State v. Port, Unpublished Decision (6-5-2006)
2006 Ohio 2783 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A weapon is 'concealed' if it is not discernible by ordinary observation, even if not absolutely invisible. An ordinary object like a knife is a 'deadly weapon' if it is capable of inflicting death and the person possessing it admits to carrying it for protection, thereby demonstrating intent to use it as a weapon.
Facts:
- Sheri Gorre reported to the Marion Police Department that she had been assaulted by her former boyfriend, Darrell Port.
- Ten days later, Gorre called the police again to report further problems with Port.
- Based on Gorre's report and a description of Port's vehicle, Officer Rob Musser initiated a traffic stop of Port's car near Gorre's house.
- Port was in the driver's seat and his girlfriend was in the passenger seat.
- As Officer Musser asked Port to exit the vehicle, Major Caryer, another officer on the scene, saw a seven-and-a-half-inch lock blade pocket knife in the open position on the driver's seat.
- The knife had been underneath Port's thigh and was not visible to the officers until Port moved to get out of the car.
- When questioned, Port admitted the knife was his and stated he carried it for protection against a man named David Daniels.
Procedural Posture:
- Darrell Port was indicted in the Court of Common Pleas, Marion County, Ohio, on one count of Felonious Assault and one count of Carrying a Concealed Weapon.
- A jury trial was held in the trial court.
- The jury returned a verdict of not guilty for Felonious Assault and guilty for Carrying a Concealed Weapon.
- The trial court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced Port to seventeen months in prison.
- Port (appellant) filed a notice of appeal to this court, the Ohio Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District, against the State of Ohio (appellee).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a knife 'concealed' when it is hidden from ordinary view under a person's thigh while seated in a car, and is it a 'deadly weapon' when the person admits to possessing it for protection?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for carrying a concealed weapon because the knife was both concealed and qualified as a deadly weapon. The knife was 'concealed' because it was situated under Port's thigh on the car seat, making it undiscernible by the officers' ordinary observation until he moved. Absolute invisibility is not the standard; if an ordinary look does not reveal the weapon, it is concealed. The knife was a 'deadly weapon' under the statute because Port's own admission that he carried it 'for protection' against a specific person demonstrated that he 'possessed' or 'carried' it as a weapon, fulfilling the second prong of the statutory definition.
Concurring - Rogers, J.
Yes. While I concur in the judgment, I write separately to emphasize that a knife is not a per se deadly weapon. The state must prove both that an object is capable of inflicting death and that it was possessed, carried, or used as a weapon. In this case, the state met its burden because Port's knife was open and ready at hand, and most importantly, his statement that he carried it for protection created a 'reasonable and obvious inference' that he possessed the knife as a weapon. These specific facts distinguish this case from the simple carrying of a folding pocket knife.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary requirements for proving the elements of carrying a concealed weapon in Ohio, particularly what constitutes a 'deadly weapon.' The court's holding emphasizes that a defendant's subjective intent, as evidenced by an admission to carrying an object 'for protection,' is sufficient to transform an otherwise common item into a deadly weapon under the law. This provides a clear precedent for future cases, allowing prosecutors to use a defendant's own statements as direct evidence to satisfy a key element of the offense. The concurring opinion serves as a caution, however, reminding lower courts that the context and specific facts are critical and that not every knife will automatically meet the statutory definition.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Port, Unpublished Decision (6-5-2006)