State v. Miner , 2020 Ohio 5600 ( 2020 )

[Cite as State v. Miner, 2020-Ohio-5600.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-
Case No. 2019 CA 00173
AARON MINER
Defendant-Appellant O P I N IO N
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Canton Municipal Court,
Case No. 2019 CRB 4386
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 3, 2020
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
KRISTEN BATES-AYLWARD D. COLEMAN BOND
Canton City Law Director 600 Courtyard Centre
116 Cleveland Avenue, N.W.
JASON P. REESE Canton, Ohio 44702
Canton City Prosecutor
KRISTINA M. LOCKWOOD
Assistant Canton City Prosecutor
218 Cleveland Avenue, S.W.
Canton, Ohio 44702
Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00173 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Aaron Miner appeals his conviction and sentence
entered by the Canton Municipal Court on one count of prohibitions concerning
companion animals, following a jury trial. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
{¶2} On August 30, 2019, the Stark County Sheriff’s Department filed a
complaint in the Canton Municipal Court, charging Appellant with prohibitions concerning
companion animals, in violation of R.C. 959.131(B)(1), a misdemeanor of the second
degree. The trial court issued a warrant for Appellant’s arrest on the same day. Appellant
was arrested on the warrant on September 13, 2019. Appellant appeared for arraignment
on September 19, 2019, and entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. Appellant
executed a waiver of his speedy trial right and a jury demand.
{¶3} The matter proceeded to trial on October 22, 2019.
{¶4} Stark County Sheriff’s Deputy Anthony Angelo testified he was working on
August 28, 2019, when he was dispatched to 2510 34th Street N.E., Canton, Stark County,
Ohio, after an anonymous caller reported a male was punching a dog. Deputy Angelo
arrived at the residence and made contact with a boy and a woman, who subsequently
identified herself as Virginia Miner. Deputy Angelo explained to Miner he was there in
response to a call about a male punching a dog. Miner responded it was Appellant who
punched the dog. Miner provided the deputy with Appellant’s first and last name and his
approximate age. She indicated Appellant was her cousin. When Deputy Angelo asked
Miner what happened, Miner stated Aaron was over and just started punching the dog.
Miner was hesitant about being identified.
Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00173 3
{¶5} The body camera video of Deputy Angelo’s interaction with Miner was
played for the jury. The video depicts Deputy Angelo approaching Miner and the boy.
The deputy advises Miner he is there in response to a call about a male punching a dog.
Miner immediately reveals, “It was Aaron,” and proceeds to identify Appellant. Deputy
Angelo asked Miner if she believed Appellant was trying to hurt the dog, to which she
replied, “Yes.” Miner described the dog as a brown pit bull, approximately a year old.
{¶6} After he finished speaking with Miner, Deputy Angelo returned to his car
and proceeded to the address he found for Appellant. The deputy recalled Appellant was
not very cooperative and appeared to be intoxicated. He added Appellant’s answers to
his questions did not make sense. When Deputy Angelo asked Appellant what happened,
Appellant responded he did not know what the deputy was talking about. Appellant
showed Deputy Angelo two dogs, which Appellant indicated belonged to him.
{¶7} The body camera video of Deputy Angelo’s interaction with Appellant was
played for the jury. The video depicts Deputy Angelo and Appellant approaching a brown
pit bull. The dog is laying down and does not get up as they approach.
{¶8} Deputy Angelo testified the dog moved away from Appellant when Appellant
reached for the animal. Deputy Angelo noted, when the dog stood up and walked, it
appeared to have a slight limb. Appellant did not have licenses for the two dogs on the
property. The Humane Society subsequently removed the animals.
{¶9} Virginia Miner later testified she was at her parents’ home at 2510 34th
Street, NE, in Canton, Ohio, on August 28, 2019, and spoke with police. When asked if
she told police Appellant punched his dog, Miner replied, “Um, well that’s what I was told.
Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00173 4
So, yes I did.” Tr. at 82. Asked a second time, Miner stated, “I agreed with my nephew,
yes.” Id.
{¶10} The state’s examination of Miner continued as follows:
Q. I’m sorry. Did you tell the police that [Appellant] punched his dog?
A. U-umm. Well I said yes, and –
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. You told the police that?
A. Yes.
Q. When asked whether someone was punching a dog you told the
police, “Yes.”
A. Yes, ‘cuz that’s what –
Q. When asked –
A. -- I was told.
Q. -- if some --, -- that someone punching their dog was [Appellant]
you said, “Yes.”
A. Repeat that again.
Q. When asked whether that someone punching their dog was
[Appellant], you said, “Yes.”
***
A. Yes, I did say that.
***
Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00173 5
Q. Did you tell the police that [Appellant] tried to hurt his dog by
punching it?
A. Well I wasn’t there at the time.
***
A. I didn’t witness it. That’s what my nephew said when I got there.
Q. Did you tell the police that [Appellant] tried to hurt his dog by
punching it?
A. Umm, I don’t recall. I mean – but I did say yes to him hitting the
dog, because that’s what I was told when I got there. So I didn’t really
witness it with my eyes, ‘cuz he was gone when I got there.
{¶11} Tr. at 83-84.
{¶12} Miner agreed she would remember what happened on August 28th better
on August 28th than on October 22nd. On cross-examination, Miner stated she did not
see Appellant mistreat his dog because she was not at the residence at the time of the
incident. She explained the statement she gave the officer was based upon what her
nephew had told her.
{¶13} Following Miner’s testimony, the state rested its case. Appellant made an
oral Crim. R. 29 motion for acquittal, which the trial court denied. Appellant did not call
any witnesses on his behalf. The parties gave their closing arguments. After jury
instructions and deliberations, the jury found Appellant guilty of prohibitions concerning
companion animals. The trial court sentenced Appellant to a term of 90 days in the Stark
Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00173 6
County Jail, but suspended all but 60 days on the condition of Appellant’s good behavior
for two years. Appellant was given credit for one day served.
{¶14} It is from this conviction and sentence Appellant appeals, raising the
following assignments of error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT OVERRULED
APPELLANT’S CRIMINAL RULE 29 MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL
BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO PRODUCE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION AGAINST THE APPELLANT FOR THE
OFFENSE OF PROHIBITIONS CONCERNING COMPANION ANIMALS IN
VIOLATION OF R.C. 959.131(B).
II. THE STATE FAILED TO PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO
SUSTAIN A CONVICTION AGAINST THE APPELLANT FOR THE
OFFENSE OF PROHIBITIONS CONCERNING COMPANION ANIMALS IN
VIOLATION OF R.C. 959.131(B).
III. THE APPELLANT’S CONVICTION IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, AND MUST BE REVERSED.
IV. THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE 6TH AND 14TH
AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00173 7
IV
{¶15} For ease of discussion, we shall address Appellant’s assignments of error
out of order. In his fourth assignment of error, Appellant raises a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel.
{¶16} Our standard of review for ineffective assistance claims is set forth
in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). Ohio
adopted this standard in the case of State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St. 3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373
(1989). These cases require a two-pronged analysis in reviewing a claim
for ineffective assistance of counsel. First, we must determine whether counsel’s
assistance was ineffective; i.e., whether counsel’s performance fell below an objective
standard of reasonable representation and was violative of any of his or her essential
duties to the client. If we find ineffective assistance of counsel, we must then determine
whether or not the defense was actually prejudiced by counsel’s ineffectiveness such that
the reliability of the outcome of the trial is suspect. This requires a showing there is a
reasonable probability that but for counsel’s unprofessional error, the outcome of the trial
would have been different. Id.
{¶17} Trial counsel is entitled to a strong presumption all decisions fall within the
wide range of reasonable professional assistance. State v. Sallie, 81 Ohio St. 3d 673, 675,
693 N.E.2d 267 (1998). In addition, the United States Supreme Court and the Ohio
Supreme Court have held a reviewing court “need not determine whether counsel’s
performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as
a result of the alleged deficiencies.” Bradley at 143, 538 N.E.2d 373, quoting Strickland at
697, 104 S. Ct. 2052. Even debatable trial tactics and strategies do not
Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00173 8
constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Clayton, 62 Ohio St. 2d 45, 402
N.E.2d 1189 (1980).
{¶18} Appellant submits trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a
continuing objection to, or separately objecting to the introduction of, the video footage
from Deputy Angelo’s body camera of the deputy’s interaction with Virginia Miner.1
Appellant maintains trial counsel was also ineffective for failing to request the trial court
give the same limiting instruction it gave after Appellant’s hearsay objection to Deputy
Angelo’s earlier trial testimony of his initial conversation with Virginia Miner, be included
in the final charge to the jury.
{¶19} During his testimony, Deputy Angelo stated he was dispatched to 2510 34th
Street N.E., on August 28, 2019, in response to a report a male was punching a dog.
When he arrived, the deputy made contact with Virginia Miner and a boy. Deputy
Angelo’s examination proceeded as follows:
Q. And did you ask Miss Miner any questions?
A. I did. I asked her, um, I stated, “We got called in reference to a
male punching a dog,” and she said, “Yeah, it was [Appellant].”
Q. And did she identify who [Appellant] was?
A. Um, she was able to give me his name, his first and last name,
and his approximate age.
Q. And did she advise you what their relationship was?
A. I believe she said they were cousins.
1 The video was played to the jury prior to Virginia Miner’s trial testimony.
Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00173 9
***
Q. Did you ask her any other questions?
A. Yeah, I asked her, um, basically what happened and she said
[Appellant] was over and he just started punching his dog and that she told
him before not to do that but –
{¶20} Tr. at 64.
{¶21} Counsel for Appellant objected to the statements made by Virginia Miner to
Deputy Angelo as being hearsay. Although the trial court overruled the objection, it gave
the jury a limiting instruction, advising Deputy Angelo’s testimony was permissible “as to
why he continued with his investigation . . . I’m going to limit it to that, and the before,
that’s out.” Tr. at 65.
{¶22} The state’s examination of Deputy Angelo continued. The state asked the
trial court for permission to play the body camera footage of the deputy’s interaction with
Virginia Miner. The trial court asked counsel for Appellant, “You okay with that?” to which
counsel replied, “Yes, Your Honor.” Tr. at 67. Thereafter, the video footage was played
for the jury.
{¶23} We have reviewed the video and find the following occurred: Deputy Angelo
exits his vehicle and walks down a driveway. Miner and a boy can be seen in the
background. As Deputy Angelo approaches, he states, “We got a call that there was
possibly someone punching a dog in your yard?” Miner immediately replies, “Yeah. He’s
not here right now.” The conversation continues with the deputy questioning, “Was he
punching it?” Miner answers, “Yeah.” Deputy Angelo inquires, “Who is he?” to which
Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00173 10
Miner responds, “Aaron Miner.” The deputy asks, “Was he hurting the dog?” Miner
responds, “Yes, he was,” adding “And we just told him too. We said someone is going to
end up calling the law on you for doing that. And he said he didn’t care.”
{¶24} Counsel for Appellant failed to object at any point during the playing of the
body camera video. We recognize tactical decisions, such as whether and when
to object, ordinarily do not give rise to a claim for ineffective assistance. State v.
Johnson, 112 Ohio St. 3d 210, 2006-Ohio-6404, 858 N.E.2d 1144, ¶ 139–140. Thus,
“[t]he failure to object to error, alone, is not enough to sustain a claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel.” State v. Holloway, 38 Ohio St. 3d 239, 244, 527
N.E.2d 831 (1988). However, we find the record strongly suggests if an objection had
been raised, the trial court would have likely overruled the objection, but given a limiting
instruction similar to its prior limiting instruction during Deputy Angelo’s testimony.
{¶25} We find counsel’s failure to object “fell below an objective standard of
reasonable representation and was violative of any of her essential duties to Appellant.”
Having failed to object to Virginia Miner’s statement to Deputy Angelo Appellant punched
his dog, the statement came in as substantive evidence of the crime. The jury could have
used Miner’s unchallenged statements as depicted on the video as direct evidence
Appellant punched his dog rather than her subsequent testimony at trial she was merely
repeating what her nephew had told her when she responded to Deputy Angelo. Without
Miner’s video statement as substantive evidence, we find a reasonable probability the
outcome of the trial would have been different. We find the additional evidence the state
relies upon -- the fact the dog did not get up when approached and backed away from
Appellant and the fact the dog exhibited a slight limp -- when considered in light of Virginia
Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00173 11
Miner’s qualification/recantation of these statements during her trial testimony, is less
than overwhelming so as to overcome the effect of his counsel’s ineffectiveness in not
objecting to the video statements of Virginia Miner.
{¶26} Based upon the foregoing, we sustain Appellant’s fourth assignment of
error, reverse his conviction, and remand this matter to the trial court for a new trial.
I, II
{¶27} We elect to address Appellant’s first and second assignments of error
together. In his first assignment of error, Appellant contends the trial court erred in
overruling his Crim. R. 29 motion for acquittal as the state failed to present sufficient
evidence to sustain a conviction for the offense of prohibitions concerning companion
animals. In his second assignment of error, Appellant asserts his conviction was based
upon insufficient evidence.
{¶28} Crim. R. 29(A) provides: “The court on motion of a defendant * * *after the
evidence on either side is closed shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal of one or
more offenses charged in the indictment, information, or complaint, if the evidence is
insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses.” However, “a court shall
not order an entry of judgment of acquittal if the evidence is such that reasonable minds
can reach different conclusions as to whether each material element of a crime has been
proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St. 2d 261, 381 N.E.2d
184 (1978), syllabus. Thus, a motion for acquittal tests the sufficiency of the
evidence. State v. Tatum, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-10-18, 2011-Ohio-3005, 2011 WL
2448972, ¶ 43, citing State v. Miley, 114 Ohio App. 3d 738, 742, 684 N.E.2d 102 (4th Dist.
1996).
Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00173 12
{¶29} When an appellate court reviews a record for sufficiency, 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 elements of the crime proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Monroe, 105 Ohio St. 3d 384, 2005-Ohio-2282, 827
N.E.2d 285, ¶ 47. Sufficiency is a test of adequacy. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St. 3d
380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). Accordingly, the question of whether the offered
evidence is sufficient to sustain a verdict is a question of law. State v. Perkins, 3d Dist.
Hancock No. 5-13-01, 2014-Ohio-752, 2014 WL 855870, ¶ 30, citing Thompkins at 386,
678 N.E.2d 541.
{¶30} Appellant was convicted of R.C. 959.131(B), which states:
(B) No person shall knowingly torture, torment, needlessly mutilate
or maim, cruelly beat, poison, needlessly kill, or commit an act of cruelty
against a companion animal.
{¶31} Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, we find the jury
could have found the essential elements of prohibitions concerning companion animals
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Because Virginia Miner’s statement to Deputy
Angelo Appellant punched the dog came into evidence without objection or a limiting
instruction, that evidence was available for the jury to consider. This evidence is sufficient
to support a finding Appellant knowingly committed an act of cruelty against a companion
animal. Although Miner later testified at trial she was only repeating what her nephew told
her when she informed Deputy Angelo Appellant punched his dog, the jury could have
Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00173 13
disbelieved this testimony and relied upon the statements she made on August 28, 2019,
as recorded on the deputy’s body camera.
{¶32} Based upon the foregoing, we find there was sufficient evidence to sustain
Appellant’s conviction and the trial court did not err in denying his Crim. R. 29 motion for
acquittal.
{¶33} Appellant’s first and second assignments of error are overruled.
III
{¶34} In his third assignment of error, Appellant challenges his conviction as being
against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶35} Based upon our disposition of Appellant’s fourth assignment of error, we
find Appellant’s third assignment of error to be moot.
{¶36} The judgment of the Canton Municipal Court is reversed and the matter
remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Delaney, J. and
Baldwin, J. concur