With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". sufficient evidence that, if believed, would convince the average mind of Kingsland’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The state’s evidence showed that the drugs were found in the pickup, that neither the driver nor Kingsland owned hio-1, 2003 WL 23108, at ¶ 6-12 (concluding that insufficient evidence supported driver’s conviction for possession of cocaine when driver sped up after a police cruiser pulled behind him, the packet of crack cocaine was not in driver’s reach or line of sight, no one saw driver duck down, it was dark outside and inside the truck, and the state merely speculated that the defendant rather than the passenger placed the packet on the floor beside the transmission hump); see also State v. Smith, Logan App. No. 8-04-40, 2005-Ohio-3233, 2005 WL 1503954, at ¶ 7 (<HOLDING>). {¶ 21} Likewise, we do not believe that the

A: holding evidence insufficient to establish defendant had physical or constructive possession of heroin when no drugs were found on his person and the only drugs discovered on the premises which he shared with the codefendant were secreted out of plain view
B: holding that statements by defendant and apartment manager that defendant lived in the apartment where drugs were found demonstrated his control over the apartment even though no documents personal effects or keys were found
C: holding that an indictment that referred to wholesale quantities of cocaine and cocaine base was sufficiently broad to include the specific quantities of drugs actually found by the jury
D: holding that insufficient evidence supported the defendants conviction for possession of cocaine when officers executed a warrant on a small oneroom apartment and found large quantities of crackcocaine in plain view although the defendant supplied police with a false name when they questioned him at the apartment there was no evidence that the defendant had drugs on his person or that he had ever used cocaine
D.