State v. Hoskinson ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Hoskinson, 2022-Ohio-1203.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
VAN WERT COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 15-21-10
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ANTHONY HOSKINSON, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Van Wert County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. CR-20-02-042
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: April 11, 2022
APPEARANCES:
Gene P. Murray for Appellant
Kelly J. Rauch for Appellee
Case No. 15-21-10
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Anthony J. Hoskinson (“Hoskinson”) appeals the
judgment of the Van Wert County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the trial
court erred by admitting the testimony of one of the State’s experts and by admitting
the State’s expert report. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment of the trial
court is affirmed.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On the evening of February 14, 2020, Michael Semer (“Semer”) was
working at Brookside Convenience Drive Thru (“Brookside”) when he was
approached by a man wearing a flannel jacket, white tennis shoes, a black face
covering, and a hat. Tr. 200-201, 202, 206. Semer testified that the face covering
“looked * * * made out of a stocking hat with the eyes just ripped out.” Tr. 206.
He testified that this man had a “blue razor blade knife” and said “to give him the
money” from the register. Tr. 202, 203, 207. Ex. 56. Semer then “gave him the
money and [the man] * * * walked out the door.” Tr. 209. After the man left, Semer
called the police. Tr. 209.
{¶3} When the police arrived, Semer gave them a description of the man’s
height, weight, voice, and apparel. Tr. 206. Ex. 56. He indicated to the police that
the man “exited out the south side of the building * * *.” Tr. 279. Semer also
showed the police the video footage from the Brookside’s security cameras. Tr.
204, 210. In the footage, the police noticed that the man had a tattoo on his neck
-2-
Case No. 15-21-10
and that his hat had lettering on it. Tr. 226, 237. Ex. 48, 49, 53. Not all of the
lettering was decipherable in the footage, but the police were able to determine that
the first portion of the lettering on the hat said “Wells.” Tr. 226. Ex. 53. Further,
some other security camera footage also showed that a purple PT Cruiser appeared
near the entrance of the store “within a minute” of “the suspect enter[ing] the
building * * *.” Tr. 232-233.
{¶4} Deputy James Roehm (“Deputy Roehm”) of the Van Wert Sheriff’s
Office came to the store with a canine to help locate the suspect. Tr. 278. The
canine led Deputy Roehm to a piece of black fabric on the ground. Tr. 238, 284.
On closer inspection, this fabric “was determined to be a cut off or torn off T shirt
sleeve” that was “black in color.” Tr. 238. Ex. 14. The police believed that the
suspect may have used this fabric as a mask during the robbery. Tr. 238.
{¶5} The police then located a purple PT Cruiser in front of a trailer that was
in a mobile home lot behind Brookside. Ex. 45. Tr. 239, 287. This trailer was a
short distance from where the black fabric was discovered on the ground. Tr. 238-
239. Ex. 45. When a person began driving the PT Cruiser away from trailer, the
police made contact with the driver. Tr. 288. Shortly thereafter, Hoskinson came
to the door of the trailer. Tr. 243, 291. He fit the description that Semer had
provided to the police of the suspect in the robbery. Tr. 243. Ex. 56.
{¶6} Deputy Roehm was allowed to enter the trailer. Tr. 246, 294. As he
walked around the trailer, he discovered a “rolled up flannel shirt” and white shoes
-3-
Case No. 15-21-10
that appeared to match the apparel worn by the suspect in the Brookside security
camera footage. Tr. 294-295. Ex. 25, 26, 46. At this point, Hoskinson was detained
by the police. Tr. 245-246, 295-296. After obtaining a search warrant, the police
located a knife that matched Semer’s description in the trailer. Tr. 250. Ex. 23-24,
56. They also found a hat with the words “Wells Brothers” on it. Tr. 252. Ex. 27-
28, 56. The police also found a “ripped up black cloth that was on the passenger
seat” of the PT Cruiser. Tr. 253, 297. Ex. 29-30.
{¶7} On March 5, 2020, Hoskinson was indicted on one count of aggravated
robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), a felony of the first degree; one count
of aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(B)(1), a felony of the first
degree; and one count of attempted escape in violation of R.C. 2921.34(A)(1), a
felony of the third degree. Doc. 5. The indictment also included repeat violent
offender specifications pursuant to R.C. 2941.149(A). Doc. 5.
{¶8} The black tee shirt sleeve that was found in the vicinity of Brookside
was sent to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation (“BCI”) for DNA testing.
Ex. 54. Lindsey Nelsen-Rausch (“Nelsen-Rausch”) performed testing on this black
fabric. Tr. 491-492. She determined that DNA was present on the fabric from at
least three contributors and concluded that Hoskinson was a “major contributor” of
the DNA found on the black fabric. Tr. 494. Ex. 54.
{¶9} However, Nelsen-Rausch was going to be unavailable to testify on the
original trial date. Tr. 501, 504. For this reason, another BCI analyst, Stacy Violi
-4-
Case No. 15-21-10
(“Violi”), tested the black fabric and wrote a report on her findings so that she could
testify in the place of Nelsen-Rausch. Tr. 501. Violi’s report indicated that it was
written to replace Nelsen-Rausch’s prior report. Tr. 500-501. Subsequently, the
date of Hoskinson’s trial was changed, and Nelsen-Rausch was available to testify
at trial. Doc. 35, 48, 74, 85, 103, 104, 130. Tr. 509.
{¶10} On August 16, 2021, Hoskinson’s jury trial began. Tr. 110. The State
called Nelsen-Rausch as a witness to testify about her findings. Tr. 484. On cross-
examination, defense counsel questioned Nelsen-Rausch as to whether her report
could “be valid if the subsequent reviewer[’s report] replace[d] it in its entirety.”
Tr. 502. Nelsen-Rausch explained that her conclusions were not contradicted by
Violi’s findings and were still valid, even though a subsequent report had been
prepared. Tr. 502, 503. After Nelsen-Rausch’s testimony, the trial court admitted
her report into evidence over the Defense’s objections. Tr. 510. Ex. 54. On August
19, 2021, the jurors returned verdicts of guilty on the charges against Hoskinson.
Doc. 163, 165, 166. On September 29, 2021, the trial court issued its judgment
entry of sentencing. Doc. 173.
Assignment of Error
{¶11} Hoskinson filed his notice of appeal on October 19, 2021. Doc. 187.
On appeal, he raises the following assignment of error:
In a fundamental and substantial denial of due process of law and
of the right to confrontation of witnesses and of the right to a fair
and impartial jury trial, it was reversible error for the trial court
-5-
Case No. 15-21-10
to allow a State DNA forensic scientist to testify about her highly
prejudicial conclusions reached in her examination and analysis
of material evidence in this case, and then for the court to allow
the admission into evidence, as a State’s exhibit, said DNA
forensic scientist’s written report of her highly prejudicial
conclusions against the defendant-appellant, when in fact the said
DNA forensic scientist witness admitted that her DNA analysis
report had been replaced in its entirety by a subsequent analysis
and report from a different State DNA forensic scientist, thereby
resulting in reversible harmful error in a case in which the police
officers and the detective did not investigate nor look for an
unknown subject whose DNA was allegedly in the material
evidence, and wherein at trial, a photo analysis comparison expert
for the Defense, did determine discrepancies between tattoos on
the neck of the defendant-appellant, and tattoos on the neck of the
actual robber.
Hoskinson argues that the admission of the evidence provided by Nelsen-Rausch
violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause.
Legal Standard
{¶12} The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United
States Constitution guarantees the right of an “accused * * * to be confronted with
the witnesses against him * * *.” Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “[A]
witness is a person who ‘bear[s] testimony.’” State v. Little, 2016-Ohio-8398, 78
N.E.3d 323, ¶ 17 (3d Dist.), quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51, 124
S.Ct. 1354, 1364, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), quoting 2 N. Webster, An American
Dictionary of the English Language (1828). For this reason, “the Confrontation
Clause applies only to testimonial statements.” State v. Muttart, 116 Ohio St.3d 5,
2007-Ohio-5267, 875 N.E.2d 944, ¶ 59.
-6-
Case No. 15-21-10
{¶13} Further, the Confrontation Clause applies to testimonial statements
that are made out-of-court.” Crawford at 50.
As a rule, if an out-of-court statement is testimonial in nature, it
may not be introduced against the accused at trial unless the
witness who made the statement is unavailable and the accused
has had a prior opportunity to confront that witness.
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647, 651, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 2713, 180 L.Ed.2d
610 (2011). See Crawford at 59. This has been held to include testimonial
statements that were made in written reports. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557
U.S. 305, 324, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2540, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009); Bullcoming at 651.
See also Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50, 132 S.Ct. 2221, 183 L.Ed.2d 89 (2012).
Legal Analysis
{¶14} At trial, Hoskinson asserted that Violi’s report replaced and
invalidated Nelsen-Rausch’s prior report. If Nelsen-Rausch’s report had been
invalidated in the manner suggested by Hoskinson, then the only remaining valid
report was Violi’s report. Following this assumption, Hoskinson argues that
Nelsen-Rausch should not have been called to testify about the DNA analysis
performed on the black fabric because the only remaining forensic report was
composed of statements produced by a different analyst. Thus, Hoskinson seems to
assert that Nelsen-Rausch’s testimony violated the Confrontation Clause because
she could not testify about the statements in a forensic report that was produced by
another analyst.
-7-
Case No. 15-21-10
{¶15} However, the evidence in the record indicates that Hoskinson’s entire
argument rests on the errant assumption that Nelsen-Rausch’s report was
invalidated by Violi’s report. At trial, Nelsen-Rausch indicated that Violi also
produced a report in this case because she (Nelsen-Rausch) “was going to be out of
town” on the dates when the trial was originally scheduled. Tr. 501, 509. She stated
that her report was “still * * * technically reviewed and administratively reviewed
and [was] * * * still valid.” Tr. 502. On redirect, Nelsen-Rausch testified that Violi
simply “re-analyzed the results” and “reevaluated” the evidence. Tr. 504, 509. This
was the standard procedure when “a testing analyst * * * is not available for a
particular time to testify.” Tr. 509. Further, Nelsen-Rausch testified that “the DNA
conclusions were the same” in both reports. Tr. 504.
{¶16} While Violi’s report stated that it “replaced” Nelsen-Rausch’s prior
report, the evidence in the record clearly indicates that this means Violi’s report was
prepared for use in place of Nelsen-Rausch’s report in the event that Nelsen-Rausch
was unavailable to testify. There is no indication in the record that Violi’s report
retracted, abrogated, or invalidated the findings in Nelsen-Rausch’s report. Given
the facts of this case, we need not determine and, therefore, decline to determine
whether Nelsen-Rausch’s report contained statements that were testimonial in
nature. Regardless of whether the forensic report contained testimonial statements,
the analyst who prepared the forensic report that was admitted into evidence
-8-
Case No. 15-21-10
testified at trial on direct and cross-examination. Thus, Hoskinson had an
opportunity to confront the expert witness who produced this forensic report.
{¶17} In conclusion, there is no indication that Nelsen-Rausch’s forensic
report was invalidated by the preparation of a second report. Thus, in this case, the
State called the analyst who wrote a valid forensic report that was admitted into
evidence to testify as a witness at trial. The Defense was able to question this analyst
on cross-examination and on recross-examination. For this reason, we conclude that
Hoskinson has failed to demonstrate that his right to confront the witnesses against
him was violated in any way by Nelsen-Rausch’s testimony or by the admission of
her forensic report into evidence. Accordingly, Hoskinson’s sole assignment of
error is overruled.
Conclusion
{¶18} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, the judgment of Van Wert County Court of Common Pleas is
affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
MILLER and SHAW, J.J., concur.
/hls
-9-