-
t;t3tlN s' UF OHIO
Sup e
rase Nom t^081257
V*. N APP::R(. FRC3M THE HAMILTON i^OU
APPEA
kPPhLLA3w Gs#a NO. w-Q
ORANDUM IN SUPP(.tkT U'r"Ja.IR19f}TCTICJN OF THE
Es,.G,3N`i 5'rir;4;3ii iaR:{
WaEaon+n Gorv^)r' ..v!*T Xe^
D4FcNI)riWT lPr; a„1„Piilt --w.. YN "Ri? ;'s`b
q
Hmlf9ilW6'a&"k GnBSttZJ P7'OsOY'„!.3 Attevrey
00
fiqQt„`snotI§ of`aisa 49202
COUNSE!,. FOR THt°". PP..W7FdTTFFn'rtPP:'LL€"C .,w., STATE C!F i;i'r>!3;"!
230 Losst 9th atrRUt,
h T'.RST
TY
-
T!'+B3wr. ^^ CINIT#,+
^kPL.^'t41ATIDYd `_:r' WHY THIS CA%: :
INVOL1,`s'" A U,.i`"TAfi,!t°.pAi,. C'e'::T'-e"-,'f.!""0N?k?
SffRTEMw^,tT Or C:AI!i' AND FACTKi,
DEFENDANT WAS Kp'',
g=^>::;5 r
A.? cs*f?ont;°
t;N[°"#L.a LNTEf :iT AND
S,A^tt
Dot%;'etNVn Pttt=hforr' tiv'At F?®E7s at)" !.:An £'own de3?th tf '̀a°.he'y
aw heavy nrsu^:ua^ m ^^.5z3,^$)tw;3!°ey wiR'r`:3i°1 tk$P'a'm 1;;!s';t;
'2 lf^; 91Kt!e! CO2 , Ut{'-`m 5qafe" m{' `?li`K`41 , +,9;X^ y!m?x ont*+f." f.?et
""teqr3me4 ^oT t,srv pwo a f,5a u"qFaoa
9.) Cil^^^rel wev 'n"4taet
'smplied ttc` 90. !:un ueet:
G:o} C*t:€t?nfj1 woe &wMf^'+.^',^r&vr; tep feiltee, -€" w-
`s!'.'ig.Fne4tetoo p'Zb75tr+aJ, ?`P'!a'n':"s} .b*C:;ped g°.' 1:"",fi: fmtlbe:','r,
;i?Lfidt¢#cd3 Qtg''' 2'2{':! 9a9s fiLtp P,Eesad AFa '4Te o1"fa,6°+ih.̂ ". G!f?F"- d':W>p??`Yd^.e [3'^' e(°.€2°'Y`^eg t.`^,^^,}". . C^e.J,.a
^w P ^fJ ^3R14°^t!"^.® ^ì e° .2vi
TH€: 7'R°CAi. f;CTEJQT i,:t7R(;D im C?,1`:RpEII."ims ':mf. vfi_i"i.'P-!t3AM'S'ti M!^?'IqPd TO Tf.tPf='POSS "IS Tr:'Q
h?'ATrMt'MT T" Pt?,.TY'E
T*^^El ^a^'F^FPPT^^ FE?F'_Et^^/^t;Psl^
.t"ht i:.;, 'a'v ^.,'z°,'Lrn; ,̀J"Pl ,3$`;.'i,'`. t.? trPe`.^n ?ialIZ.a"d"tf':`;t ^trUlfr£r '.'.'h""o+l c
mv&nrc9 af€d tHat .5S9Z'oyn 1e18fiF k'.:C%'h 3£"t In tNj tk"7otgn*'z' cgs?)m-0
LAIil P441Pflf^ER THRJE?.wss.^4^.wr.:a.as+»+anv^..a.r,:..aanae^.»zv
THE Tf','T.t?L COURT ERRED TO ['€".t'E::Nt3"cP]T t€% PREJUDICE WHEi:3 T€' 17FNTE.' ; I;Ok!t'3G!:(a tS MOTION
FOF A tlCP!)XtrT i"lF ACQUITTAL, CCFT'T!"?' AND 7LaUFFtt4LIZC17 VE£'Pa`_.".fiiS
O(° GUILTY ldH7inH WIRY n?P,T SflFrPORTED PY C.G°I..F;V6lt]`!' APd?7 (";f;t DTH1_E: EUTt}F'P!(;F.` e 7-0
T.^ìsl1^ PoP.'sEm;''K;€: F'Hh' FEr!17El1:nttsti'u^'3irr:riFr F.....m..§xifR?s.#^.pR4orxw^4.f'.R^v'.IZ.,
Ti?% L`vfO"r.,.u q?4`oz>et5 ?d I3m'otu rrs; .̂.,F> >t?.',fit}tt^"wn ae
dw, .
CC#NCL37 ,1;
^^EPTl.i`Ift?.!'E OF 54.P.ElIt'C
}Z{"PI:.R010vr.timsat^ au..a.maire
0 Gr&j,tf$ tstqir,t".£,$s +snd Ent2'.,v
-
OF t;F,ra1? t' PURL
"'N'Ct4:2t'•!e
but bi =.i w4..'*^h tfl:acSctrzg an1s
, tNet is: esca€;tly what
Mng e*aar evom 3tiar:w nra os; prowncsutoc^t•s
:SP,SE?;,i en
o^'ra 1`'jw4st $if tNa
;atae?vlstg anna^s through the twotsrto,
F;to.^* t:se i
-
7"S'#e 00500000M mVttv Phoulc1 6g, „noraviat thmm all,
es^ri tharn usst. ° YNO Go"r2; a^auld n
n s 1ogs
Noma,
fop ^.rhle typm of ,9u^til¢
First Dts.W.rrt and the t?ro€owt^=.v
,
7hot= obould hae mr0^^^^ tt ift^^^ ^rom tS?ic type aP
9 tnna,sY.t to t€am Amev#a;sss ey=stam of 3€arse?..
A.th,
STATEt4ENT OF n€1SC AND FACTS
/vra10„q uh.^oh ^,vo lle-,
3g^ti,;,u'F;:$anz »
robtery at K.o,,,orre in the K^nwa,;€es° Ymra.2g Contpr In Cfpalnnstls ^hjp.
ON PAov 7fih tekr^^ ^^ thm NOmLItaM CoantV ,horiffas Patrol
Headqea^rters.
snlays of ra
r^^ol.amova^ ^^^ mndv
c ,9r„st°^^di^tAeno otsout ;,)
(Tp. 5n42) ® Sesirm tha^oo (3) hvsaea S.o°rer r
D52fv*,'1rjmrt *11efti,R.ed hte inucivear^nt.
Paroth;b!r EzTk,iawt Ire to f,c3mh°av: of *?$P-nwPraa
yo,9rp;r hrott*e Neap.
den$nd throe°^mnfi.ng to r.haav
W£+s aeRm A i: 000 cshe^^^e amoea thR ra1110ea#smt m:ae3o a espmc3 We,
peph'^^^ t
rity ravmmr" ssldmsy^ep::: fis"o",
ac.lvta^e th.ry
ramthocas
deft-doet hs=sr^tsn
9^?APt7'E.+*e "?e:CV..^v"w
s;wo lecxi•€,lanos !`)N4 on Qra
e ®ShMus^ Cmtvi^tiCnoa -w It ehuulcS a€:cept thle agi
to the aocaa:tts
trimtsmn w3d hii eniscr°^pt!,s^ qf eivirming.
01.1,n,"e^e trc:uld pfe.ol'€ivtily
sI
t bsfr^^^ the tora'R ssg: 411"
yv, c"ver.vt4. Th!P only !ahs;alc
ql=:#Ume* rV3na .̂'
, t1l'3hvuqF1 Clf#'l'urs
vpjS#mls Coi°3:'"t:
a=v, Ti
aa17-18) .
-
DR't'.t"1{:Cli?:.t Wr.::: C'i'g1eCj,;:l,l wip„i i?7ion (1) rount r9f KddikB(.7p°,rg, SBisx^1 (9) d.""2i3ni;i3 of
Ag9rovT*:..d Rmhbot"y, G,'el Fa,rri Degree fiw'lvnkan, and Nl6"et; (9) CR:Lir'.s of R^,'"bbgs,'y in
tha SnrMnct Doc{r.',s. (Td 1 7,°sdictmmnt). The Defen
nuppt ^ss an Novhmbar 29th, 2008 Dnt'andan'i' Was^t tn
-•'t?^iel mal."rgaR., nXrwpt for 't91c;. Kidns:pplag and one coun'°s; of
P.ggreveEgF3 Rabbory, which hex a^^o ecquitted of e;ommitting.
He fi`S.od n timtly appoul a Firc,t Diotrict Court of Itpp€vo1.:., ard th-q
'O':t=i W^ E':tTih?t`Sf^u-d :,`£3 the x.SRi9£i t'Af th4t B.D. rLi'?'F.. T°.e, Court th§"'+`
Ap(5e1.3_tvnt to 24 y.Foe®n. The Appellant R;hen ea.tlgf915;' .Rri2tZv^ tO '8'.s'#'fia C83o.&: t ??;a 'r'i?,m o
delayTd F?3ppe5al, d6..dzt to thCi fact 32n mS^eeLi 'ha fLa.Qng duIIdlB,S3s>.. He missg?.f!'
e4oneilTqa bmrsu^a lie was taeSng hold in °t0 County 0011, anc( wa^, b9ing rn®
sentsssced. Thy Cna.ai.t gxontod 1.-anvo to fA1,n the dal&ynct appeal, cand ^his Rppeol
naw fa3.lvwm»
PROPOSITION C1FLAW NUMBER QNE:DEFENDANT DENZED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF CIIUNSEL:.
ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REUTEW:Ae ) Cui,9€3k3','l wwEi ,''.§$aff aL"+i'iv, f"ar fR,'s.y lFzO to abjeCi: `fCn, £%T® S.nu6'8eez:, te.14^";'tm£-'̂aRyby D-.te:,etlva PttrNfn.r.e( tisa1, B.B. Gun con cm+s;t Ommch Af they F4q=s Co , r^:^ ^,f
3.hsy are ^s^ravy ^.^?`^+_Iq^a ^:f's uu€$ -gsu e^ blc^dgae€^', when there ws* no ev^,c^^32re thatthe gun In qua :inn ia,^s^°d CO2 , wt^£j mer1s uf n7stay, 13?° w^,% evor uae;d orlntaIR£3od for FPF.3'"e -^F"= n b7 tdd[j5?F;35 .ti.) Counsel w,,giv In«ffectlve for fnillng *o nbjmCet to C, jury :4nest*lacl;a.tsnths4: 'mpl5,ed `ha HO Guri uq^:e3 by th£,°, D€yfwnc9nxat wan, by vvzu^^ a cienr3l.yWoopr;RaC.) OoRZraaF;l weas In°=:ffoctiva for t'€all?,ng to arc0aae for vos°d9c';=r uf ecquittalaFE c..8,l ?.*`.9bb€a:ry s„!oup`ì,;>!, b^igt.§[I un tkde f.E'di5.uy.`t"F S%f ttep atn^'^ "
prsft>?"; ny nv:>ndr€^co •$-s at t€'^" aB Gun uvr^n: 4-n `raan afftnr^ w,Fs capsble +fc€3AHs"J
-
Ti^O.r E3f t=';yn E?i` i' f.
Y2s 'f'E!T';r'.^ ^` ,̂1€° }F_s
4dh°C,44
tJ"S „dia'•' if $;f>tj
':iL*NF'A,
Am^.?; as1matts
i`
pa.,.e-:3 aa Es^'b^^VOV
t.!";2#lG 50a11? 4SV $ t't^3"i.,^.;
PrQF;4entvdg tm̂v+'.letY$,ut'sv'.J AW1'^
coa.^^^ml. Tt ;S [iOt9OTO udrtJaemw° ti`a`n aRTi1
f&SV€?rufdle
qt~•`^M7 to fi,d3 .=to®
6e
1,n€aLiw R'3
elemen•^ ^^ apc^roveW vobtaer,^y„ F
@
^onv ietAen .t"n°?onco
Ms e6" d̂sL
i`"'usl,.`xa'+#'#ce #? 31tfcn&dSg'!is i hl
fo:t"".'s3
LEd.2d
enP'lai34'^ ti'€at GVdffir V,*'1
'h«3u,iEYg of
t f t9:Yt,:
ap€3d:1a3LLFS the De§ ^nd$;'ii'R X°)f °e,5 a.'.+t°' '.
fl^.7 trds,° r , za h $, E„t ':'€w,
;"!bjet;.rif.,fi t% the
ae€'s nat1e.̀̂ y'
7 t^;y ^:k"34
of ( i;l ) g
p^,'aanp s,i,`̀".'c=4ed
466 U.113r u.+',H, 104 SoCAt
qaoriozresae?Yr
Ixi4'kP`=-S3n
y C.":°..ai8meod t*3 tsr3.'art'n' wla^o#:'
p;:o1`JablIKV
i? it? '&ht oCdto:?mm» .Cn
4P+9 _ i.aM Cd$i.4vE' r, oVGx;?°±+"i.€ ?`tn `s t w € t. ;3Ctlt'3 tzsL4'^3, , but
loodeta{2ntS",.
A "'+amL?tA#laobl€r
80
rC? gua^anaseC3 Defeadenff by
y ^ w pvch sWity w
A.'i Au " no4"x #",iyq9,1liorg
slo4'8
(4)
-
G'l,vF n l a= .nsc,k ^3f ,^^a! ^v^i^€s. ,w
11igm; E'o43i ^.rz`fy .,r1o f,z,f.d All.`W^adi
n?. oP€tOPC9 ai.9 LtPP+1 ESb t,dyf AqflhiEi R 6G9Q^u^,,,a,^..^r,t. ^. .°^°•- ^ "" r r rM n„atE. 1 L.fil . N;^AN•r ?'G) ^_i T.^r, rN.F_ Il ^.̂ .^^ ^
MOTION TO :.EJPPRE55 HIS TAPED STATEMENT TO PuLZCe`
ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEt l t5'
4^¢t ^y i.. p 4
4^^ L•L E-mG= ^'3 Î'̂^^^' .1mu 44f^k L9.^'rj:^.i,'@^ ^.^`.5 .1'i^01 C^.L.^i.>^,^Ut.A luf^f.Ela?. ' n31?I - y ^ ^'•r
p^^ nd,,.,t1s ^tght tq f°P?:?nzsPl Fnfi° t" 3jjev'
( ^!'.gp} v
vvlutfi '.ary
562, EiSi' %c:,2c' 711 , , . ?"iP, C AXtTy,
'si;..'3o 65a 55^3 PJoM, , Co.i.#`?ipb,'aa aJ, (1961),
Wa ._ s ht.d 97;
7. 563, ,.. ut:Gy iSi 0 a
l.,Ct§,:?-i 1037..
-
In evca? uating tho volura`;tmoy nature Qf rs s€^ ,`^>s^ ^^f ,ho cou4t f fu:: t- con
the tvtal:@.1:y cs"+"' the c1,rcumu1;enaRs. State v. Edwards, 49 0hin S°$;.2d 31, mt 40,
350 N.E.2d 1051, oM' 1059 Wiles, at 81. Sr°:u e .A*:=:;:f: Dickarean v. United StaKa, 530
U.S. a't 434, 120 5.1,1;. a^. 2331. °T^,4 United S?;€atg`:,
cmnfee^simon egairdmt thv roqu.1.reme
d ;no mna
q pr.n.r.tnr;." MllZor v. FenQ°,on (1985),
474 U. S. 104, 106 S.Ct. 445, 88 L.Ed.2d 405. In DS.ck^rean the Court st2tod, HWp
hove gpovex €abRndnned the dun pvocas€, ju*tspaudenc;e, and th€a oxcl,ud.e
r.on1Tor^stans 1;het were obtnlnsd ;kravu3ura1;^rily." Sd. e't 434, 120 S.Ct. at 2331,
147 L.Ed.2d at 413, c:ittng E9a21oy v. Nogcn (1964), 37B U.S. 1, 84 S.M. 1469, 12
L.Erd.2d 653. 7hum €^a ccsnr"aselan mny tiris Involuntnary Pvnra wh.,F^,re Mirane1& wmrntug€a
orff given. fu
-
d: ..C.AC' NIUMMitT4;={Ev;.L""cCIUFtT Ei2f2C13 T( 6SE3aDltMM PREJUDICE WHEN IT DENIED t:nuNSEL as
R A VERDICT t1i= Ai>QUITTPi_p OMD 4G010 ir!iiFN 3T A.'_:GEpTED AriDvERDSGTS Cdr GI,iXUTY WHICH WERE N®T SUPPORTED 8`! RELE!lANT AND
Es'nDEniCE.
.=.:a:Jl.lE PREAEi!aED FOR REVIEW:Thp evlde,?'tU'o pT,'Fz,.ax%A'e"°.°;C7 h6^3TC,w btE3v d"?8elaf'fiiclzd3i::, es a ftt-::t°5+,.'.:vr of law, `L,:o
,=.•;i;txl l.:;d3i3 t^€,,.a€;#3i^sA a t" g
-
° "tpz"sl's "al', r v',4°;.'x ri £$t .',aY°C
b,Fts.C'.gh5ng
d*e^rvcj ^^ pro3t' hovei tzeers atspl?ed„
7.
Tq&e E3oeEk' a= rY:ust
evi
mine^ of °d,`he Bo lit ?aoyrPn€^ a VOt^SUMMIR daatkrtg ix,e 00,U; t iWt- 4 du;=v
^^^^aree Dai'mnetont { o Ma^'^v5:ct¢#^
M,.r, 2d 43K
FStt`tbm}`7Ctarvy : ttDnFPA..r','`i,ld'
v Elmy (1976)
a via.'^ottv the t^sO»^^^ moc4 s';^^^^,^
in A wka°E^'̀atp (9970) 387 US 35r-
2d 368 and 3ackson v V
2ri 56f?,
t ; l, i£ ? g 3 Y,' U° .E ^-> z'
^^ bi3ppwn a gltll",`; os°i
4t °a'090('i98'7J :91 Ohio st> 3i 173# 510 N.C. 2d 143.
:* p"a.'L.mm4'Pt 6@+7§.7fAtaY'Stl2^t oVt£3ance whi£"d,`L tco'4ild ConVinqw
ax
M&A13^^oPtiml Iv.§,dOMC,M
i7^^WWan4 5 a guilt. Ftir that ^
monv9.ettone lamee9le^aly.
to a
307, 99 5ot 2711, s'sK t
11
'0$
(€3)
-
CONCLUSION
Th=s Defgnr€ns^t did nat re: efi.ve s 01q triml OV s just rmmoaZt Isa tPaU ir:stw.,
cam. The refcsse1 of o rms:^^nob1n conti€auavar.m ti paamit mither retairsod or
aopoinieet counsal °i.ea edmq€a^taly C^rope:°a fsar tt°in&, oaho€° t:ns!; ,+ii^.^l
in .'i..4(3ply$.F°3Ll F,4A.q[^; l.tT.'v r VA:l..d thi: D;f..st°=.i fikt t59;=
rounsel. Den'.sJ .9f t?^ uilpPX.:':G° r vu^(ra'v,:t.£3 4 w,^, ^sU,^ _ ,'„n'4"e"^tI â C ':,^,£^:) t;"s"',
blk,3 arjo htcrjS$ly
UN t3 t£':e C' F€a3T4S.Sa¢:ttt% c`'s63vis,m:;-n t .'S.efF:t° se:c:;,
R•,x4,sttf"l.'=.v 10n,U0
4r € €it r:;";;y , DO# 59" 6610'
L^.C;.1:. A• V'^.1, ;?ix 5;
1, si`isl.'b > O,>.... 4506•00K
CERT'!'C'rf:!1TE rlr `;i.-:R'Jr".`.
I sham Grsy 4aoret,y c..._t,..fy tia:wt r a,r,;.;vil BY^e wF xr1-s.".
6d€3Fd us2o;9 f°Srb1ok,•dad vlE*. FiS'z3t C?a."3.^ U.S. N!a'l "i "g[.t{7W^`dit
dmy L#f Ap:,;;'l< 2010.
t°C°!tnnc^ .̂,.'.. nr g,hi;s
f °°-Y9,"
._.,.C.". a. P.D. ozt,; _;
I
(9)
-
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATI OF OHIO, . APPEAL NO. C-081257TRIAL NO. B-0803615
Plaintiff-Appellee,OPINION
vs.
SHAWN GRAY,
Defendant-Appe] t ant.
Criminal Appeal From: Itamilton County Court of Coimnon Pleas
Judginent Appealed From Is: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, Appellant Dischargedin Pait, and Cause Remanded
Date of Judgment F.ntry ori Appeal: November 6, 2009
.Iosehh T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott D^I Heenara,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee,
Elizabeth E. Agar, for Appellant.
Please note: This casc has been removec3 fi•om the accelerated caleudar.
-
OIIIO FIRST DIS'I'RICT COURT OF APPEALS
SYi,vrA S. HENDON, Presiding Judge.
{111} In a taped statement to police, defendant-appellant Shawn Gray
admitted to robbing a IU-oger's grocery store, three Walgreen's pharmacies, a Ic-
Mart store, a Sunoco gas station, a Kentuclry Fried Chicken restaurant, a
Marathon gas station, and a Donato's pizza parlor. Gray told police that he had
connnitted the robberies using a BB gun that he had modified to look like a real
gun. The state subsequently charged Gray with, ainong other things, nine counts
of aggravated robbery and nine counts of robbery. On each aggravated-robbery
charge, Gray's indictment alleged that, while committing the robberies, Gray had
had "a deadly weapon on or about his person "*'", to wit: A BLUDGEON
AND/OR BB GUN." Gray's BB gun was never recovered.
{1[2} Following a jury trial, Gray was found guilty of eight counts of
aggravated robbery and nine counts of robbery. Before sentencing, the trial court
merged eight of the robbery couuts with their respective aggravated-robbery
counts. For these eights counts of aggravated robbery, and for one unmerged
count of robbery, Gray was sentenced to a total of 43 years in prison. This appeal
followed.
1. The Jury was Properly Instructed
{1[3) In his first assigninent of error, Gray initially argues that the court's
jury instructions misled the jury into presuming that a BB gun was per se a
deadly weapon. Since Gray failed to objec:t to the instructioris at trial, he has
waived all but plain error.l An erroneous jury instructiori does not constitute
Crim.R. 3o(A).
2
-
O1110 FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
plain error urnless, but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly woiild have
been otherwise .2
{14} Gray takes issue with the following instruction: "Before you can
find defendant guilty, you rnust find beyond a reasonable doubt that *** the
defendant while purposefully comniitting or attempting to commit a theft offense
* X. or in fleeing immediately thereafter had a deadly weapon on or about his
person or under his control and displayed, brandished, indicated that he
possessed, or used the weapon, specifically a BB gun."
{115} We are not convinced that this wording created an impermissible
presumption. And even if it did, a single jury instruction should not be vicwed in
artificial isolation bnt, rather, in the context of the overall charge.3 The trial court
in this case went on to properly instruct the jury on the legal definition of "deadly
weapon." 'I'he court also stated that a°deadly weapon" determination was a
question of fact for the jury to decide. lteading the instructions in their entirety,
we hold that the trial court's charge contained a proper and complete statement
of the law.4 Gray therefore can not dcmonstrate error, plain or other-wise. 'fhis
argument has no merit.
II. The Sufficiency and Relevance of Pitchford's Testimony
{116} Gray also claims in his first assignment of error that the trial court
erred by admitting the testimony of state's witness Detective Brian Pitchford.
Pitchford testified concerning the deadliness of BB guns in general. Becanse our
,^ State ii. Coley, 93 Ohio St.;3d 253, 2ooi-Ohio-1340, 754 N.E.2d 1129; State U. Underwood(1983), 3 Ohio St.3d 12, 444 N.E.2d 1332, syllabus.s State u. Price (1979), 6o Ohio SL.2d 136, 398 N.E.2d 772, paragraph four of the syIlabus; Siate V.
Hobbs (May 25, 2oox), v' Dist. No. C-ooo5i6.4 State u, Corrien (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 2o6, 553 N.F.2d 640, paragraph two of the syllabus; Stateu. MaCrmy ist DisC. No. O-o8o860, 2oo9-Ohio-4390; see, also, Strde v. Brown (1995), ioi OhioApp.3d 784, 656 N.E.2d 741.
3
-
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
analysis of Pitchford's testimony is central to resolving Gray's fourth assignment
of error, we address these assignments of error together.
{¶7} In his fourth assignment of error, Gray challenges the weight and
sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. When reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, this court's function
is to exatnine the evidence admitted at trial to detern7ine whether such evidence,
if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.s The 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 clemcnts of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt.6 In
this case, we hold that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's
finding that Gray's BB gun was a deadly weapon. There was, accordirtgly, no
basis in law for Gray's eight aggravated robbety convictions.
Deadly Weapon?
{118} Iii relevarrt part, the elements of aggravated robbery include
committing a theft offense while displaying a deadly weapon.7 R.C. 292 ;.r1(A)
defines a "deadly weapon" as "any instrtunent, device, or thing capable of
inflicting death, and designed or specially adapted for usc as a weapon, or
possessed, carried, or tlsed as a weapon."
1919} The record is replete with evidence that Gray had displayed a.BB
gun "as a weapon" during the robberies at issne. But the state relied solely on
Pitchford's testimony to prove that Gray's BB gun had been "capable of inflicting
death." On this issue, Pitchford testified as follows: "BB guns, pellet gu11s which
s Slaie v. Jen7cs (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492, paragraph two of the syllabus,e Id.
R.C. 291 7 .01(A)(1).i
4
-
OHIO FIRST I)ISTILICT COUIaT OF APPEALS
are fired off with a C02 cartridge, they can cause death just like a firearm could.
If it's a heavy type of BB gun or pellet gun, they cot.ild be used as a bludgeon-type
instrument hitting someone in the head causing injury and death as well." On the
basis of State v. Browu,s we hold that Pitcliford's testimony was insufficient to
prove that Gray's BB gtm was "capable of inflicting deatli."
(¶10} In Brown, we reversed the defendant's conviction for felonious
assault after determining that the stated had failed to prove that Brown's BB gun
had been "capable of inflicting death," as set forth in R.C. 2923.1i(A). The BB
gun in that case, as here, had never been recovered. The only description of it
was that it was long and had a pump. In reversing the defendant's conviction, we
reasoned that there had been "no evidence adduced concerning the particular BB
gun's capability of inflicting death, either as a bludgeon or otherwise."9 Likewise,
in this case, there was no evidence demonstrating how Gray's particular P,B gun
was capable of inflicting death. There was no evidence that his BB gun was heavy
enough to be used as a deadly bludgeon. And even if we assume that a "BB gun"
and a "pellet gun" are the same thing, there was no evidence that Gray's BB gun
had a C02 cartridge.
{¶11} We are aware of cases from this district where a BB gun or a toy gun
has been held to be a deadly weapon. 'I'his case leaves those holdings
undisturbed. In those cases, there was evidonce that the attributes of the BB gun
or toy gun at issue made it capable of inflicting deadly harm.10 No such evidence
was presented here.
B(1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 784, 656 N.l?.2t1741.ld. at 789, 656 N.L':2d 741.
"o See State v. Barnes (Oct. 23, 1996), I st llist. Nos. C-950784 and G950785 (jury could reasonably inferthat BB gun was capable of inflicting death as a 6ludgeon where state introdueed into evidence large,heavy, meted BB gun), State v. I3o+vier (1997) 119 Ohio App.3d 815, 694 N.E.2d 125 (toy gun made of
5
-
OkIdO FIRST I)ISTI3ICT COURT OF A.I'PLALS
Pitchford's Testimony was Irrelevant
{1112} Not only was Pitchford's testimony insufficient to prove that the BB
gun was a deadly weapon, but it was also irrelevant since it did not tend to prove
or disprove that Gray's BB gun was capable of inflicting death.11 lrrelevant
evidence is inadmissible.12 We therefore sustain that par-t of Gray's first
assignment of error challenging Pitchford's testimony. Our holding is largely
based on the fact thai: Pitchford testified after all of the victinis had testified. And
the victims' testimony did not provide a basis for concluding that Gray's BB gun
was heavy enough to be used as a deadly bludgeon, or that it had a C02 cartridge.
The lack of relevance in Pitchford's testimony, therefore, should have been
readily apparent.
{¶13} But we caution that there is nothing inherently improper about
testimony concerning thc deadliness of a weapon that has never been recovered.
Indeed, to hold otherwise woiild destroy the state's ability to effectively prosecute
"deadly weapon" cases where no weapon has been found. But to sustain a
conviction, there must be an evidentia>.y linlc between a weapon's capacity to
inflict death and its particular characteristics or attributes.
{¶14} We note that Gray presents other challenges to the strength of the
prosecutor's evidence in the balance of his fourth assignment error. They are
without merit. Gray confessed to committing nine robberies.'3 And while Gray
presented a version of events that, if believed, may have exonerated him, there is
metal admitted into evidence, and state pres-ented testimony that the toy coul(I have bludgeoned a victim todeatli)" Evid.R. 401; cf. State v. Ga.s•Idns, 9ttt Dist. No. 06CA0086-M, 2007-Ohio-4103; State v. Boone, lOtli
Dist. No, 65AP-565, 2006-Ohio-3809.2 Evid.R. 402." See Jen7rs, suprtl.
6
-
01110 FIRST DISTRICT COllItT OF APPEALS
no indication that the ju>,y "so lost its way" in choosing to believe the state's
version of events as to warrant a new trial.14
{T,15} In sum, Gray's first and fourth assignment of error are sustained in
part and overruled in part.
III. No Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
{9(161 In his second assigim>_ent of error, Gray claims ineffective
assistance of counsel. To prevail on such a claim, Gray rnust demonstrate that his
counsel's perforinance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and was
prejudicial.la Our review is highly deferential, and we indulge a strong
presutnption that counsel's conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable
professional assistance.16
{¶17} Here, Gray asserts that counsel (i) should have objected to
Pitchford's BB-gun testimony; (2) should have cross-examined Pitchford about
his BB-gun testimony; (3) should have objected to the jury instructions; and (4)
should have argued for an acquittal based on the state's failure to present
snffic.ient evidence on the issue of the deadliness of Gray's BB-gun. Nonc of these
argumertts has merit.
{9118} We have already determined that the jury was correctly charged.
Counsel, therefore, was not ineffective for failing to object to the court's
instruction. Alid while in hindsight, counsel's decision not to challenge
Pitchford's BB-gun testitnony may not have been the best choice, we will not
second-guess counsel's performance in this regard. Gray's main claim at trial was
" See State v. Thoenphins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541; State v. Adartin (1983),20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E: 2d 717." Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052; State v. I3radley (1989), 42 Ohio
St3d 136, 143, 538 N.E.2d 373, paragraph two of the syllabus.1" Strichland at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
7
-
01110 FIRST DISTRICT COUlt'T OF APPEALS
that his confession had been coerced, and that he did not commit the crimes
charged. His defense had focused on drawing out the inc:onsistencies between his
confession and the victi>.ns' testimony. Counsel's decision not to challenge the
"deadliness" of the BB gun could have, therefore, been a trial tactic.17 'Phe same
reasoning supports counsel's decision not to focus his Crim.R. 29 argument on
this issue. We find no error. Gray's second assignrnent of error is overruled.
IV. Gray's Motion to Suppress
(^19} In his tllird assignment of error, Gray contends that the trial court
erred when it overruled his tnotion to suppress his confession. Appellate review
of a ruling on a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact.1$
We must accept the trial court's findings of fact as true if they are supported by
competent and credible evidence.19 With respecl to the trial court's conclusions of
law, however, we apply a de novo standard of review and decide whether the facts
satisfy the applicable legal standard.20
tl[20} A confession is subject to suppression if it was involuntarily
induced tlirotigh "coercive police activity."21 To malce this determination, a court
must consider the totality of the circumstances, including "the age, mentality, and
prior crintinal experience of the acctlsed; the length, intensity, and frequency of
interrogation; the existence of physical deprivation or tnistreatrnent; and the
existence of threat or induceinent."22
"Cf. State v. Marshall, 175 Ohio App.3d 488, 2008-Oltio-955, 887 N.E.2d 1227, ¶86.^R State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St3d 152, 2003-Ottio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, at ¶8.19 State v. Fanning (1982), J Ohio St.3d 19, 20, 437 N.E.2d 583.20 Rvrnside, supra.2 ' Colorado v. Connelly (1986), 479 U.S. 157, 167, 107 S.Ct. 515." State v. Edwards (1976), 49 Ohio St.2d 31, 358 N.E.2d 1051, paragraph two of the syllabus, vacated inpart on other grounds (1978), 438 U.S. 911, 98 S.Ct. 3147.
8
-
®FIlO T'IRST I)ISTIdICT COUIt'P OF APPEALS
{¶21} Gray claims that police coerced his confession through a lengthy
interrogation process that included a "relay" of questioning officers, combined
witli an implicit threat that (iray's brother would be criminally charged if Gray
did not confess. '1'he trial court found, however, no undne influence or coercion.
The court pointed out that, on the recording of the confession, Gray had stated
that no threats or promises had been made to him, and that Gray iiad sounded
calm and responsive. 1'lle court also found that Gray was "an adult who has
experience with the criminal justice system by his own account." All of these
findings were supported by the competent, credible evidence. And applying the
applicable law, we hold that the trial court correctly denied Gray's motion to
suppress. Gray'sthird assignment of error is overruled.
V. Conclusion
{1122} Gray's aggravated robbery convictions are reversed, and Gray is
discharged from further prosecution for those offenses. But the findings of guilt
on the robbeiy cotmts, and the one conviction for robbery, are affirmed. This
case is remanded to the trial court for sentencing on the eight remaining robbery
counts.
Judgment accordingly.
DINREI,ACI^R and MALLORY, JJ., concur.
Please Note:The court has recorded its own entiy on the date of the release of this
decision.
9
page 1page 2page 3page 4page 5page 6page 7page 8page 9page 10page 11page 12page 13page 14page 15page 16page 17page 18page 19page 20