State v. Wilson , 2011 Ohio 5653 ( 2011 )

[Cite as State v. Wilson, 2011-Ohio-5653.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 96098
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
JESSIE WILSON, JR.
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-540498
BEFORE: Stewart, J., Blackmon, P.J., and Boyle, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 3, 2011
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Michael P. Maloney
24441 Detroit Road, Suite 300
Westlake, OH 44145
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Marcus L. Wainwright
Assistant County Prosecutor
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street, 8th Floor
Cleveland, OH 44113
MELODY J. STEWART, J.:
{¶ 1} A jury found defendant-appellant Jessie Wilson, Jr. guilty of attempted
murder and felonious assault on evidence that he discharged a gun at a police officer from
close range during a foot chase. Wilson complains on appeal not only that there was
insufficient evidence to show that he possessed and discharged a firearm, but that the
jury’s verdict on those points was against the manifest weight of the evidence. He also
complains that the court erroneously allowed a police officer to testify to a statement he
made after being apprehended but before he had voluntarily waived his right against
self-incrimination.
I
{¶ 2} Wilson first argues that the state failed to provide sufficient evidence to
prove his convictions.
A
{¶ 3} We determine whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a verdict by
examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determining
whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the prosecution proved the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio
St.3d 227, 2002-Ohio-2126, 767 N.E.2d 216, at ¶78, quoting Jackson v. Virginia (1979),
443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560.
B
{¶ 4} The state charged Wilson with attempted murder under R.C. 2903.02(A),
which states that “[n]o person shall purposely cause the death of another ***.” It also
charged Wilson with felonious assault under R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), which stated that “[n]o
person shall knowingly *** [c]ause or attempt to cause physical harm to another or to
another’s unborn by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance.”
{¶ 5} The state’s evidence showed that police officers were on patrol in a marked
zone car as a result of several calls reporting drug activity in a neighborhood. They were
on the lookout for a blue, Ford Thunderbird automobile that had been the subject of
specific complaints. A dashboard-mounted video camera on the police car shows the
officers slowing as they passed a parked, blue Thunderbird on a side street. The police
car reversed and pulled behind the Thunderbird. There were three occupants in the car:
a driver and passenger in the front seat and Wilson sitting in the back seat. Wilson
exited the car and the officers did the same. Without warning, Wilson then bolted across
the street. One of the officers followed. When the officer was within arm’s reach of
Wilson, Wilson produced a black handgun and fired a shot. The officer immediately
moved out of the way and heard a second shot. He rolled to the ground and pulled his
service weapon, momentarily losing sight of Wilson. When the officer recovered, he
resumed pursuit on foot and radioed that shots had been fired and gave Wilson’s
description. As other officers converged in response to the pursuing officer’s reports,
they cornered and apprehended Wilson.
{¶ 6} Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the state, we conclude
that the pursuing officer’s testimony that Wilson discharged a gun at him was sufficient to
prove both the attempted murder and felonious assault charges. Because a firearm is a
deadly weapon, see R.C. 2923.11(B)(1), it may be inferred from the act of discharging a
firearm in another’s direction that the shooter had the specific intent to kill. State v.
Mackey (Dec. 9, 1999), 8th Dist. No. 75300, citing State v. Widner (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d
267, 431 N.E.2d 1025. And if the act of discharging a firearm at another is sufficient
proof of intent to kill, it necessarily follows that the felonious assault element of
attempting to cause physical harm is likewise established.1
The court correctly merged the attempted murder and felonious assault counts at sentencing
1
under R.C. 2941.25(A) because the offenses could be committed by the same conduct and were, in
fact, committed by “a single act, committed with a single state of mind.” State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio
St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314, 942 N.E.2d 1061, ¶49.
II
{¶ 7} Wilson next argues that his convictions were against the manifest weight of
the evidence because the police were unable to find the firearm he used despite days of
searching a fairly confined chase area and that gunshot residue tests on his hands yielded
no results. He maintains these deficiencies show that the state failed to prove that he
possessed a firearm as predicate for both offenses.
{¶ 8} The manifest weight of the evidence standard of review requires us to
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 and a new trial ordered. State v. Otten (1986), 33 Ohio
App.3d 339, 340, 515 N.E.2d 1009. The use of the word “manifest” means that the trier
of fact’s decision must be plainly or obviously contrary to all of the evidence. This is a
difficult burden for an appellant to overcome because the resolution of factual issues
resides with the trier of fact. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d
212, paragraph one of the syllabus. The trier of fact has the authority to “believe or
disbelieve any witness or accept part of what a witness says and reject the rest.” State v.
Antill (1964), 176 Ohio St. 61, 67, 197 N.E.2d 548.
{¶ 9} Could any trier of fact rationally believe the officer’s testimony despite
there being no corroborating physical evidence of a gun? The dashboard-mounted video
showed that as Wilson fled, he was holding the waistband of his pants in a manner that
could be viewed as his attempt to keep a firearm from falling from his pants. The audio
on the recording distinctly features the sound of two gunshots. The sound of two
gunshots was consistent with the pursuing officer’s radio reports that Wilson had fired
shots at him with a 9mm handgun. The officer’s statements were very much like present
sense impressions because the circumstances under which they were made left little doubt
as to the veracity of the officer’s observations — being in hot pursuit of a suspect it was
highly unlikely that the officer had the presence of mind to fabricate a claim that Wilson
fired shots. These statements, coupled with evidence documenting the sound of
gunshots, were credible evidence from which the jury could find that Wilson fired a gun
despite the inability to recover the gun or its shell casings.
{¶ 10} The narrow standard of review we employ in appeals challenging the
sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence requires us to determine whether any
rational trier of fact could view the evidence in this case as establishing the essential
elements of the charged offense and whether the verdict is contrary to all of the evidence.
Had there been no video and audio evidence describing the circumstances of the
officer’s pursuit, Wilson might have prevailed in his arguments. It is even possible that a
different jury, presented with the same evidence, might have found Wilson’s arguments
compelling. But we are unable to say that no rational trier could have viewed the
evidence presented as proof that Wilson possessed and discharged a firearm.
III
{¶ 11} Wilson next argues that he was deprived of a fair trial because the court
allowed a police officer who questioned Wilson immediately after his capture to testify
that Wilson said: “All I know, I’m going to jail for a long time.” Wilson maintains that
he had not been read his Miranda rights before making this statement and, even though he
failed to seek suppression of the statement prior to trial, the state failed to show that he
validly waived his right against self-incrimination.
{¶ 12} Crim.R. 12(C)(3) provides that certain motions to suppress evidence must
be filed before trial. The failure by the defendant to raise defenses or objections “or to
make requests that must be made prior to trial *** shall constitute waiver of the defenses
or objections,” unless the court grants relief from the waiver for good cause shown. See
Crim.R. 12(H); State v. Campbell (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 38, 44, 630 N.E.2d 339 (“By
failing to file a motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence, a defendant waives any
objection to its admission”); State v. Chandler, 8th Dist. No. 81817, 2003-Ohio-6037, ¶32
(“[b]y failing to file a motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence, a defendant waives
any objection to its admission.”)
{¶ 13} Wilson argues that to the extent he is deemed to have waived his right to
seek suppression of statements he made to the police by failing to file a motion to
suppress evidence, the court nonetheless had the obligation to inquire into the factual
basis for the waiver. We reject this argument because the right against self-incrimination
“is not a self-executing mechanism; it can be affirmatively waived, or lost” if an
individual fails to assert it “in a timely fashion.” Maness v. Meyers (1975), 419 U.S.
449, 466, 95 S.Ct. 584, 42 L.Ed.2d 574. In other words, “the privilege against
self-incrimination must be claimed.” Emspak v. United States (1955), 349 U.S. 190, 196,
75 S.Ct. 687, 99 L.Ed. 997. A motion to suppress evidence is the mechanism by which
the accused asserts claimed violations of the right against self-incrimination. Wilson,
through defense counsel, is presumed to know that this mechanism is available, so the
court had no independent obligation to inquire into whether his failure to file a motion to
suppress was itself knowing and voluntary.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The court
finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s
conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded
to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MELODY J. STEWART, JUDGE
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J., CONCURS;
MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCURS IN JUDGMENT
ONLY