The Eleventh Appellate District Court of Ohio has affirmed the conviction of Donteill M. Grant on charges of trafficking and possessing cocaine. The court’s decision, handed down on November 10, 2025, addressed several key issues raised by Grant in his appeal, including the legality of the traffic stop that led to the discovery of the drugs, the admissibility of a composite video presented as evidence, and whether the conviction was supported by the weight of the evidence presented.
The Traffic Stop and Motion to Suppress
The Core of the Case
The case stems from a traffic stop on July 11, 2023, in Brookfield Township. Officer Jonathan Setser initiated the stop after observing Grant’s license plate was crooked and appeared to be insecurely fastened. The officer also noted the vehicle crossed over the fog line. When the officer ran the plate, it came back as a rental vehicle. Officer Setser testified that he was trained this could indicate a stolen vehicle. These observations, the court found, provided reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop.
Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause
Grant argued the traffic stop was unlawful because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause to initiate it. The court, however, disagreed. It explained that an officer needs “articulable facts” to justify an investigative stop, meaning the officer must be able to point to specific facts that give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Probable cause, a higher standard, is required for an arrest or search. In this case, the court determined Officer Setser had probable cause to stop the vehicle.
Fog Line Violation
The court specifically addressed the crossing of the fog line, a clear traffic violation. The court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Grant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the traffic stop.
Admissibility of the Composite Video
The Composite Video
A central piece of evidence was a “composite” video created by the prosecution. This video combined audio from Officer Setser’s body camera with footage from his dash camera. Grant’s defense objected to the video’s admission, arguing a lack of proper foundation.
The Court’s Ruling on the Video
The appeals court upheld the trial court’s decision to admit the composite video. The court emphasized the low threshold for admitting video evidence, requiring only a “reasonable likelihood” that the evidence is authentic. Officer Setser’s testimony that the video accurately depicted events was deemed sufficient to meet this standard under the “pictorial-testimony theory.”
Pictorial-Testimony Theory Explained
The pictorial-testimony theory allows video evidence to be admitted when a witness can testify that it’s a fair and accurate representation of what they observed. The court found Officer Setser’s testimony, as a witness who was present and involved in the events, was enough to establish the video’s authenticity.
Manifest Weight of the Evidence
Challenging the Conviction
Grant’s final argument was that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. This argument asserts the jury lost its way in evaluating the evidence, leading to an unjust outcome.
The Court’s Analysis
The appeals court conducted a thorough review of the evidence, including the circumstances of the traffic stop, the smell of marijuana emanating from the vehicle, Grant’s admission to having a blunt, and the subsequent discovery of nearly 500 grams of cocaine during a search of Grant’s person.
Chain of Custody Issue
Grant also raised concerns about the chain of custody of the cocaine, particularly regarding its handling by the Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI). The court acknowledged that any break in the chain of custody goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. The court found that the BCI employee who tested the cocaine, Erin Miller, provided sufficient testimony about the handling of the evidence, including her identification of the bag, her analysis, and the resealing process.
The Verdict Stands
Ultimately, the court concluded that the jury did not “clearly lose its way” and that the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The Outcome
The Eleventh Appellate District Court affirmed the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas’ judgments. This means Grant’s conviction for trafficking and possession of cocaine stands, along with the sentence of an indefinite term of 11 years to a maximum of 16 and a half years, a fine of $10,000, and submission to DNA testing. The court ordered costs to be taxed against Grant.