Youngstown Daily Legal News

Judges reject man's entrapment claims

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: October 3, 2013

A local appellate panel recently affirmed a Franklin County Court of Common Pleas’ decision denying a man’s petition for post-conviction relief in his cocaine trafficking case and ruled that he failed to prove he had a possible entrapment defense.

The 10th District Court of Appeals found that Rodney Zeune’s predisposition to commit a drug offense negated his possible entrapment defense and rejected his arguments on appeal.

Zeune was convicted by the common pleas court of complicity in trafficking in cocaine for his part in a sale to a confidential informant in March 2009.

Case summary shows that Ayman Musleh was arrested on felony cocaine possession charges in 2009.

After the arrest he agreed to become a confidential informant for the Mt. Vernon Police Department in exchange for dismissal of the charges.

The Drug Enforcement Agency was investigating Zeune at that time and Musleh told them that he had been friends with Zeune for several years and the two often used cocaine together.

In March of that year, Musleh arranged to buy an ounce of cocaine from Zeune.

Zeune changed the meeting place multiple times, but eventually met with Musleh.

He rode in Musleh’s car and directed him to an apartment complex located near Port Columbus International Airport.

During the ride, Zeune contacted his drug supplier, Rayshon Alexander, and informed him that he and Musleh were on their way.

Upon arriving at the apartment complex, Musleh gave money to Zeune who then got out of the car and gave the money to Alexander in exchange for the cocaine.

Zeune reportedly snorted some of the cocaine on his walk back to the car and then handed it to Musleh.

Musleh’s car was wired by police at the time so investigators were able to listen to the events as they unfolded.

The police also had tape recordings of telephone calls that occurred between Musleh and Zeune, although that information was only revealed to the defense during the trial and was withheld during discovery.

At the trial, Zeune did not offer testimony or a defense of entrapment.

The jury found him guilty of complicity in trafficking in cocaine and the matter proceeded to sentencing.

The common pleas court sentenced Zeune to four years in prison and his conviction was upheld on direct appeal.

On July 5, 2011, Zeune filed a petition for post-conviction relief that raised two grounds.

Initially, he argued his conviction and sentence were void or voidable because the state withheld the recorded telephone conversations.

“Appellant stated that Musleh repeatedly promised he would repay appellant $4,500 toward a $6,000 debt owed to him for equipment sold, that was the only reason appellant agreed to help Musleh buy cocaine, and that ‘had the audio recordings of telephone conversations between Mr. Musleh and appellant been demanded by his trial counsel, or had they been provided during discovery, appellant believed that a successful entrapment defense would have been established at trial,’” retired Judge Thomas Bryant wrote for the court.

Next, Zeune contended his trial counsel was ineffective for not arguing an entrapment defense.

The common pleas court denied his petition and Zeune appealed to the 10th District.

After review, the appellate judges held that entrapment is an affirmative defense that a defendant has the burden of establishing.

They also stated that entrapment cannot be established if “the accused was predisposed to commit the offense.”

“As detailed in the trial court’s decision denying appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief, the evidence adduced at trial indicates that the withheld audio recordings, even assuming they could be considered exculpatory, were immaterial because appellant’s predisposition to commit the drug offense negated any potential entrapment defense,” Bryant stated.

To support Zeune’s predisposition, the judges found that he had previously used cocaine with Musleh, snorted the cocaine during the transaction, showed no reluctance, and despite his statements about a debt, never attempted to collect money from Musleh.

“In fact, if obtaining the promised $4,500 that was purportedly owed to him had actually been the sole or primary motivation for appellant to have met with Musleh on March 5, 2009, the evidence rebuts this claim because appellant ended up engaging in the cocaine purchase with Musleh without even asking for or receiving this money,” Bryant continued.

The judges found, therefore, that had the recordings been given to Zeune prior to the trial it would not have changed the outcome.

They then found his second argument unsuccessful and affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

Presiding Judge William Klatt and Judge Susan Brown joined Bryant to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Zeune, 2013-Ohio-4156.

[Back]