on Valley Parkway west of Edgerton Road in Berea, Ohio. According to Ranger Flanagan, he clocked appellant traveling at forty-eight miles per hour in a thirty mile per hour zone. Officer Flanagan activated his overhead lights and stopped appellant. Officer Flanagan approached appellant's vehicle and asked appellant for his driver's license, proof of insurance and vehicle registration. Officer Flanagan testified that he detected a very strong odor of burnt marijuana coming from inside appellant's vehicle. When Officer Flanagan stuck his head inside the vehicle to confirm the smell of marijuana, he observed a black duffle bag on the floor of the vehicle; in addition, he observed a clear sandwich bag containing a green vegetable matter in an open pocket of the duffle bag. Officer Flanagan testified that he performed a field test on the substance and that it tested positive as marijuana. Therefore, Officer Flanagan placed appellant under arrest. Officer Flanagan then identified and authenticated the bag of marijuana as the substance he recovered from appellant's vehicle. The trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress and the marijuana was admitted into evidence. The case proceeded to trial and the prosecution rested on Ranger Flanagan's testimony. Instead of presenting his case, appellant changed his plea to no contest. -4- Based upon the evidence presented, the trial court found appellant guilty of possession of marijuana and speeding. Appellant was fined Twenty Dollars ($20.00) for speeding and One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) for possession of marijuana. In addition, appellant's driver's license was suspended for six months. Thereafter, on March 30, 1998, appellant filed the instant appeal. II. In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that Ranger Flanagan was not qualified as an expert to testify concerning the authentication and identification of the marijuana found in appellant's vehicle. Evid.R. 702, which controls the admission of expert testimony during the course of trial, provides: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. Whether a witness qualifies as an expert and his testimony would be helpful to the jury is in the sound discretion of the trial court. Grote v. J.S. Mayer & Co. (1990), 59 Ohio App.3d 44. The qualification of an expert witness will not be reversed unless there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. State v. Tomlin (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 724, 728; State v. Maupin (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 473, 479. "Abuse of discretion" connotes more than mere -5- error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157. The Supreme Court of Ohio has upheld the qualification of experienced police officers as experts in authenticating and identifying illegal drugs. See State v. Maupin (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 473, 479. In Maupin, the court noted: In 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law s 864, p. 408, the following is stated as to marijuana identification by police officers: 'Marijuana, not being an extract or preparation difficult or impossible to characterize without chemical analysis, but consisting of the dried leaves, stems, and seeds of a plant which anyone reasonably familiar therewith should be able to identify by appearance, it is not error to permit officers who have had experience in searching for and obtaining marijuana to testify that a certain substance is marijuana; and other police officers have also been held qualified so to testify.' Id. at 480. At the suppression hearing, Ranger Flanagan testified that he has made hundreds of arrests for possession and use of marijuana. Ranger Flanagan also testified that he has had extensive training in drug identification. According to Ranger Flanagan, as a result of his training and experience as a law enforcement officer, he is familiar with the appearance and odor of marijuana. In light of the evidence, we conclude that no abuse of discretion was committed by the trial court in allowing Ranger Flanagan to testify as to the authentication and identification of -6- the marijuana found in appellant's vehicle. Accordingly, appellant's first assignment of error is overruled. III. As for his second assignment of error, appellant claims that the marijuana should have been suppressed because it was not properly authenticated. Authentication and identification are governed by Evid.R. 901, which provides as follows: (A) General provision The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. (B) Illustrations By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule: (1) Testimony of witness with knowledge. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be. * * * (Emphasis added.) Evid.R. 901(B)(1) provides that any competent witness who has knowledge that a matter is what its proponent claims may testify to such pertinent facts, thereby establishing, in whole or in part, the foundation for authentication. The admission of evidence rests within the trial court's discretion. Rigby v. Lake Cty. (1991), 58 -7- Ohio St.3d 269, 271. Therefore, our review is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the marijuana. Id. We have already held that Ranger Flanagan was properly qualified as an expert to identify and authenticate the marijuana found in appellant's vehicle. At the suppression hearing, Ranger Flanagan identified and authenticated the prosecution's exhibit as the substance found in appellant's vehicle and that the substance was marijuana. In addition, Ranger Flanagan testified that the substance tested positive as marijuana. Based upon the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the marijuana into evidence. Accordingly, appellant's second 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. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Berea Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, ADM. JUDGE TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, JUDGE LEO M. SPELLACY, JUDGE N.B. This is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(B) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .