State v. Reynolds , 89 N.E.3d 235 ( 2017 )

[Cite as State v. Reynolds, 2017-Ohio-1478.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-16-1021
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0201401779
v.
Lecorius Reynolds DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: April 21, 2017
*****
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, Frank H. Spryszak
and Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.
Karin L. Coble, for appellant.
*****
MAYLE, J.
Introduction
{¶ 1} This case involves the killing of Roy Roberts by the defendant-appellant,
Lecorius Reynolds. Reynolds stabbed the victim with a knife, killing him, and then
moved the body to the railroad tracks. Within 24 hours, the Toledo Police Department
had Reynolds in custody. During the police interview, Reynolds confessed that he
“poked [the victim’s] neck out” and then moved the body to the railroad tracks. The
police arrested Reynolds and charged him with murder.
{¶ 2} During a bench trial before the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas,
Reynolds argued that he was not guilty of the offense by reason of insanity. Reynolds
suffers from long-standing schizophrenia. The trial court rejected Reynolds’ affirmative
defense and found him guilty of felony murder.
{¶ 3} On appeal, Reynolds claims that the verdict was against the manifest weight
of the evidence because he proved he was criminally insane at the time of the offense.
Reynolds also alleges that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel based upon
his attorney’s failure to move to suppress the police video of his interrogation. Reynolds
argues that he was incapable of providing a voluntary confession, given his mental
disease.
{¶ 4} For the reasons that follow, we find that the guilty verdict is not against the
manifest weight of the evidence and that Reynolds did not receive ineffective assistance
of counsel as a matter of law. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 5} The facts of this case are not in dispute. On May 2, 2014, around 9:00 p.m.,
Officer Russell of the Toledo Police Department received a report that a pedestrian had
been struck by a train, near Airline Road, in Toledo, Ohio. Officer Russell reported to
2.
the scene, where he found the severed body of a man under a rail car, on the tracks. The
body was naked.
{¶ 6} Sergeant Roy Kennedy was also there. He noted the absence of blood at the
scene. Kennedy testified that “if [the victim] had been alive when he was struck by the
train, * * * there would have been a large amount of blood at the scene, and there
wasn’t.”
{¶ 7} In an effort to learn the identity of the victim, Officer Russell and his partner
walked door-to-door in the neighborhood adjacent to the railroad tracks. Their first stop
was about a block and one-half away, at a “group home” for men, located at 129 Dale
Street. Russell was familiar with the home, as he had been called there a few weeks
earlier, in response to a call that two men were sword fighting in the front yard.
{¶ 8} A resident answered the door and allowed the officers to come inside.
Russell testified that there was blood throughout the house including a “large chunk of
coagulated blood” on the living room carpet and more blood on the couch, on the steps
going upstairs, and on the upstairs leading to a bedroom. The bedroom had “a very large
pile of gelled coagulated blood under the bed.” The officers radioed the police
department to report a possible crime. They found Reynolds in his bedroom, lying on his
bed, and watching television. Officer Russell and Sergeant Kennedy described Reynolds
as “very calm.”
3.
{¶ 9} After they made sure that there were no other victims inside, the police
suspended their search of the home until a search warrant was obtained. Officer Russell
transported Reynolds and the other two residents to the police department.
{¶ 10} Reynolds’ interview with Toledo Police Detectives Deborah Hahn and
Quinn began at about 5:19 a.m. on May 2, 2014. They provided Reynolds with his
Miranda rights, which he acknowledged in writing. The interview was recorded and was
entered as an exhibit.
{¶ 11} Detective Hahn described Reynolds, and the video demonstrates, that his
demeanor was “very calm” and “cooperative.” Hahn testified that Reynolds was
responsive to questions, orientated to time and place, gave appropriate responses, and did
not appear to be intoxicated. Hahn observed that Reynolds had an injured, bloody right
eye, a scratch on his upper body, and blood under his fingernails.
{¶ 12} The taped interview lasted approximately three hours, although a large
block of that time consisted of the forensic team taking skin, fingernail, and buccal swab
samples of Reynolds. There were also two extended periods of time, during which no
one was in the room, except Reynolds.
{¶ 13} In the beginning of the interview, Reynolds claimed he had not seen the
victim for several weeks, since before Reynolds went to jail on an unrelated matter. In
fact, Reynolds had just been released from jail on May 1, 2014, one day before the
offense, after serving 17 days at the Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio for fighting.
4.
{¶ 14} When asked about his eye injury, Reynolds said that he had injured it while
in jail. He explained that he had gotten blood on his hands while cleaning up the
bathroom. He said that it was his housemate Shannon’s blood, and that it was common
for Shannon to bleed.
{¶ 15} Steadily over the course of the interview, however, Reynolds admitted that
he had hurt the victim.
{¶ 16} It began with his admission that he “found” the victim in a large recycling
bin and that the victim “did not look good.” Ultimately, he told the following story: that
during the early morning hours of May 2, 2014, the victim had come into Reynolds’
room naked. Reynolds said that the victim did that on occasion and Reynolds did not like
it. He claimed that the victim had touched his buttocks. Reynolds responded by
“pok[ing] his neck out with my hands.” He also said that he “karate chopped” the victim
about 20 times in the neck.
{¶ 17} Reynolds claimed that he acted in self-defense because he feared being
sexually assaulted by the victim. Reynolds can be heard in the video saying, “I don’t
want to be gay.” Written on Reynolds’ bedroom wall was “Roy GBIV Ambassador
American money toy 10,000 E.” No definitive evidence was offered to explain what was
meant by that writing. On the one hand, the victim’s first name was “Roy.” Also,
Detective Kristie Eycke, who gathered evidence in this case, testified that “roygbiv” is a
common acronym for the colors of the rainbow, i.e. red, orange, yellow, green, blue,
indigo and violet. Eycke also testified that the rainbow is a symbol for gay rights.
5.
{¶ 18} After the assault, Reynolds pushed the victim’s body out of his bedroom
and into the victim’s room, leaving a blood trail. The largest concentration of blood was
found underneath the victim’s bed. Reynolds said that he hid the victim’s coat in a pile
of clothes, wiped down the floor with his own bedsheet, and then hid the bedsheet in
between his own mattress and box spring. He hid the victim’s body under some clothes,
and kept him there all day. After dark, he brought the large recycle bin inside, put the
victim’s body in it, took him downstairs, outside, and wheeled him to the railroad tracks.
He admitted that he placed the victim’s body over the railroad tracks.
{¶ 19} Reynolds estimated that he had fought with the victim between 4:00 and
5:00 a.m. on May 2, 2017, roughly 24 hours before his police interrogation. Reynolds
also estimated that he last received an injection to treat his schizophrenia in January of
2014, although he may have taken someone else’s prescribed psychotropic medication
that day.
{¶ 20} After admitting what he had done, Reynolds was left alone in the interview
room for several minutes. During that time, Reynolds appeared to say to himself, “Why
did you open your mouth like that?”
{¶ 21} Cynthia Beisser, M.D., a deputy coroner with the Lucas County Coroner’s
Office, testified that the victim died as a result of a stab wound to the right side of his
neck. She opined that an incision on the victim’s finger appeared to be defensive in
nature.
6.
{¶ 22} Detective Eycke gathered evidence and took pictures at the railroad tracks
and Reynolds’ home. Eycke observed evidence of an “attempt to clean the blood off the
wall in the victim’s bedroom.” She also testified that the sheet that was between
Reynolds’ mattress and box spring appeared to have been hidden there.
{¶ 23} Based upon information learned during the autopsy and from Reynolds’
interview, Detective Eycke returned to the house a second time, with a second warrant.
Investigator Hahn instructed the detective to look for a bloody coat and the murder
weapon. This time, she found the black hooded coat that Reynolds referenced during his
interview. It was covered in blood in the victim’s closet, “buried” under other clothes.
She also went looking for a knife, which she found in a kitchen strainer. Neither the
blade nor the handle was blood-stained, but trace amounts of blood were found where the
blade met the handle. Eycke also secured and photographed the inside of the recycle bin,
which had blood at the bottom.
{¶ 24} Test results from the Bureau of Crime Investigations showed that the blood
on the knife belonged to the victim. Also, a forearm swab of blood taken from Reynolds
contained the victim’s DNA.
{¶ 25} Following the interrogation, Reynolds was arrested. The Lucas County
Grand Jury indicted Reynolds on two counts of murder: aggravated murder in violation
of R.C. 2903.02(A) and 2929.02 and felony murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B) and
2929.02.
7.
{¶ 26} Over the course of the next several months, Reynolds’ mental health
deteriorated, and he was taken to Twin Valley Behavioral Healthcare, a state institution
located in Columbus, Ohio. On August 6, 2014, the trial court found Reynolds not
competent to stand trial, based upon his treatment records at Twin Valley. The court also
ordered that Reynolds be placed on forced medications. Six months later, on March 18,
2015, the court found that Reynolds was competent, based upon the opinion of Aracelis
Rivera, Psy.D.
{¶ 27} Reynolds entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. A
bench trial took place over four days, beginning on December 7, 2015.
{¶ 28} During the course of the trial, the state called the five state officials
previously identified. The defense called John Fabian, Psy.D., J.D., who opined that
Reynolds was not guilty by reason of insanity.
{¶ 29} In rebuttal, the state put forth its own expert, Dr. Rivera. Both experts are
highly qualified, with years of experience in evaluating criminal defendants for the
purpose of a not guilty by reason of insanity (“NGRI”) defense.
The Medical Experts
{¶ 30} The experts agree that, at the time of the offense, Reynolds was suffering
from a severe mental disease. They also agree with the diagnosis of “schizoaffective
disorder” which includes the primary diagnosis of schizophrenia but also includes, in
Reynolds’ case, bipolar disorder. In Dr. Fabian’s words,
8.
He has manic states, and these states are acute where an individual
has racing thoughts, racing speech, disorganized speech, lots of activity,
hypertalk, hyperactivity, irritability, and often one is manic with
schizoaffective disorder, they would be psychotic at the time of those manic
states. So, not only are they high with energy and disorganized and
thinking and talking a mile a minute, acting fast, pressured thoughts, speech
and behaviors, but also having, again, the hallucinations and delusions
where they are activity psychotic.
{¶ 31} While there is no dispute that Reynolds suffered from schizoaffective
disorder at the time of the offense, the experts differ as to whether Reynolds understood
the wrongfulness of his act, that is, whether Reynolds was not guilty by reason of
insanity. Their respective opinions are discussed in greater detail below.
Dr. Fabian’s Opinion
{¶ 32} The defense expert, Dr. Fabian, evaluated Reynolds 13 months after the
offense.
{¶ 33} Dr. Fabian noted that Reynolds has suffered from a mental disease since at
least 2001, at the age of 21, when he was discharged from the United States Navy
because of his mental illness. He began receiving Social Security Disability benefits
based upon his mental illness at that time.
{¶ 34} Dr. Fabian found significant a letter written by Reynolds from the county
jail in the days prior to the offense. The letter is non-sensical and directs others to kill
9.
sons of former world leaders. Dr. Fabian opined that the letter reflects “delusional
thinking and cognitive disorganization and evidence of mental illness” just days prior to
the offense. After his arrest, Reynolds authored three more letters to the trial court, all of
them entered as exhibits, that indicate Reynolds’ delusional thinking continued.
{¶ 35} During the evaluation, Reynolds told Dr. Fabian that, at the time of the
offense, a witch told him to “whup his ass.” As he stabbed the victim, the voices
encouraged him, saying “yeah, yeah.” Those voices also told him to bring the victim’s
body back to his own room and to dispose of him on the railroad tracks. Reynolds
believed that the victim could possibly rape him and/or hurt his family.
{¶ 36} In his 24-page report and while testifying, Dr. Fabian identified many “goal
directed behaviors” that suggest Reynolds “knew the wrongfulness of his acts.” Those
actions cited by Dr. Fabian include: moving the body, hiding the body, covering the
body, rinsing off the knife, washing his hands, changing his clothes, and hiding the body
on the tracks.
{¶ 37} On the other hand, Dr. Fabian also noted that Reynolds reported that “many
of these [same actions] were in part due to hearing voices * * * which would be due to
psychotic symptoms.”
{¶ 38} Dr. Fabian concluded that “this is a close call case” and that the ultimate
issue should be resolved “by the trier of fact.” For his part, he opined that “there was at
least some partial evidence that [Reynolds] did not know the wrongfulness of his acts.”
10.
Dr. Rivera’s Opinion
{¶ 39} The state’s expert, Dr. Rivera, testified that Reynolds’ conduct after killing
the victim was indicative of “goal-directed behavior and that perhaps [he] was trying to
get rid of possible incriminating evidence in the case.” She explained that individuals
who are unaware of the wrongfulness of their conduct,
do not go to the length of getting a knife, washing a knife, moving a
body, covering a body, putting them in the trash can, dragging them and
disposing of the body, because they don’t know that they have done
anything wrong. So, why engage in that behavior? Someone who is
psychotic and disorganized is likely to just leave the knife where they found
it, leave the body where it was, and perhaps not even change clothing
because they are oblivious of what they have done. There is no need for
them to conceal what they have done because they don’t know that they did
anything wrong. They are disorganized, the behavior is random, it is not
linear, it is not goal-oriented.
{¶ 40} Unlike Dr. Fabian, Dr. Rivera detected no psychotic motive when she
evaluated Reynolds. That is, Reynolds did not tell Dr. Rivera that he had heard voices
commanding him to harm the victim, as he had told Dr. Fabian. Dr. Rivera denied that
this alleged psychotic motive, as reported by Dr. Fabian, should cause her to change her
opinion. As she explained,
11.
[Reynolds] did not provide a psychotic motive to me when I
interviewed him. But most significantly, he neither provided a psychotic
motive during the police interrogation that took place within hours of the
index offense. What was significant is that he changed the story.
{¶ 41} Finally, Dr. Rivera denied that Reynolds could have been “floridly
psychotic”—i.e. in the throes of full-blown psychosis—at the time of the offense
but nonetheless appear “calm, cooperative [and] polite” and “be able to answer
questions, follow directions” during the police interview only 24 hours later. She
testified, “Someone who is totally out of control because of [his] psychosis is not
going to be able to conform their behavior [24 hours later] in particular during
such a stressful process * * *.”
{¶ 42} Dr. Rivera concluded that Reynolds understood the wrongfulness of
his conduct at the time he killed the victim.
The Verdict and Sentence
{¶ 43} Following the bench trial, the trial court rejected Reynolds’ insanity
and self-defense arguments.
{¶ 44} The court found Reynolds guilty of Count 2, that Reynolds had
proximately caused the victim’s death in the commission of a felony offense of violence
(felonious assault). The court made no finding with regard to the allied murder charge set
forth in Count 1. It sentenced him to fifteen years to life in prison, to be served in a
prison psychiatric unit.
12.
{¶ 45} The court appointed appellate counsel, who filed an appeal on Reynolds’
behalf. Reynolds asserts two assignments of error.
Assignments of Error
1. Reynolds’ conviction is against the manifest weight of the
evidence because he proved the insanity defense by a preponderance of the
evidence.
2. Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress
Reynolds’ statements in the interrogation on grounds of involuntariness due
to mental illness.
Manifest Weight of the Evidence Assignment of Error
{¶ 46} In the first assignment of error, Reynolds argues that the conviction is
against the manifest weight of the evidence because the evidence demonstrated that he is
not guilty by reason of insanity.
{¶ 47} In determining whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the
evidence, we sit as a “thirteenth juror.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St. 3d 380, 387, 678
N.E.2d 541 (1997). We review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable
inferences, and consider the credibility of witnesses. Id. Additionally, we 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.” Id. We reverse a conviction on manifest weight grounds for only the
most “exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.”
13.
Thompkins at 387. “‘[I]t is inappropriate for a reviewing court to interfere with factual
findings of the trier of fact * * * unless the reviewing court finds that a reasonable juror
could not find the testimony of the witness to be credible.’” State v. Miller, 6th Dist.
Lucas No. L-08-1056, 2009-Ohio-2293, ¶ 21, quoting State v. Brown, 10th Dist. No.
02AP-11, 2002-Ohio-5345, ¶ 10.
{¶ 48} Insanity is an affirmative defense that must be proven by a preponderance
of the evidence. State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St. 3d 57, 2006-Ohio-160, 840 N.E.2d 1032,
¶ 35; R.C. 2901.05(A). The defendant must persuade the trier of fact that, at the time he
committed the offense, he did not know the wrongfulness of his acts due to a severe
mental disease or defect. R.C. 2901.01(A)(14). When from the evidence reasonable
minds may reach different conclusions upon the question of insanity, such question is one
of fact for the trier of fact. State v. Brown, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-11-031, 2013-Ohio-
839, ¶ 13-14.
{¶ 49} In support of the first assignment of error, Reynolds, through his counsel,
argues emphatically that “[a] psychotic motive is present.” Counsel argues,
Reynolds consistently showed a paranoid, delusional belief that there
was a conspiracy of homosexuals. Reynolds had a paranoid, delusional
belief that [the victim] attempted to sexually assault him when [the victim]
walked around naked and squeezed his butt. Reynolds psychotically
believed that it was necessary to defend himself and that it was not wrong
to do so.
14.
{¶ 50} In further support, counsel cites the state’s expert, arguing “Dr. Rivera
agreed that if [the victim] did not try to rape Reynolds, then Reynolds’ ‘motive was
delusional’ and indicative of insanity.” (Emphasis added.) On this point, the experts
agree, although Dr. Fabian stated it differently. He said, “[i]f [Reynolds ] did in fact
respond in a self-defensive manner and kill the victim due to threats of rape, there may be
some rational motive in the case.” These are two sides of the same coin, meaning that if
the victim did, in fact, threaten Reynolds, then Reynolds’ response was rational, not
psychotic.
{¶ 51} The record supports the conclusion that Reynolds attacked the victim
because he felt threatened. According to him, the victim walked into his room, naked, in
the middle of the night, and touched his buttocks. Reynolds then “karate chopped” the
victim 20 times in the neck and dragged the victim’s body to his room. The blood trail
from Reynold’s room to the victim’s room, and the fact that the victim’s body was naked
when found by police, both support Reynolds’ story. Thus, if the threat was real, the
experts agree that Reynolds, when he attacked the victim, may have been acting out of a
fear that the victim was going to assault him, rather than in response to some “paranoid
homosexual conspiracy.” We find that the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion
that Reynolds acted without a psychotic motive.
{¶ 52} Next, Reynolds points to references he made during his interrogation,
where he stated that he was a “premier” and “an ambassador.” Indeed, thirty minutes
into the interview, Reynolds announced to Detective Hahn that he was “an Italian
15.
premier.” He also twice described himself as an “ambassador.” Reynolds argues that
these statements indicate that he was criminally insane at the time of the offense.
{¶ 53} The experts, and the trial court, noted that Reynolds displayed some
delusional thinking before, during and after the interrogation. In considering all of the
evidence, however, the trial court concluded—and this court agrees—that while Reynolds
may have exhibited some signs of delusional thinking, it was outweighed by other, clear
evidence of lucidity, appropriateness and an understanding of wrongfulness. In the trial
court’s own words,
The Court also notes that the defendant provided no psychotic
motives during the interview with police and did not provide any psychotic
motives to Dr. Rivera. Why is that important? Dr. Rivera observed what
this Court observed. I watched that tape, and I watched it while it was
played in court and subsequent to. * * * [T]he interview at the police
department * * * was in close proximity to the time of death. * * * This
Court did not observe throughout the entire two plus hours of the video
interview of [Reynolds ] anything that would suggest that he was suffering
at least from a mental disease or defect at the time, or even when
[Reynolds] began to articulate what he had done * * *. There was nothing
about his articulation of those events that this Court could convincingly and
compellingly hang its hat on with respect to whether or not he knew the
wrongfulness of his acts at the time of the assault on the victim.
16.
There were a number of things throughout that video interview of
[Reynolds] this Court observed, many of which have already been
articulated in open court. Oriented to time and place, responsive to
questions, with the exception to, and this Court concedes, at the beginning
of the conversation there was a very brief, very faint, very slight reference
to something about a premier and something about an ambassador.
Everything else - - there was no other time, no other comments that the
Court observed that would have been strange, for lack of a better word, or
inconsistent with a person who was operating of their own free will and
fully understanding the wrongfulness of their acts. There was no reference
to witches or voices during this interview, nothing.
{¶ 54} Finally, like Dr. Rivera and the trial court, this court also finds significant
that Reynolds took steps after the offense to avoid detection, by washing the knife, hiding
clothes, concealing the body, and cleaning up blood. Reynolds’ “goal oriented” behavior
indicates that he appreciated right from wrong. Indeed, efforts by a defendant to conceal
his crime indicate an understanding of wrongfulness. State v. Myers, 10th Dist. Franklin
No. 09AP-926, 2010-Ohio-4602, ¶ 17, citing State v. Saleh, 10th Dist. No. 07AP-431,
2009-Ohio-1542, ¶ 86 (Engaging in furtive conduct is reflective of a consciousness of
guilt.).
{¶ 55} In sum, we return to the opinion of Reynolds’ expert, Dr. Fabian, who
concluded that this was a “close call case” and that the issue of Reynolds’ sanity should
17.
be left to the “trier of fact.” The trial court, acting as the finder of fact, chose to rely
more heavily upon the testimony and expert opinion of Dr. Rivera and concluded that
Reynolds was capable of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the offense. State
v. Thomas, 70 Ohio St. 2d 79, 434 N.E.2d 1356 (1982) (“[T]he weight to be given the
evidence and the credibility of the witnesses concerning the establishment of the defense
of insanity in a criminal proceeding are primarily for the trier of the facts.”). And, as
discussed, there is ample circumstantial evidence in the record to support this conclusion.
{¶ 56} Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that substantial
evidence supports the verdict and that the trial court did not lose its way and create a
manifest miscarriage of justice. We find that the verdict is not against the manifest weight
of the evidence. Reynolds’ first assignment of error is not well-taken.
Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel Assignment of Error
{¶ 57} The Sixth Amendment right to counsel exists “in order to protect the
fundamental right to a fair trial.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684, 104 S. Ct.
2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). To prove a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a
defendant must show that: (1) counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) the deficient
performance prejudiced the defense. State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St. 3d 136, 538 N.E.2d
373 (1989), paragraphs one and two of the syllabus, citing Strickland at 688.
{¶ 58} With regard to the first element, a reviewing court must determine whether
trial counsel’s assistance fell below an objective standard of reasonable advocacy.
Bradley at 141-142. To prove deficient performance, the defendant must show that
18.
counsel made errors which were so serious that, “were it not for counsel’s errors, the
result of the trial would have been different.” Id.
{¶ 59} Trial strategy “must be accorded deference and cannot be examined
through the distorting effect of hindsight.” State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St. 3d 412, 2006-
Ohio-2815, 848 N.E.2d 810, ¶ 115. “An error by counsel, even if professionally
unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the
error had no effect on the judgment.” Strickland at 691.
The Absence of a Motion to Suppress
{¶ 60} Reynolds claims he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel based
upon counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress his videotaped interview with police.
He argues that his trial counsel should have challenged the admission of the videotape
because it was not given voluntarily. Reynolds, however, does not argue that the police
engaged in any coercion or misconduct during the interrogation; he argues instead that
his statement was not voluntary based solely on his mental disease. He asserts that a
motion to suppress, if made, would have been granted.
{¶ 61} The failure to file a suppression motion does not constitute a “per se case”
of ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St. 3d 378, 389, 721
N.E.2d 52 (2000), citing Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 384, 106 S. Ct. 2574, 91
L. Ed. 2d 305 (1986). The decision of whether or not to file a motion to suppress is a trial
strategy. State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio St. 3d 72, 85, 656 N.E.2d 643 (1995) (“Debatable trial
tactics generally do not constitute a deprivation of effective counsel.”). Thus, counsel’s
19.
failure to file a motion to suppress constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel only if,
based on the record, the motion would have been granted. State v. Brown, 115 Ohio
St.3d 55, 2007-Ohio-4837, 873 N.E.2d 858, ¶ 65.
The Reading of Miranda Rights
{¶ 62} Given that Reynolds made his incriminating statements to police during a
custodial interrogation, our analysis must begin with whether the police properly apprised
him of his rights in accordance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479, 86 S. Ct.
1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966) and, if so, whether he voluntarily waived those rights.
{¶ 63} Under Miranda, a suspect in police custody “‘must be warned prior to any
questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used
against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that
if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if
he so desires.’” State v. Lather, 110 Ohio St. 3d 270, 2006-Ohio-4477, 853 N.E.2d 279,
¶ 6-7, quoting Miranda at 479.
{¶ 64} Where a defendant proceeds to answer questions despite having received
Miranda warnings and then later challenges incriminating statements as involuntary, the
state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant made a knowing,
intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights. State v. Gumm, 73 Ohio St. 3d
413, 429, 653 N.E.2d 253 (1995). The United States Supreme Court has explained that a
valid waiver of Miranda rights requires the following:
20.
First, the relinquishment of the right must have been voluntary in the
sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than
intimidation, coercion, or deception. Second, the waiver must have been
made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned
and the consequences of the decision to abandon it. Moran v. Burbine, 475
U.S. 412, 421, 106 S.Ct 1135, 89 L. Ed. 2d 410 (1986); See also Lather at
¶ 7.
{¶ 65} A court may infer from the totality of the circumstances that a defendant
voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his rights. State v. Gapen, 104 Ohio
St.3d 358, 2004-Ohio-6548, 819 N.E.2d 1047, ¶ 52. The totality of the circumstances
includes “the age, mentality, and prior criminal experience of the accused; the length,
intensity, and frequency of interrogation; the existence of physical deprivation or
mistreatment; and the existence of threat or inducement.” (Citation omitted). State v.
Dixon, 101 Ohio St. 3d 328, 2004-Ohio-1585, 805 N.E.2d 1042, ¶ 25. “Only if the
‘totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation’ reveals both an uncoerced
choice and the requisite level of comprehension may a court properly conclude that the
Miranda rights have been waived.’” Lather at ¶ 7, quoting Moran at 421. By definition
of “totality,” a court is to look to all of the evidence to determine a suspect’s
understanding, which can be implied by his conduct and the situation. Id. at ¶ 9.
21.
The Voluntariness of Reynolds’ Waiver and Statement
{¶ 66} At the beginning of the police interview, Detective Hahn said she wanted to
talk to Reynolds. She explained, however, that in order to do so, it was “essential” that
he understood what his rights were. She then segmented the Miranda rights, asking after
she read each one, whether he understood it. When he confirmed that he did, he
initialized each one individually on the waiver form. At the bottom of the form,
Reynolds also acknowledged his Miranda rights, and waiver thereof, with his signature.
Having a suspect sign a waiver form is “preferable” for purposes of waiver. State v.
Valentine, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-893, 2016-Ohio-277, ¶ 15.
{¶ 67} Reynolds argues that his Miranda waiver and subsequent statement to the
police were involuntary because he was mentally ill at the time of the police
interrogation. He claims that a pre-Miranda case from the Supreme Court of the United
States, Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 208, 80 S. Ct. 274, 4 L. Ed. 2d 242 (1960),
supports the proposition that when police officers interrogate a mentally-ill suspect, any
resulting confession is involuntary if it is “probable” that the suspect was mentally
incompetent at the time of the interrogation.
{¶ 68} Reynolds, however, ignores Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 164-65,
107 S. Ct. 515, 93 L. Ed. 2d 473 (1986), a subsequent case in which the Supreme Court
clarified that Blackburn should not be interpreted to imply that a defendant’s mental
condition, standing alone, should ever dispose of the inquiry into constitutional
“voluntariness.” Rather, the voluntariness of a defendant’s waiver of Miranda rights—as
22.
well as the voluntariness of any resulting confession—“depend[s] on the absence of
police overreaching, not on ‘free choice’ in any broader sense of the word.” Connelly at
170. The Supreme Court of Ohio has expressly followed Connelly and held that “[t]he
voluntariness of [a defendant’s] statement depends on whether the police engaged in
coercion and misconduct and not whether [the defendant] was mentally ill.” State v.
Hughbanks, 99 Ohio St. 3d 365, 2003-Ohio-4121, 792 N.E.2d 1081, ¶ 69.
{¶ 69} Thus, contrary to Reynolds’ arguments, courts must not conduct “sweeping
inquiries into the state of mind of a criminal defendant who has confessed [that are] quite
divorced from any coercion brought to bear on the defendant by the State.” Connelly at
167. The law is clear: the touchstone of an involuntary confession is police misconduct
and the defendant’s mental condition is merely one factor in the totality of the
circumstances to be considered in determining constitutional voluntariness. Hughbanks
at ¶ 61. The defendant’s mental illness may, however, play a more significant role in the
“voluntariness” calculus in instances where “[t]he police exploited this weakness with
coercive tactics.” Connelly at 164-65. But the focus of the court’s analysis should
always remain on the central issue of whether the police “overreached” by using
improper interrogation techniques.
{¶ 70} Here, Reynolds does not allege that the police exploited his mental illness
by eliciting either his Miranda waiver or subsequent confession through coercive tactics.
{¶ 71} Instead, Reynolds claims that the detectives should have terminated the
interview after he told them that he was schizophrenic, took Risperal, and had not had
23.
any in a while, and because he occasionally referred to himself as a “premiere” and an
“ambassador” during the interview, which demonstrates some delusional thinking. But,
as discussed, a suspect’s mental illness, standing alone, is insufficient to render either a
Miranda waiver or subsequent confession involuntary.
{¶ 72} A similar argument was made in State v. Hughbanks, 99 Ohio St. 3d 365,
2003-Ohio-4121, 792 N.E.2d 1081, ¶ 50-66. In Hughbanks, the defendant was brought
in for questioning on a ten year old, unsolved murder case. During the initial interview,
the police advised the defendant of his Miranda rights. The defendant told the police that
he had “conferred with a psychiatrist off and on” over the years. The interrogation lasted
several hours, during which he did not confess. He was then given his Miranda rights
again and given a polygraph test which proved to be inconclusive. A week later,
following the defendant’s consent and additional Miranda warnings, another polygraph
test was given. During the pretest interview, the defendant disclosed that he had an
extensive psychiatric history, though he had received no treatment or medication in the
last year or two. Following the second test, the defendant admitted to the double murder.
Id. at ¶ 50-66.
{¶ 73} On appeal, the defendant argued that because the police knew that he was
mentally ill, they should have consulted a psychiatrist before any further questioning to
find out whether his decision to waive his rights and answer police questions was “truly
voluntary.” Alternatively, he claimed that the police should have found him a lawyer.
24.
{¶ 74} Relying on Colorado v. Connelly, the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected the
argument:
The police officers were not required to consult a psychiatrist or
have [the defendant] evaluated by a psychiatrist to ensure that his waiver of
rights and his statements were the product of his free will. * * * The police
officers never subjected [him] to threats of physical abuse or deprived him
of food, sleep, or medical treatment. Moreover, the police interview and
polygraph testing * * * lasted only several hours. We find no evidence of
police coercion or overreaching that might show [the defendant’s]
confession to be involuntary. Id. at ¶ 61, 63.
{¶ 75} Similarly here, we find that the police had no obligation to discontinue their
interview of Reynolds because he was mentally ill, and their failure to do so did not
impact the voluntariness of the waiver of his Miranda rights or his subsequent
confession.
{¶ 76} This court’s review of the record reveals no evidence of police coercion or
overreaching: the videotaped interview demonstrates that the detectives always spoke to
Reynolds in a calm and clear manner, they never threatened Reynolds or raised their
voices, and they provided Reynolds with food and water at various intervals. In addition,
the interview and forensic testing lasted less than three hours, which given all other
circumstances was not an unreasonable length of time. Although detectives encouraged
Reynolds throughout the interview to tell them what really happened, “admonitions to tell
25.
the truth made by police officers are considered neither threats nor promises and are
permissible.” State v. Worley, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2001-T-0048, 2002-Ohio-4516,
¶ 171. Finally, Reynolds remained alert, responsive, and lucid throughout the entire
interview; there was nothing objectively apparent from his demeanor that should have
alerted the detectives that he was incapable of understanding either the nature of his
Miranda rights or the consequences of his waiver of those rights. Indeed, Reynold’s own
expert, Dr. Fabian, testified that Reynolds “was not internally preoccupied” and described
Reynolds as “well-mannered,” “responsive,” and “appropriate.” Dr. Rivera concurred.
{¶ 77} In sum, after considering the totality of the circumstances, we find that
Reynolds’ waiver of his Miranda rights and subsequent confession to the police were
constitutionally voluntary. Reynolds therefore does not demonstrate that the trial court
would have suppressed the statements he made to police had his counsel filed a motion to
suppress. Accordingly, trial counsel was not ineffective. Reynolds’ second assignment
of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 78} On consideration whereof, we find that Reynolds was not prejudiced or
prevented from having a fair trial, and the judgment of the Lucas County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, Reynolds is ordered to pay the costs
of this appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
26.
State v. Reynolds
C.A. No. L-16-1021
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Arlene Singer, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
James D. Jensen, P.J.
_______________________________
Christine E. Mayle, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
27.