COLUMBUS – Hiding something to avoid being charged with a crime is not quite the same as tampering with evidence, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
In the case of a woman who concealed heroin in her body, the justices ruled unanimously that she could not be convicted of tampering with evidence unless the state proved that she knew that an investigation by authorities was ongoing or would likely be instituted, striking down the so-called “unmistakable crime” doctrine.
Justice Terrence O’Donnell wrote in the 7-0 decision that prosecutors could not simply infer that, because Chelsey Barry knew that concealing evidence to avoid being charged with an “unmistakable crime.” They were still required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew an investigation was underway or likely to follow.
Barry was caught with 56 grams of heroin concealed in her body during a traffic stop in Scioto County in 2013.
She admitted to having the drugs and was convicted of drug trafficking, possession, conspiracy, and tampering with evidence. The trial court sentenced her to six years for the first three charges and imposed a three-year consecutive sentence for tampering with evidence for a total prison term of nine years.
Barry appealed the tampering conviction, claiming the jurors were misled when they were instructed that, by knowing that drug possession and trafficking were “unmistakable crimes” when she concealed the heroin, she had “constructive knowledge” that she would be investigated.
In her appeal to the Supreme Court, Barry’s attorney argued that Ohio law requires a defendant have “actual knowledge” of an imminent investigation in order for them to be convicted of tampering with evidence.