Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 03-27-2021
Case Style:
STATE OF OHIO v. NATHAN STILTNER
Case Number: 19CA3882
Judge: Kristy Wilkin
Court: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
SCIOTO COUNTY
Plaintiff's Attorney: Shane A. Tieman, Scioto County Prosecuting Attorney
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
Portsmouth, OH - Criminal defense attorney represented Nathan Stiltner with a aggravated murder, murder, and felonious assault charges.
{¶2} On August 4, 2018, Douglas A. Thackston (“Thackston”) was shot to
death. On August 5, 2018, police arrested Appellant, Nathan Stiltner, for the
murder of Thackston. On August 23, 2018, the state charged Appellant with
aggravated murder with a firearm specification in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A),
2903.01(F), 2929.02(A), and R.C. 2941.145(A); murder with a firearm
specification in violation R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), R.C. 2903.02(B) & (D), R.C.
2902.02(B), and R.C. 2941.145(A); felonious assault with a firearm specification
in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2)(a) & (D)(1)(a), and R.C. 2941.145(A); and
having a weapon while under a disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(4) and
R.C. 2923.13(B).
{¶3} On August 28, 2018, Appellant filed his first motion for discovery. On
September 20, 2018, the state filed a motion for discovery, as well as a response
to Appellant’s motion for discovery, including a witness list that included: Jean
Conley, Chuckie Blevins, David Kazee, Fred Williams, Jerry Moss, Portsmouth
police detectives, and others. On September 24, 2018, the trial court granted
Appellant’s motion and authorized funds for Appellant to hire an investigator.
Trial was set for October 29, 2018. On October 16, 2018, the Appellant filed a
motion to continue his trial because his counsel needed more time to prepare,
which the trial court granted, and rescheduled the trial for December 17, 2018.
{¶4} On October 31, 2018, Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw,
which the trial court granted on November 5, 2018. On that same day, the trial
court appointed new counsel to represent Appellant. Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 3
{¶5} On the week of December 10, 2018, the state filed five supplemental
discovery responses, disclosing to Appellant: (1) a Bureau of Criminal
Investigation (“BCI”) DNA lab report, (2) witness, BCI employee, Logan
Schepeler, (3) witness, Bridget Stump, (4) a BCI gun report, (5) witness, BCI
employee, Heather Williams (6) witness, Steven Arthur, (7) CD/DVD interview of
Richard Scott, (8) witness, Pamela Keibler, and (9) witness, Donald Stiltner. On
December 14, 2018, Appellant filed a motion to dismiss or exclude the evidence
included in these supplemental responses, arguing that “the evidence in question
will demonstrate the detective’s involved in the case knew of the evidence in
August 2018, foreknowledge such evidence would be used would have
benefitted, and late disclosure prejudices the defendant.” He also filed a motion
to continue the trial based on the newly disclosed evidence. After a pretrial
hearing, which addressed Appellant’s motion to dismiss/exclude the state’s
supplemental discovery responses, the judge, in part, stated “I don’t know that
I’ve got any of the elements [justifying dismissal of the evidence] – first of all, I
don’t think we’ve got any willfulness [on behalf of the state in delaying
discovery].” Consequently, the judge indicated to the parties that he was “not
going to dismiss the case,” but would exclude Stevie Arthur from testifying if the
trial went forward on December 17th.
{¶6} On December 17, 2018, the state filed additional supplements to
discovery, including CD/DVD of statements of Pamela Keibler, Bridget Stamp,
and Donald Stiltner. On December 27, 2018, the trial court issued an entry Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 4
granting Appellant’s motion to continue his trial, and rescheduled the trial for
March 4, 2019.
{¶7} On February 4, 2019, the Appellant filed a motion to suppress
evidence. On February 13, 2019, Appellant filed a motion for an evaluation of his
competency, as well as a second motion to suppress additional evidence.
{¶8} On February 19, 2019, the trial court granted Appellant’s motion for a
competency exam. On February 25, 2019, the trial court issued an order
continuing the March 4th trial date pending Appellant’s competency evaluation.
{¶9} On March 28, 2019, the trial court rescheduled the trial for May 20,
2019.
{¶10} On April 2, 2019, Appellant filed a motion to continue the trial from
May 20th to May 25th, which the trial court overruled. On April 10, 2019, the trial
court held a competency hearing and found Appellant competent to stand trial.
On May 7, 2019, the trial court held a suppression hearing.
{¶11} On May 20, 2019, the first day of trial, Appellant filed a motion to
dismiss based on speedy trial violations, which was denied by the trial court on
the same day. On May 23, 2019, Appellant filed a motion for a proposed jury
instruction on self defense, which was denied on the same day. Additionally, the
state dismissed count four of the indictment, having a weapon while under a
disability.
{¶12} At trial, the state presented 16 witnesses and evidence that
generally indicated the following: Appellant threatened Thackston because of a
debt owed, including threats made through Facebook Messenger, with Appellant Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 5
stating: “Bruh if u don’t come pay me I swear to God imam find u and I will
personally shoot up ur van wit u in it and yo ass will be homeless and walkin.”
Appellant was seen the night before the murder with a metal detector to get his
“tool” and later returned showing his tool to David Kazee, which was a gun.
Appellant and Thackston argued the day of the murder, and, at the time,
Appellant had a gun in the waistband of his pants. Later that same day, Appellant
entered a nearby apartment owned by Jean Conley, which was also occupied by
Chuckie Blevins, Fred Williams, Stevie Williams, and Thackston. After Appellant
entered the apartment, he sat for several minutes not speaking to anyone, and
when asked by Blevins to leave if he had a gun, Appellant began walking toward
the front door. The allegations and testimony differed as to what occurred next.
Appellant’s counsel argued that Appellant was grabbed by four persons and
beaten, and then he shot Thackston in self-defense. Blevins testified that the
Appellant was grabbed from behind by Thackston, and then Appellant pulled his
gun and shot Thackston. But Conley testified that Blevins “did not grab
[Appellant],” and she “didn’t see [Thackston] grab [Appellant] either,” although
later in her testimony she agreed she did not see much immediately prior to the
shooting. After Appellant shot Thackston, he fled the scene.
{¶13} The jury found Appellant guilty on the remaining counts of
aggravated murder, murder, felonious assault, as well as the accompanying
firearm specifications. The trial court merged the counts with the state electing to
sentence Appellant for the aggravated murder charge and the firearm
specification. The trial court imposed a prison sentence of 25 years to life for Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 6
aggravated murder, and three years for the firearm specification to be served
consecutively for an aggregate sentence of life in prison without the possibility of
parole for 28 years. It is from this conviction that Appellant appeals, asserting
nine assignments of error.
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
DISCLOSED BY THE PROSECUTION DAYS BEFORE TRIAL IN VIOLATION
OF CRIMINAL RULE 16, THEREBY FORCING APPELLANT TO WAIVE HIS
SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS FOR SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATIONS
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT EXCUSED JUROR #12 PRIOR TO
THE COMPLETION OF TRIAL WITHOUT FIRST OFFERING REASONABLE
ACCOMMODATION OR OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK MEDICAL INTERVENTION
IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT’S MOTION
FOR ACQUITTAL AS TO COUNT ONE OF THE INDICTMENT, AGGRAVATED
MURDER, AS THE PROSECUTION DID NOT PROVE BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT PRIOR CALCULATION AND DESIGN
V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO APPLY THE NEW SELFDEFENSE LAW, WHICH WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE PROSECUTION TO
PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT
ACT IN SELF-DEFENSE
VI. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT INSTRUCTED THE JURY ON
CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT, AS SUFFICENCY OF EVIDENCE WAS NOT
PRESENTED AT TRIAL TO WARRANT SUCH INSTRUCTION
VII. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO ADVISE APPELLANT
THAT HE WAS SUBJECT TO A PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE CONTROL,
AND, AS A RESULT, THE SENTENCE IS VOID AND APPELLANT IS
ENTITLED TO A NEW SENTENCING HEARING
VIII. APPELLANT’S CONVICTIONS FOR AGGRAVTED MURDER, MURDER,
AND FELONIOUS ASSAULT WERE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF
THE EVIDENCE, AS APPELLANT WAS ACTING IN SELF DEFENSE AT THE
TIME OF THE SHOOTING
IX. CUMULATIVE ERRORS DURING APPELLANT’S TRIAL DEPRIVED HIM OF
A FAIR TRIAL AND REQUIRE A REVERSAL OF HIS CONVICTIONS Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 7
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
{¶14} In his first assignment of error, Appellant asserts that the trial court
erred when it failed to exclude evidence disclosed by the prosecution days before
trial in violation of Criminal Rule 16(L), thereby forcing Appellant to waive his
speedy trial rights.
{¶15} Appellant argued that the state supplemented its witness list adding
Bridget Stump, Richard Scott, Pamela Keibler, and Donald Stiltner the week prior
to trial. Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to
exclude these witnesses from testifying at trial.
{¶16} Appellant asserts that the BCI report naming Bridget Stump as
having her DNA on the murder weapon was completed on October 1, 2018.
Therefore, Appellant argues that the state’s failure to disclose Stump as a
witness until December 10, 2018 was willful. He also asserted that if he had
foreknowledge of the DNA report, he would have prepared his defense in a
different manner. Finally, Appellant alleges that had he received the report
earlier, he could have done his own testing to clarify the presence of Ms. Stump’s
DNA.
{¶17} Appellant argues that the state disclosed Richard Scott as a witness
five days prior to trial. Appellant alleges that Scott’s name is mentioned
throughout discovery, but detectives failed to interview him until early December.
Therefore, he asserts, the state acted willfully in failing to timely interview a key
witness, which could have changed Appellant’s strategy, thereby causing Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 8
prejudice to the Appellant by forcing him to waive his speedy trial rights to
properly prepare for Scott.
{¶18} Finally, Appellant argues that the disclosure of Pamela Keibler and
Donald Stiltner were the most egregious discovery violation as they were
disclosed just four days prior to trial. Appellant argues, the witnesses were
known to detectives since August 16th. He also argues that the state’s late
disclosure was willful because of its admission that it did not initially intend to call
Keibler or Stiltner as witnesses because the state believed that neither would
provide favorable testimony for the state.
{¶19} In response, the state denies that any of its supplemental disclosure
of witnesses the week prior to trial was willful. With regard to Stump, the state
alleges that it disclosed her as a witness after it received the BCI report on
December 10th that indicated her DNA was on the gun. Therefore, the state
argues it was BCI’s fault that the state’s disclosure of Stump was just a week
prior to trial. Finally, the state argues that neither party called Stump as a
witness so there was no prejudice to Appellant.
{¶20} With regard to the disclosure of witness, Richard Scott, the state
alleges that Appellant was aware that Scott had knowledge of the shooting, and
yet Appellant failed to interview Scott. The state also argues that the December
disclosure of Scott as a witness did not prejudice the Appellant.
{¶21} Finally, regarding Pamela Keibler and Donald Stiltner, who are
respectively Appellant’s sister-in-law and brother, the state asserts that their
names were on Appellant’s counsel’s “radar,” but chose to rely upon the state to Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 9
not call them as witnesses. The state also argues that the December disclosure
of Keibler and Stiltner did not prejudice Appellant.
LAW
{¶22} “Each party shall provide to opposing counsel a written witness list *
* * of any witness it intends to call in its case-in-chief, or reasonably anticipates
calling in rebuttal or surrebuttal.” Crim.R. 16(I). “Once discovery is initiated by
demand of the defendant, all parties have a continuing duty to supplement their
disclosures.” Crim.R. 16(A). Crim.R. 16(L) states:
The trial court may make orders regulating discovery not
inconsistent with this rule. If at any time during the course of the
proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party
has failed to comply with this rule or with an order issued
pursuant to this rule, the court may order such party to permit the
discovery or inspection, grant a continuance, or prohibit the party
from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed, or it may
make such other order as it deems just under the circumstances.
“However, prior to imposing one of the allowed orders provided in Crim.R. 16(L),
the trial court must inquire into the circumstances surrounding the violation and
should impose the least severe sanction.” State v. Lawhorn, 4th Dist. Ross No.
11CA3223, 2012-Ohio-253, ¶ 9 citing City of Lakewood v. Papadelis, 32 Ohio
St.3d 1, 5, 511 N.E.2d 1138, at paragraph two of the syllabus. “The overall
objective of the criminal rules of procedure is to remove the element of
gamesmanship from such proceedings.” State v. Fouts, 4th Dist. Washington
No. 15CA25, 2016-Ohio-1104, ¶ 46, citing State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d
343, 2013-Ohio-966, 986 N.E.2d 971, ¶ 19.
{¶23} “Trial courts possess broad discretion to impose sanctions for
discovery violations, and those rulings should not be reversed on appeal absent Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 10
an abuse of that discretion.” Fouts, at ¶ 44. “A trial court abuses its discretion
when it makes a decision that is unreasonable, unconscionable, or arbitrary.”
Darmond, at ¶ 34. More specifically,
where a prosecutor violates Crim.R. 16 by failing to provide the
name of a witness, a trial court does not abuse its discretion in
allowing the witness to testify where the record fails to disclose
(1) a willful violation of the rule, (2) that foreknowledge would
have benefited the accused in the preparation of his or her
defense, or (3) that the accused was unfairly prejudiced.
State v. Dillard, 4th Dist. Meigs No. 13CA9, 2014-Ohio-4974, ¶ 15, citing
State v. Scudder, 71 Ohio St.3d 263, 269, 643 N.E.2d 524 (1994); State
v. Wharton, 4th Dist. Ross No. 09A3132, 2010-Ohio-4775, ¶ 24.
ANALYSIS
{¶24} Initially, we note that the state did not fail to disclose any witnesses
to Appellant. Rather, the state disclosed to Appellant all witnesses at issue
pursuant to its obligation to supplement its discovery responses under Crim.R.
16(A), albeit within a week or less before trial. Further, while Appellant moved
the trial court to exclude these witnesses from testifying, he also filed a motion to
continue the trial, which, ultimately, the trial court granted.
Bridget Stump
{¶25} Even if the BCI’s report identifying Ms. Stump’s DNA on the gun
was completed in October of 2018, Appellant’s counsel admitted that it was not
provided to the state until December 10, 2018, the date that the state informed
Appellant of the test results and named Stump as a witness. Therefore, the
state’s December 10th disclosure of Stump as a witness was not a willful act by
the state. Furthermore, Stump was never called as a witness by either party. Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 11
Apparently, the Appellant decided not to conduct his own DNA test or the results
failed to assist his defense. Consequently, there was no prejudice to Appellant.
Richard Scott
{¶26} Appellant alleges in his brief that “Scott was interviewed by
detectives for the first time once investigators realized their case had multiple
holes * * * regarding recovery of the firearm and the presence of Ms. Stump’s
DNA on the gun.” Accepting Appellant’s argument as true, then the state
recognized the need for Scott to testify only after it received the DNA report from
the BCI on December 10, 2018. Under these circumstances, the state’s late
disclosure of Scott as a witness was not willful, but part of its evolving strategy.
{¶27} At pretrial, Appellant appears to have admitted that he was aware
that Scott had given a statement to the police to the effect that Scott saw
Appellant with a gun at the time he was arguing with Thackston the day of the
murder, and had recovered the murder weapon and gave it to Blevins, who gave
it to the police. Further, in September 2018, the state, through discovery,
provided Appellant the CD/DVD disks of the police interview of Blevins.
Consequently, Appellant would have also been aware of Scott’s involvement in
the case to the extent that Blevins discussed Scott’s involvement with the murder
weapon. Therefore, Appellant had some foreknowledge of Scott’s possible
testimony and the resources to conduct his own investigation of Scott, but
apparently failed to do so. Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 12
Pam Keibler and Donald Stiltner
{¶28} Contrary to Appellant’s interpretation, we do not find the state’s
reason for not naming Keibler and Stiltner as witnesses earlier was because of
its “intel” indicating that Keibler and Stiltner “were firmly in the [Appellant’s]
corner,” making the state’s failure to disclose them as witnesses earlier, a willful
violation of the rule. Rather it is a rational reason why the state initially decided
not to call either witness, which the judge apparently agreed. Further, both
witnesses are family and, similar to Scott, Appellant admits having knowledge of
their statements, and had the ability to further investigate their statements, but
declined to do so.
{¶29} Contrary to Appellant’s assertion in his reply brief, we are not
suggesting that Appellant had “responsibility to interview key witnesses in an
effort to secure his own conviction.” The state always has the burden of proving
a criminal offense. Rather, we are merely recognizing that Appellant was aware
that these persons might have information, and in fact was aware that at least
one witness did have some knowledge pertinent to the murder, and he had the
means to investigate those persons, but did not.
{¶30} Based on our review, we find that the trial court’s decision to
continue the trial, rather than exclude the supplemented discovery from the state,
was not unreasonable, unconscionable, or arbitrary because (1) the state did not
willfully delay naming or disclosing witnesses Bridget Stump, Richard Scott,
Pamela Keibler, or Donald Stiltner; and (2) even before the state’s disclosure,
Appellant had some knowledge of what Scott knew regarding the murder and Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 13
Appellant had Keibler and Stiltner on his “radar” and despite having the means to
independently investigate these individuals, chose not to. Therefore, because
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to
exclude the witnesses, but instead granted Appellant’s motion to continue the
December 17, 2018 trial date, we overrule Appellant’s first assignment of error.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
{¶31} In his second assignment of error Appellant asserts that the trial
court erred when it denied his application to dismiss for speedy trial violations.
The critical issue here is whether Appellant’s motions to exclude evidence and to
continue the December 17, 2018 trial date, both filed December 14, 2018, were
tolling events, or whether that time period should be counted toward the 270-day
limit. If the motions were a tolling event, then the Appellant’s speedy trial rights
were not violated because his trial was held on May 20, 2019 within 270 days
after his arrest. Otherwise, his speedy trial rights would have been violated.
LAW
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
(which is made applicable to the states through the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) and Article I, Section 10
of the Ohio Constitution guarantee a criminal defendant the right
to a speedy trial; this guarantee is implemented by R.C. 2945.71,
which provides specific statutory time limits within which a
person must be brought to trial.
State v. Smith, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 16CA10, 2017-Ohio-7864, ¶ 20,
citing State v. Blackburn, 118 Ohio St.3d 163, 2008-Ohio-1823, 887
N.E.2d 319, ¶ 10.
{¶32} R.C. 2945.71(C)(2) states that an accused, who is charged with a
felony, shall be brought to trial within 270 days after arrest, but each day the Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 14
accused is in jail in lieu of bail solely on the pending charge, each day counts as
three days for purposes of the speedy-trial calculation. R.C. 2945.71(E).
“[S]peedy trial time may be tolled by ‘[t]he period of any continuance granted on
the accused's own motion, and the period of any reasonable continuance granted
other than upon the accused's own motion.’ ” State v. Shelby, 4th Dist. Lawrence
No. 15CA20, 2016-Ohio-5721, ¶ 26, quoting R.C. 2945.72(H). We have
recognized that if a trial court grants a continuance due to the state’s failure to
timely provide discovery, for purposes of a speedy trial calculation, the
continuance will be charged against the state, if the state’s delay was “willful and
prejudicial to the defense.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Wamsley, 71 Ohio
App.3d 607, 611, 594 N.E.2d 1123 (4th Dist. 1991), see also State v. Arrington,
6th Dist. Erie No. 16-050, 2017-Ohio-2578, ¶ 3 (citing Wamsley); State v. Benge,
12th Dist. Butler Case No. CA99-05-095, 2000 WL 485524 (Apr. 24, 2000).
ANALYSIS
{¶33} In addressing Appellant’s first assignment of error, we concluded
that the state did not willfully delay disclosure of the witnesses, nor did the delay
prejudice Appellant. Therefore, we find that the Appellant’s continuance filed on
December 13, 2018 and granted by the trial court, continuing the trial until March
4, 2019, was a tolling event consistent with R.C. 2945.72(H) and our holding in
Wamsley.
{¶34} With that in mind, we review the record to determine if Appellant’s
speedy trial rights were violated. Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 15
Appellant was incarcerated beginning August 6, 2018 through August 27,
2018 (22 days x 3= 66 days count toward the 270-day limit)
August 28, 2018 through September 24, 2018 speedy trial time was tolled
due to Defendant’s Motions for Discovery and for Funds to Hire an
Investigator
September 25, 2018 through October 28, 2108 Appellant was
incarcerated (34 days x 3= 102 days count toward the 270-day limit)
October 29, 2018 through April 19, 2019 time tolled due to Appellant’s
Motion to Continue
April 20, 2019 to May 20, 2019 Appellant was incarcerated (31 x 3 = 93
days count toward 270-day limit)
{¶35} Consequently, from his initial incarceration on August 6, 2018 until
his trial on May 20, 2019, for purposes of a speedy-trial calculation, Appellant
was incarcerated for 261 days (66+102+93), so his speedy trial rights were not
violated. Therefore, we overrule Appellant’s second assignment of error.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
{¶36} In his third assignment of error, Appellant alleges that the trial court
erred when it excused juror #12 prior to the completion of trial without first
offering reasonable accommodation, or an opportunity to seek medical
intervention. Appellant alleges that on the last day of trial, juror #12 appeared
with a bandage on his arm that was seeping blood. Appellant’s counsel
requested a recess to allow the juror to obtain medical assistance. Appellant
alleges that the juror indicated that he would prefer to remain on the jury. Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 16
However, the trial court denied the motion to recess, and instead excused the
juror and appointed an alternate juror to the vacant spot.
{¶37} In response, the state argues that juror #12 told the trial court that
his wound had been bleeding for eight hours. The state notes that there were
two alternate jurors and argues that the trial court’s decision to dismiss juror #12
and replace him with an alternate was not an abuse of discretion.
LAW
{¶38} “In case of sickness of any juror before the conclusion of the trial,
the court may order that such juror receive medical attendance and shall order
the payment of a reasonable charge for such medical attendance out of the
judiciary fund.” R.C. 2945.30. However, R.C. 2945.29 provides:
If, before the conclusion of the trial, a juror becomes sick, or for
other reason is unable to perform his duty, the court may order
him to be discharged. In that case, if alternate jurors have been
selected, one of them shall be designated to take the place of
the juror so discharged.
“Thus, it is within a trial court's discretion to remove a juror unable to perform his
or her duties * * *.” State v. McCrary, 4th Dist. Ross No. 16CA3568, 2017-Ohio8701, ¶ 21. An abuse of discretion implies that the trial court acted
unreasonably, unconscionably, or arbitrarily. Bentley v. Harper, 4th Dist. Scioto
No. 18CA3858, 2019-Ohio-5420, ¶ 7, citing Lauer v. Positron Energy Resources,
Inc., 4th Dist. Washington No. 13CA39, 2014-Ohio-4850, ¶ 9.
ANALYSIS
{¶39} The trial court stated on the record that he sent juror #12 to the
health department to get his wound examined, and health officials advised him Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 17
that if the wound started bleeding though the bandage he needed to go to the
hospital. After the examination, the trial court asked juror #12 his thoughts and
he responded: “I mean I would prefer to stay I would like to see it through. Uh,
with that said I think that is the right medical advice because it’s not going to stop
[bleeding].” After juror #12 further informed the trial court that his wound had
been bleeding for eight hours and the trial court had a discussion with the parties’
attorneys, he excused juror #12 and replaced him with one of the alternate jurors.
Under these facts, we do not find that the trial court’s decision to dismiss juror
#12 and replace him with an alternate juror was unreasonable, unconscionable,
or arbitrary. Therefore, because the trial court did not abuse his discretion, we
overrule Appellant’s third assignment of error.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV
{¶40} In his fourth assignment of error, Appellant asserts that the trial
court erred when it denied his motion for acquittal as to count one of the
indictment, aggravated murder, because the prosecution did not prove prior
calculation and design beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant admits that he and
Thackston knew each other and their “relationship was arguably strained,” but
alleges that there was testimony that a week prior to Thackston’s death,
Thackston provided drugs to Appellant, causing one to believe that “any prior
disagreement between the decedent and Appellant was done and over with.”
Appellant also claims he did not give thought or preparation to a weapon or the
site of the killing. He claimed that he possessed a firearm because he was
extremely paranoid people were out to get him and not for the purpose of killing Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 18
Thackston. Finally, Appellant alleges that it was an “instantaneous eruption of
events” that resulted in him shooting Thackston.
{¶41} In response, the state argues that considering the totality of the
evidence in a light favorable to the state, there was sufficient evidence of prior
calculation and design. For instance, Appellant and Thackston knew each other
and their relationship was strained over a debt, which they argued about the day
of the shooting. Appellant had threatened to shoot Thackston over Facebook
Messenger regarding the debt. Witnesses testified that they saw Appellant using
a metal detector to find a gun the night before the shooting. One witness testified
that the night before the shooting Appellant went to get his “tool” and later
showed his gun to that witness. The state argues that the evidence showed that
later Appellant had a gun and was arguing with Thackston, but did not shoot him
at that time. Yet later the Appellant went back with the same gun, grabbed
Thackston and shot him at point-blank range. The state argues that it did prove
prior calculation and design beyond a reasonable doubt.
LAW
{¶42} In reviewing a record for sufficiency of the evidence, “[t]he relevant
inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of
the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Ford, 158 Ohio St. 3d
139, 140 N.E.3d 616, ¶ 317, citing State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d
492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.
307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 19
{¶43} The aggravated murder statute, R.C. 2903.01, states: “No person
shall purposely, and with prior calculation and design, cause the death of another
* * *.” The phrase “prior calculation and design” by its own terms suggests
advance reasoning to formulate the purpose to kill. State v. Walker, 150 Ohio St.
3d 409, 414, 2016-Ohio-8295, 82 N.E.3d 1124, ¶ 20. Therefore, a killing
committed “on the spur of the moment or after momentary consideration is not
evidence of a premeditated decision or a studied consideration of the method
and the means to cause a death.” Id. Courts “traditionally” consider three factors
in determining whether a defendant acted with prior calculation and design: “(1)
Did the accused and victim know each other, and if so, was that relationship
strained? (2) Did the accused give thought or preparation to choosing the murder
weapon or murder site? and (3) Was the act drawn out or ‘an almost
instantaneous eruption of events?’ ” Ford, at ¶ 139, quoting State v. Taylor, 78
Ohio St.3d 15, 19, 676 N.E.2d 82 (1997), quoting State v. Jenkins, 48 Ohio
App.2d 99, 102, 355 N.E.2d 825 (8th Dist.1976). However, “[t]here is no brightline test to distinguish between the presence or absence of prior calculation and
design; each case depends upon its own facts.” Id., citing Walker, at ¶ 19.
ANALYSIS
{¶44} It is undisputed that Appellant and Thackston knew each other, and
Thackston owed Appellant money. There is also evidence that their relationship
was strained because of said debt, including threats by Appellant through
Facebook Messenger that Appellant would shoot Thackston. There was
testimony that Appellant used a metal detector to possibly locate a firearm the Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 20
night before the shooting. The day of the shooting, Appellant, who was
apparently armed at the time, and Thackston argued about the debt, and
Thackston struck Appellant. Later that day, Appellant entered Jean Conley’s
apartment and after several minutes without saying anything, he was purportedly
asked to leave if he possessed a gun. While it is not undisputed, there is
testimony that established that Appellant was headed toward the front door, but,
before he exited, he turned and shot Thackston at point-blank range killing him.
{¶45} After viewing the entire record, in a light most favorable to the
prosecution, we find that any rational juror could have found beyond a
reasonable doubt that Appellant acted with prior calculation and design when he
shot and killed Thackston. Therefore, we overrule Appellant’s fourth Assignment
of error.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR V
{¶46} In his fifth assignment of error, Appellant asserts that the trial court
erred when it failed to apply the law of self-defense in R.C. 2901.05, as amended
by Sub.H.B. 228, which was effective March 28, 2019. Appellant points out that
the amended version of R.C. 2901.05 shifted the burden of proving self-defense
in a criminal case from the defendant to the state, and changed the quantum of
proof from a preponderance of the evidence requiring the state to prove that
defendant did not act in self-defense, beyond-a-reasonable doubt. Appellant
argues that
the [amended version of R.C. 2901.05(B)(1)] clearly states that it is
to be applied at the time of trial: “[i]f, at the trial of a person who is
accused of an offense that involved the person’s use of force
against another, there is evidence presented that tends to support Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 21
that the accused person used the force in self-defense…the
prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
accused person did not use the force in self-defense[.]” (Emphasis
in original)
Although he fails to provide any citations, the Appellant also argues that
“numerous courts have already determined that the burden shift applies to crimes
committed before March of 2019 so long as those cases were tried after the
effective date.” Therefore, he argues that the trial court erred in relying on the
former version of R.C. 2901.05 when instructing the jury on self-defense in his
case. Consequently, he argues his murder conviction should be reversed.
{¶47} The state argues that the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Tenth and
Twelfth District Courts of Appeals have determined that the amended version of
R.C. 2901.05 “is not retroactive to cases that occurred prior to the effective date,”
citing State v. Koch, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 2800, 2019-Ohio-4099, ¶ 103,
State v. Crowe, 3rd Dist. Allen No. 1-19-12, 2019-Ohio-3986, ¶ 15, State v.
Redding, 3rd Dist. Union No. 14-19-01, 209-Ohio-5302, ¶ 13, fn 1 (relied on Koch
and Crowe), State v. Debord, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2019-03-003, 2020-Ohio57, ¶ 13-14, State v. Moore, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2019-0030, 2020-Ohio342, ¶ 9-11, and State v. Ward, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19AP-266, 2020-Ohio465, ¶ 15.LAW
{¶48} “ ‘A trial court is obligated to provide jury instructions that correctly
and completely state the law. The jury instructions must also be warranted by the
evidence presented in a case. The question of whether a jury instruction is
legally correct and factually warranted is subject to de novo review.’ ” State v.
Moore, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 19CA13 2020-Ohio-4321, ¶ 16 (Citations Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 22
omitted.), quoting Cromer v. Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Akron, 142 Ohio St.3d
257, 2015-Ohio-229, 29 N.E.3d 921, ¶ 22.
{¶49} In this case, we must determine whether the original version of R.C.
2901.05, in existence at the beginning of Appellant’s case, or the amended
version, effective while Appellant’s case was pending, applies. “[T]he general
rule is that ‘[a] statute is presumed to be prospective in its operation unless
expressly made retrospective.’ ” State v. Simmons, 4th Dist. Washington No.
17CA16, 2018-Ohio-2018, 112 N.E.3d 327,¶ 23,quoting R.C. 1.48. Moreover,
although not cited by either party, pivotal to our analysis in this case is R.C. 1.58,
which states:
(A) The reenactment, amendment, or repeal of a statute does
not, except as provided in division (B) of this section:
(1) Affect the prior operation of the statute or any prior action
taken thereunder;
(2) Affect any validation, cure, right, privilege, obligation, or
liability previously acquired, accrued, accorded, or incurred
thereunder;
(3) Affect any violation thereof or penalty, forfeiture, or
punishment incurred in respect thereto, prior to the
amendment or repeal;
(4) Affect any investigation, proceeding, or remedy in respect of
any such privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture, or
punishment; and the investigation, proceeding, or remedy
may be instituted, continued, or enforced, and the penalty,
forfeiture, or punishment imposed, as if the statute had not
been repealed or amended.
(B) If the penalty, forfeiture, or punishment for any offense is
reduced by a reenactment or amendment of a statute, the
penalty, forfeiture, or punishment, if not already imposed,
shall be imposed according to the statute as amended. Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 23
“ ‘R.C. 1.58(B) identifies which law to apply when a statute is amended
after the commission of a crime but before sentence is imposed[.]’ ” Simmons,
quoting State v. Kaplowitz, 100 Ohio St.3d 205, 2003-Ohio-5602, 797 N.E.2d
977, ¶ 8.
R. C. 1.58 sets forth specific rules that apply when the General
Assembly reenacts, amends, or repeals statutes. Generally, “the
substantive provisions of the former law apply to all pending
prosecutions, but the defendants receive the benefit of a reduced
‘penalty, forfeiture, or punishment’ in the statute as amended,
unless the General Assembly expresses another intent.”
Id., quoting State v. Solomon, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-120044, 2012-
Ohio-5755, 983 N.E.2d 872, ¶ 16, citing R.C. 1.58.
ANALYSIS
{¶50} In pertinent part, Am.Sub. H.B. 228 added the following language to
R.C. 2901.05:
(B)(1) A person is allowed to act in self-defense, defense of
another, or defense of that person's residence. If, at the trial of a
person who is accused of an offense that involved the person's
use of force against another, there is evidence presented that
tends to support that the accused person used the force in selfdefense, defense of another, or defense of that person's
residence, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the accused person did not use the force in selfdefense, defense of another, or defense of that person's
residence, as the case may be.
{¶51} There are several Ohio appellate districts that have held that this
amendment to R.C. 2901.05, which became effective after the defendants’ trials,
did not apply retroactively to their convictions. See e.g. State v. Fisher, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 108494, 2020-Ohio-670, State v. Wallace-Lee, 2nd Dist. Greene
No. 2019-CA-19, 2020-Ohio-3681, State v. Whitman, 5th Dist. Stark No.
2019CA94, 2019-Ohio-4140. We can find only two Ohio appellate districts that Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 24
have addressed the particular issue of whether R.C. 2901.05 as amended by
Am.H.B. 228, which became effective while their cases were pending in the trial
court, applied to their cases.
{¶52} The first is State v. Gloff, 12th Dist. Clermont 2020-Ohio-3143, 155
N.E.3d. 42, in which the court held that the amended version of R.C. 2901.05,
which became effective approximately two weeks before his trial, applied to his
trial based on the following analysis:
Gloff argues that the retroactivity analysis is unnecessary
because the language of the amended statute refers to
application ‘at the trial of a person.’ Thus, Gloff argues that the
H.B. 228 amendment focuses on when the trial is held, as
opposed to when the offense was committed. As previously
noted, the trial began two days before the effective date of the
amendment and concluded one day after the effective date of
the amendment.
Following review, [the Twelfth District Court of Appeals]
agree[d] with Gloff's position. The H.B. 228 amendment applies
prospectively to trials. The pertinent amendment does not
concern the conduct giving rise to the offense but relates to the
applicable burden of proof for the affirmative defense of selfdefense. Under the new amendment, if self-defense evidence is
presented at trial, the prosecution must then prove, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not use the force in
self-defense.
{¶53} In contrast, the Tenth District Court of Appeals has held that the
amended version of R.C. 2901.05 does not apply retroactively to a criminal case
that is pending in the trial court because the general assembly did not expressly
make the amended version of R.C. 2901.05 retroactive to the Appellant’s
pending case. State v. Zafar, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19AP-255, 2020-Ohio3341, ¶ 30-33. Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 25
{¶54} The difference between an amended statute that becomes effective
after a defendant’s conviction, and an amended statute that becomes effective
while a defendant’s case is pending in the trial court, is a distinction that matters
in determining the applicability of the amended statute to the defendant’s
conviction/case. The applicability of a statute or amendment that is effective
after a conviction necessarily involves the two-part retroactivity test. See Pratte
v. Stewart, 125 Ohio St. 3d 473, 2010-Ohio-1860, 929 N.E.2d 415, ¶ 30, 36-37
(A court must first ask the threshold question of whether the General Assembly
expressly intended the statute to apply retroactively. If not, then the statute
applies prospectively only. But, if the answer is yes, then the statute may be
applied retroactively consistent with the Constitution, only if the statute is
remedial in nature). However, if a statute is amended and becomes effective
while the defendant’s case is pending in the trial court, then its applicability to the
defendant’s case is guided by R.C. 1.58. Kaplowitz, 100 Ohio St.3d 205, 2003-
Ohio-5602, 797 N.E.2d 977, ¶ 8.
{¶55} R.C. 2901.05 does not set out a penalty, punishment or forfeiture,
but instead defines the substantive law of self-defense. Therefore, absent an
express indication that the General Assembly intended otherwise, R.C. 1.58(B),
instructs a trial court to apply former R.C. 2901.05 to a pending criminal case
because under R.C. 1.58 substantive provisions of the former law apply to all
pending prosecutions.
{¶56} Appellant argues that the “at trial” language in amended R.C.
2901.05, indicates that the General Assembly expressly intended the amended Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 26
version of R.C. 2901.05 apply to pending cases, i.e. it should have been applied
in Appellant’s case. We disagree. When the phrase “at trial” is read in context
with the remainder of the sentence in the statute, we find that the language
communicates no express indication that the amended version of the statute
applies to pending cases. Rather, it appears to indicate, from a timing
perspective at trial when the state is obligated to submit evidence in an attempt
to prove that the defendant did not act in self-defense. In other words, we
interpret the “at trial” language as indicating that it is only after defendant
presents evidence “at trial” that “tends to support” that he or she “used the force
in self-defense,” does the state need to submit its evidence contra.
{¶57} Therefore, because R.C. 1.58 instructs us that the pre-HB 228
version of R.C. 2901.05 applied at Appellant’s trial, and the General Assembly
has not expressly indicated otherwise, the trial court did not error when it
instructed the jury regarding Appellant’s claim of self-defense. Accordingly,
because the trial court did error, we overrule appellant’s fifth assignment of error.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VI
{¶58} In his sixth assignment of error, Appellant asserts that the trial court
erred when it instructed the jury on consciousness of guilt, as sufficient evidence
was not presented at trial to warrant such an instruction. Appellant alleges that
“very little of [his] actions after the shooting would indicate he was trying to resist
arrest or conceal himself in any manner.” In fact, Appellant alleges that the
arresting officer testified that Appellant was apprehended in the middle of the
road in broad daylight. Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 27
{¶59} In response, the state argues that Appellant ran from the scene after
the shooting, changed his clothes, and hid. Consequently, the state argues that
the consciousness of guilt instruction was warranted.
LAW
{¶60} “[J]ury instructions ‘must be based upon the actual issues in the
case as presented by the evidence.’ ” State v. Dyer, 4th Dist. Scioto No.
07CA3163, 2008-Ohio-2711, ¶ 11, quoting State v. Tompkins, 2nd Dist. Clark
No. 95-CA-0099, 1996 WL 612855 (Oct. 25, 1996) *3. However, “ ‘[i]t is within
the sound discretion of the trial court to determine whether the evidence
presented at trial is sufficient to require a particular jury instruction.’ ” State v.
Lewis, 4th Dist. Ross No. 14CA3465, 2016-Ohio-1592, 49 N.E.3d 371, ¶ 18,
quoting State v. Ward, 168 Ohio App.3d 701, 2006-Ohio-4847, 861 N.E.2d 823,
¶ 20 (4th Dist.). An abuse of discretion implies that the court's attitude is
arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable. State v. Moman, 4th Dist. Adams
No. 16CA1022, 2017-Ohio-453, ¶ 13, citing Sivit v. Village Green of Beachwood,
L.P., 143 Ohio St.3d 168, 2015-Ohio-1193, 35 N.E.3d 508, ¶ 9. The Tenth
District Court of Appeals held that “[a]n inference could be drawn from” a
defendant leaving the scene of a shooting and going to two different residences
before turning himself into the authorities that he “fled the scene and continued
to flee because of a consciousness of guilt.” State v. Shine-Johnson, 10th Dist.
Franklin No. 17AP-194, 2018-Ohio-3347, 117 N.E.3d 986, ¶ 48. Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 28
ANALYSIS
{¶61} In the instant case, Appellant ran from the scene of the shooting to
his apartment, changed clothes, and subsequently disappeared into the woods.
The mere fact that he was later arrested while walking on the side of the road
does not alter his prior actions. Under these facts, we find that the trial court did
not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on Appellant’s consciousness of
guilt. Therefore, we overrule Appellant’s sixth assignment of error.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VII
{¶62} In his seventh assignment of error, Appellant asserts that the trial
court erred when it failed to advise him that he was subject to a period of postrelease control, and, as a result, his sentence is void and he is entitled to a new
sentencing hearing. Appellant argues that the express language of R.C.
2967.28(B)(1) requires post-release control and failure to include it in the
sentence renders the sentence void under State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d
420, 2008-Ohio-1197, ¶ 22.
{¶63} The state does not appear to dispute that the trial court failed to
advise Appellant of post-release control. Instead, the state cites State v. Wilson,
4th Dist. Lawrence No. 16CA12, 2018-Ohio-2700 in support of finding that error
was not prejudicial to Appellant.
{¶64} In Wilson, the trial court failed to properly inform the Appellant of
post-release control. However, in Wilson the court of appeals found that the trial
court’s failure was moot because the Appellant was serving a life sentence
without parole. As Appellant points out in his reply brief, his sentence is Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 29
distinguishable from the defendant in Wilson because he is serving a life
sentence with the possibility of parole after his 28 years. We agree with the
Appellant, Wilson does not persuade us to find that the trial court’s failure to
properly impose post-release control is moot.
{¶65} In State v. Pierce, 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 18CA4, 2018-Ohio-4458,
¶ 19, this court recently held that a “[f]ailure to address and impose postrelease control during the sentencing hearing constitutes a notification error” that
requires the appellate court to “set aside” “that portion” of the sentence,” and to
remand the matter “to the trial court for a resentencing hearing in accordance
with R.C. 2929.191.” Therefore, we sustain Appellant’s seventh assignment of
error.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VIII
{¶66} In his eighth assignment of error, Appellant asserts that his
convictions for aggravated murder, murder, and felonious assault were against
the manifest weight of the evidence, as Appellant was acting in self-defense.
Appellant argues that the “uncontroverted” testimony showed that Appellant
attempted to leave the apartment when he was rushed from behind by
Thackston. Appellant alleges that he was beaten by multiple people and an
arresting officer confirmed that Appellant had injuries to his face at the time he
was arrested. Appellant also alleges that the physical evidence indicated selfdefense as well, including: shell casing near the door (evidence Appellant was
attempting to leave), broken eyeglass lens found (supporting Appellant’s injury to
his face), and the gunshot was a contact wound and projectile travelled Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 30
downward through Thackston’s body (consistent with testimony that Appellant
turned and shot Thackston). Therefore, Appellant argues the evidence
established he acted in self-defense because he was in fear for his life when he
was bear hugged from behind by Thackston. Accordingly, Appellant argues that
his convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶67} The state argues that the evidence established that Appellant had
made numerous threats that he would shoot Thackston, Appellant acquired his
“tool” (gun) the night before the shooting, and Appellant, in fact, shot and killed
Thackston the next day in Blevins’ apartment. The state argues that the
evidence indicated that the Appellant had a “slightly blackened eye,” but it does
not support Appellant’s assertion that he had been beaten by several people
because he had no other marks or difficulty moving, breathing, talking, etc.
Therefore, the state argues that Appellant’s conviction is not against the manifest
weight of the evidence.
LAW
In determining whether a criminal conviction is against the
manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court must review
the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable
inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine
whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact
clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of
justice that the conviction must be reversed.”
State v. Lechner, 4th Dist. Highland No. 19CA32019-Ohio-4071, ¶ 41-42.
However, “generally the weight and credibility of evidence are determined by the
jury.” State v. Reyes-Rosales, 4th Dist. Adams No. 15CA1010, 2016-Ohio-3338,
¶ 17, citing State v. Kirkland, 140 Ohio St.3d 73, 15 N.E.3d 818, 2014-Ohio-Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 31
1966, 15, at ¶ 132. “A jury, sitting as the trier of fact, is free to believe all, part or
none of the testimony of any witness who appears before it.” State v. West, 4th
Dist. Scioto No. 12CA3507, 2014-Ohio-1941, ¶ 23 citing State v. Colquitt, 188
Ohio App.3d 509, 2010-Ohio-2210, 936 N.E.2d 76, ¶ 10, fn. 1 (2nd Dist.); State
v. Nichols, 85 Ohio App.3d 65, 76, 619 N.E.2d 80 (4th Dist.1993); State v.
Caldwell, 79 Ohio App.3d 667, 679, 607 N.E.2d 1096 (4th Dist.1992).
Consequently, “[w]e defer to the trier of fact on these evidentiary weight and
credibility issues because it is in the best position to gauge the witnesses’
demeanor, gestures, and voice inflections, and to use these observations to
weigh their credibility.” State v. Smith, 4th Dist. Gallia No. 17CA5, 2017-Ohio8657, ¶ 6 citing State v. Smith, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 16CA10, 2017–Ohio–
7864, ¶ 40.
{¶68} Having resolved Appellant’s fifth assignment of error by holding that
the former version of R.C. 2901.05 applied to Appellant’s case, we review this
assignment of error under former R.C. 2901.05, which provides that the
defendant bears the burden of proving self-defense by a preponderance of the
evidence, that “ ‘ “(1) the defendant was not at fault in creating the violent
situation, (2) the defendant had a bona fide belief that she was in imminent
danger of death or great bodily harm and that her only means of escape was the
use of force, and (3) that the defendant did not violate any duty to retreat or avoid
the danger.” ’ ” State v. Bundy, 4th Dist. Pike No. 11CA818, 2012-Ohio-3934, ¶
37, 974 N.E.2d 139, quoting State v. Goff, 128 Ohio St.3d 169, 2010-Ohio-6317,
942 N.E.2d 1075, ¶ 36, quoting State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323, 326, 673 Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 32
N.E.2d 1339 (1997). “The ‘elements of self-defense are cumulative. * * * [Thus, if
the defendant fails to prove any one of these elements by a preponderance of
the evidence he has failed to demonstrate that he acted in self-defense.’ ” Id.,
quoting State v. Jackson, 22 Ohio St.3d 281, 284, 490 N.E.2d 893 (1986)
(emphasis sic). Accord State v. Cassano, 96 Ohio St.3d 94, 2002-Ohio-3751,
772 N.E.2d 81, ¶ 73; State v. Hargrave, 4th Dist. No. 11CA907, 2012-Ohio-798,
2012 WL 642680, ¶ 16.
ANALYSIS
{¶69} In his brief, and at closing argument, Appellant’s attorney argued
that Appellant was about to exit Conley’s apartment when “[t]he onslaught
began,” relating to the jury how Appellant told Detective Brewer that four or five
people jumped him and beat him up to the extent that his glasses were broken
and he got a black eye. He further argued that there is “uncontroverted
testimony” that Thackston “came out from that room where he was hiding” and
pulled Appellant “back into the apartment” and Appellant shot Thackston in selfdefense.
{¶70} Aside from Appellant’s statements to the police, there is no
testimony or evidence that suggests that Appellant was attacked by multiple
assailants. Blevins did testify that Thackston grabbed Appellant from behind as
Appellant was purportedly exiting Conley’s apartment, but Conley gave
conflicting evidence testifying that she never saw Thackston grab Appellant just
seconds before the shooting. Determining the credibility of this testimony was
the jury’s duty. Scioto App. No. 19CA3882 33
{¶71} Aside from the testimony of Blevins and Conley, it is undisputed that
Appellant had an ongoing dispute regarding money that Thackston owed
Appellant. Appellant had threatened Thackston regarding this debt. Appellant
had apparently acquired a gun the night before the murder, and Appellant shot
Thackston in the abdomen at point-blank range. This evidence could infer that
Appellant planned to kill Thackston prior to the shooting.
{¶72} Accordingly, after reviewing the entire record, we do not find the jury
clearly lost its way in not finding that Appellant acted in self-defense so as to
create such a manifest miscarriage of justice that his convictions must be
reversed. Therefore, we overrule Appellant’s eighth assignment of error.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IX
{¶73} In his ninth assignment of error, Appellant asserts that cumulative
errors during his trial deprived him of a fair trial and requires a reversal of his
convictions. We overruled all of Appellant’s assignments of error, except for
assignment number seven, which requires remand under R.C. 2929.191.
Therefore, we overrule Appellant’s ninth assignment of error.
Outcome: We overrule all of Appellant’s assignments of error, except for his
seventh assignment of error in which we find that the trial court did not properly
notify him of post-release control. Therefore, we affirm Appellant’s convictions,
but remand this matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of notifying
Appellant of post-release control consistent with R.C. 2929.191.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: