which course to take-ia, an ability to choose whether to commit the act that gives rise to criminal liability.” Tippetts, 43 P.3d at 458. The court went on to distinguish the defendant’s voluntary act of possessing the marijuana before he was arrested from his involuntary act of introducing the marijuana into the jail. Id. at 459. Therefore, because “no reasonable juror could find that the introduction of contraband into the jail was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of possessing it,” the court reversed the defendant’s conviction for supplying contraband. Id. at 460. {11} We agree with the reasoning of the court in Tippetts and with the courts of other jurisdictions that have held similarly. See, e.g., State v. Sowry, 2004-Ohio-399, 155 Ohio App.3d 742, 803 N.E.2d 867, at ¶19 (<HOLDING>). We hold that, to be found guilty of bringing
holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the offense of supplying contraband to a jail because the defendant was not in possession of the drugs when he was taken to jail where the arresting officer entered the jail with the drugs holding that trial judge was not authorized to impose jail time as condition of probation and deleting the 90 day jail penalty holding that jail records can properly be considered in determining jail credit issues raised pursuant to rule 3800a holding that the defendants possession of contraband in a jail was not the result of a voluntary act on his part because officers brought him into the jail under arrest holding that the defendant was entitled to counsel when the offense for which he was tried could result in the imposition of a jail sentence