Supreme Court: Drug Dealer Contests Trial in Neighboring County Based on Another Dealer’s Sales

Kenneth Brown is an admitted drug dealer and a “Tecumseh Street Gangster.” Police observed him in 2019 busily going in and out of houses on the 800 block of Tecumseh Street in Toledo and selling cocaine to buyers in cars pulling up to the curb.

When Brown found himself in a courtroom in an adjacent county charged with “engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity,” he objected. He asked a Henry County Common Pleas Court judge both before and during his trial to acquit him, insisting it was the wrong venue to charge him with any drug dealing. The judge rejected his claims.

Jurors were also concerned about how the venue law operates. During deliberations, they sent a note to the judge, asking, “What if we as a jury cannot come to a decision on what county he should be tried in? What happens next?”

The judge told the jury to keep deliberating, and about a half hour later, they voted to convict Brown. He was sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison. When it conducts oral arguments next week, the Supreme Court of Ohio will consider whether Brown’s involvement in a Toledo drug-selling gang justifies being tried in Henry County and if his conviction should stand.

Undercover Buy Leads to Arrests
Brown and Anthony Lawrence were leaders of a group regularly selling cocaine on Tecumseh Street. Alexandria Armijo, also of Lucas County, didn’t consider herself a member of the gang but rather an independent cocaine dealer. But her frequent supplier was Lawrence.

Unbeknownst to Armijo, one of her Toledo customers was a confidential informant, and a federal drug task force was observing the activity on Tecumseh Street. That informant made drug buys from Armijo. The informant moved to Henry County, and Armijo agreed to drive drugs to him on two occasions.

The informant then arranged for an undercover police officer to buy an amount of cocaine so large that Armijo didn’t have enough to sell or the money to buy it. But she did have an arrangement with Lawrence to have him “front” her $1,550 worth of cocaine.

Armijo was caught by law enforcement in Henry County, which borders Lucas County in northwest Ohio. Police let her return to Toledo, where they watched her repay Lawrence. Shortly after, Armijo, Lawrence, Brown, and other Tecumseh Street dealers were all indicted and tried in Henry County for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity.

Actions Were Part of Enterprise, Prosecutor Asserts
A pattern of corrupt activity charge requires two or more incidents of corrupt activity that are related to the affairs of the same enterprise, the Henry County prosecutor explains. Brown was a member of a drug trafficking organization and worked regularly with Lawrence with the common goal of making money by selling drugs. Brown’s participation in the enterprise demonstrates that he benefitted from the sale of drugs by the enterprise wherever that takes place, the prosecutor asserts.

Under the venue statute, R.C. 2901.12(H), an offender, as part of a course of criminal conduct in different jurisdictions, may be tried for all offenses in any jurisdiction in which one of those offenses or any element of one of those offenses occurred, the prosecutor explains. Armijo’s actions of buying the drugs from Lawrence on credit, selling them in Henry County, and returning to pay Lawrence demonstrated she was an association-in-fact member of the enterprise that included Brown as an active member, the prosecutor argues. That means Brown can be tried in Henry County with all other members of the enterprise, the prosecutor concludes.

Disconnected Events Prevent Trial in Henry County, Offender Maintains
Brown argues engaging in corrupt activity requires members of an enterprise to act in concert and with a common purpose. The prosecution confuses acts that are “mutually beneficial” with “common purpose,” he claims. He did engage in an enterprise with Lawrence in Lucas County, he admits. However, the enterprise didn’t assist, control, or direct Armijo’s activities. Those actions were all her own, and she testified she didn’t even know who Brown was, he notes. The enterprise might have benefitted from Armijo reselling cocaine that Lawrence sold to her, but there was no common purpose to make sales in Henry County, Brown argues.

To prove a common scheme, the state had to provide some evidence that Lawrence had a role in the subsequent sale of drugs by Armijo to her buyers, Brown asserts. Because Lawrence didn’t have a role, the Tecumseh Street sellers can’t be tried in Henry County as part of an enterprise, he maintains.

The Court will hear State v. Brown and three other cases on Wednesday, May 14.  The Court will hear four more cases on Tuesday, May 13.

Watch Oral Arguments Online
Oral arguments begin at 9 a.m. They will be streamed live online at SupremeCourt.Ohio.gov and on the Ohio Channel, where they are archived.

Detailed case previews from the Office of Public Information are available by clicking on the case names throughout the article or in the list of cases in the sidebar.

Tuesday, May 13
Proof of Venue
A Cleveland man who worked in Lake County was accused of the rape and sexual battery of a coworker. The November 2023 trial was held in Cuyahoga County because of a belief that the sexual assault took place in the man’s Cleveland home. The trial court acquitted the man based on his argument that the prosecutor didn’t prove the offenses happened in Cuyahoga County. In State v. Musarra, the prosecutor argues venue isn’t a fact that the state must prove and the acquittal was improper. The man responds that a retrial isn’t permitted after an acquittal based on a venue error. 

Sales Tax Exemptions
The owner of 1,100 acres in Monroe County bought a $112,000 SUV in 2018 and didn’t pay sales tax on the vehicle, claiming an exemption. The property owner said the SUV was purchased for use in the timber farming business operated on the property. The state tax department disagreed, ordering the farm to pay about $9,400 in taxes. In Claugus Family Farm v. Harris, the farm maintains that the SUV is used 95% of the time for the timber operations, including taking employees and materials across the farm’s rugged terrain and waterways. The tax department contends that the farm hasn’t harvested timber since 2008 and that transporting people and equipment isn’t a direct farming activity, which is needed to claim a tax exemption.

Separate Trials
A Fairfield County man was charged with 22 sexually related crimes involving four victims, all minors at the time of the offenses. The acts occurred over several years. Prosecutors sought to have one trial with all four victims testifying. The man claimed a single trial would be highly prejudicial, and he asked for separate trials for each victim. The trial judge rejected the request, but an appeals court ruled he was entitled to separate trials. In State v. Reed, the Court will consider whether four trials are necessary or if the trial court can institute safeguards to ensure a single trial can be conducted fairly.

Immunity Defense
In 2017, a bicyclist was killed by a fallen tree owned by the city of Youngstown. His family sued claiming the city acted “negligently, recklessly, or wantonly” by failing to remove the hazardous tree. The city initially responded by replying the estate “failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted” but raised no other defenses. Later, lawyers for Youngstown asked the case to be dismissed, claiming it was immune from the lawsuit. The trial judge ruled the city made its claim too late. In Durig v. Youngstown, the Court will consider whether the failure to state a claim answer was sufficient to indicate the city was claiming immunity even if it didn’t use those specific words.

Wednesday, May 14
Adverse Possession Claim
A railway owns a corridor of land in Tallmadge made up of two parcels totaling less than 2 acres. In 1997, a company purchased 34 acres that run alongside the railway’s parcels. The company thought the parcels were part of its property, landscaping and maintaining the parcels throughout the years. In 2021, the company sued to take the railway’s parcels using a claim of adverse possession. Adverse possession requires proof of possession and use of the property for 21 years. The railway argues in NC Enterprises v. Norfolk and Western Railway Company that the mowing and weeding the company did during the first few years doesn’t count toward the 21-year timeframe. The company counters that the combined care and maintenance, including landscaping and improvements, over the years determines whether adverse possession has been established.

Non-Disclosure Agreement
A Youngstown attorney represented a chiropractor friend in an assault case. While the case was ongoing, the attorney drafted a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) between his client and the alleged victim. The NDA required the woman who reported the assault to ask the prosecutor to dismiss the case. The attorney also told the court that he negotiated the NDA with the woman. However, the attorney didn’t discuss the NDA with the victim. The attorney in Disciplinary Counsel v. Rossi objects to a proposed suspension of six months. He argues he made a mistake and his lack of prior discipline and excellent reputation support a public reprimand or a stayed suspension. The disciplinary counsel maintains that the attorney drafted the NDA to silence the victim and has minimized his misconduct.

Evidence Exclusion
In 2019, a man stole his aunt’s car in Georgia and drove to his mother’s home in Cincinnati, where he allegedly strangled her to death. He was driving his mother’s car in Indiana when he was questioned by a deputy, who arrested him but never read him his Miranda rights. Back in an Ohio court, statements captured on the deputy’s body camera were played in court, and the man was convicted of murder. An appeals court ruled that three key comments played for the jury should be excluded and the court ordered a new trial. In State v. Roberts, the prosecutor claims a new trial isn’t justified because the other overwhelming evidence of guilt led to the man’s conviction, not the improperly admitted statements. The man maintains the reason for his conviction was the improperly admitted statements and he deserves a new trial.