State v. Wood , 2023 Ohio 2045 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Wood, 2023-Ohio-2045.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-
Case No. 2022CA00144
CHRISTOPHER WOOD
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 2022-CR-0246
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 21, 2023
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
KYLE L. STONE D. COLEMAN BOND
Prosecuting Attorney 116 Cleveland Avenue, N.W.
Stark County, Ohio Suite #600
Canton, Ohio 44702
CHRISTOPHER A. PIEKARSKI
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Appellate Division
110 Central Plaza, South
Suite #510
Canton, Ohio 44702-1413
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00144 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Christopher Wood appeals the judgment entered by
the Stark County Common Pleas Court convicting him following his pleas of no contest
to rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b)(B)) and gross sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.05(A)(4)), and
sentencing him to an aggregate term of ten years to life in prison. Plaintiff-appellee is the
state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} In early 2022, Massillon police were investigating allegations Appellant had
engaged in sexual activity with his niece when she was seven or eight years old. One of
the allegations involved Appellant engaging in anal intercourse with her when they were
sleeping next to each other on the floor of her grandmother’s house. A second allegation
involved Appellant touching the child’s vaginal area and digitally penetrating her with his
fingers.
{¶3} On January 21, 2022, Appellant voluntarily came to the Massillon Police
Department for an interview with Detective David McConnell. Prior to speaking with
Appellant, Det. McConnell informed Appellant he was free to leave at any time. The
detective told Appellant the door to the room was closed, but unlocked.
{¶4} The interview lasted approximately thirty minutes. Det. McConnell noted no
signs Appellant might be intoxicated during the interview. Although the detective did not
specifically ask about drug or alcohol use, Appellant explained during the interview he
had used drugs in the past, specifically during the time the incidents occurred with his
niece, but had “gotten clean” since that time. Appellant made incriminating statements to
Detective McConnell concerning the allegations of sexual abuse of his niece.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00144 3
{¶5} Appellant was indicted by the Stark County Grand Jury with two counts of
rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b)(B). Appellant moved to suppress the
statements he made to Det. McConnell on the basis the statements were involuntary
because he used drugs on the day of the interview.
{¶6} The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress. The
parties submitted a video recording of the interview to the trial court for review. Det.
McConnell testified he observed no signs of intoxication in Appellant during the interview.
Appellant testified he used opiates on a daily basis for four to five years. He testified on
the morning of the interview, he had crushed Vicodin pills and snorted them. Appellant
testified he was not coherent during the interview. Appellant testified “in his mind” he saw
the detective leaning forward and pointing a finger at him, and Appellant testified he felt
threatened. Supp. Tr. 33-34. However, Appellant admitted the video did not support this
testimony concerning the detective’s conduct during the interview. Appellant testified his
drug use caused him to be overemotional during the interview, and rendered him unable
to hear or understand the questions. He testified he could not focus, as evidenced by the
fact he kept his head down during the interview.
{¶7} Appellant sought to call his brother to the stand, who had watched the video
at Appellant’s attorney’s office, and in counsel’s understanding would testify as to whether
or not Appellant was intoxicated by drug use during the interview. The trial court did not
allow Appellant to call his brother to testify.
{¶8} Following the hearing, the trial court found Appellant was not intoxicated by
drug use during the interview, and overruled the motion to suppress. The State amended
one charge of rape to gross sexual imposition. As to the second charge of rape, the State
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00144 4
amended the charge to remove the special finding the victim was under the age of ten,
while maintaining the statutory language the victim was under the age of thirteen.
Appellant pled no contest to the charges as amended, and was convicted. The trial court
sentenced Appellant to ten years to life incarceration for rape and to five years
incarceration for gross sexual imposition, to be served concurrently. It is from the October
12, 2022 judgment of the trial court Appellant prosecutes his appeal, assigning as error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT’S
MOTION TO SUPPRESS.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY EXCLUDING
THE TESTIMONY OF DAVID BATTLES DURING THE SUPPRESSION
HEARING.
I.
{¶9} In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in
denying his motion to suppress because (a) Miranda warnings were not given, and (b)
his statement was not voluntary because he was under the influence of drugs at the time
of the interview.
{¶10} Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law
and fact. State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 154-155, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d
71, ¶ 8. When ruling on a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of trier of
fact and is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and to evaluate witness
credibility. See State v. Dunlap, 73 Ohio St.3d 308,314, 1995-Ohio-243, 652 N.E.2d 988;
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00144 5
State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 20, 437 N.E.2d 583 (1982). Accordingly, a reviewing
court must defer to the trial court's factual findings if competent, credible evidence exists
to support those findings. See Burnside, supra; Dunlap, supra; State v. Long, 127 Ohio
App.3d 328, 332, 713 N.E.2d 1(4th Dist. 1998); State v. Medcalf, 111 Ohio App.3d 142,
675 N.E.2d 1268 (4th Dist. 1996). However, once this Court has accepted those facts as
true, it must independently determine as a matter of law whether the trial court met the
applicable legal standard. See Burnside, supra, citing State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio
App.3d 706, 707 N.E.2d 539(4th Dist. 1997); See, generally, United States v. Arvizu, 534
U.S. 266, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740(2002); Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690,
116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911(1996). That is, the application of the law to the trial
court's findings of fact is subject to a de novo standard of review. Ornelas, supra.Moreover, due weight should be given “to inferences drawn from those facts by resident
judges and local law enforcement officers.” Ornelas, supra at 698, 116 S.Ct. at 1663.
{¶11} Appellant first argues the trial court erred in finding Miranda warnings were
not required. Appellant’s motion to suppress did not raise this issue, nor did he argue at
the suppression hearing Miranda warnings were required. Throughout the suppression
hearing, Appellant argued only that his statement was involuntary because it was made
while he was under the influence of drugs.
{¶12} A criminal defendant is required to raise a Miranda violation in a pretrial
motion to suppress or the issue is waived. State v. Montalvo, 5th Dist. Knox No. 17 CA
000019, 2018-Ohio-3142, ¶37, citing State v. Moody, 55 Ohio St.2d 64, 66 (1978). The
issue of whether a confession is voluntary and whether a suspect has been subject to
custodial interrogation so as to require Miranda warnings are analytically separate issues.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00144 6
See., e.g. State v. Fowler, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2016AP040024, 2016-Ohio-5940,
¶29.
{¶13} Crim. R. 47 requires all written motions to “state with particularity the
grounds upon which it is made.” “By requiring the defendant to state with particularity the
legal and factual issues to be resolved, the prosecutor and court are placed on notice of
those issues to be heard and decided by the court and, by omission, those issues which
are otherwise being waived.” State v. Shindler, 70 Ohio St.3d 54, 58, 636 N.E.2d 319,
322 (1994).
{¶14} The trial court sua sponte found Miranda warnings were not required
because Appellant was not subjected to a custodial interrogation However, because
Appellant failed to raise the issue in the trial court, the State was not placed on notice the
failure to give Appellant Miranda warnings was an issue at the suppression hearing, and
accordingly the State was not required to bring forth evidence demonstrating the interview
was noncustodial in nature and Miranda warnings were not required. Despite the trial
court’s consideration of the issue, we find Appellant has waived any claim of a Miranda
violation by his failure to raise the issue in the trial court.
{¶15} Appellant next argues the trial court erred in finding his statement was
voluntary, maintaining he was under the influence of drugs at the time of the interview.
With respect to this issue, the trial court found:
The Court finds the majority of the defendant’s testimony to be self-
serving and of little merit. Additionally, the Court has had the opportunity to
view the defendant’s behavior on the recorded video and to compare it to
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00144 7
the defendant’s behavior and testimony during the hearing. Based upon
such observations, the Court finds that the defendant’s mannerisms,
speech, comprehension, and expression during the hearing were the same
as those present during his interview. As such, the Court finds that the
defendant was not under the influence of drugs or otherwise impaired at the
time of the interview with Detective McConnell.
{¶16} Judgment Entry, July 25, 2022.
{¶17} In a footnote, the trial court noted at the time of the hearing, Appellant had
been in jail for nearly ninety days, and no evidence was presented he abused drugs prior
to his testimony at the suppression hearing.
{¶18} The trial court was in a unique position to compare Appellant’s demeanor
and behavior during his testimony at the suppression hearing with the video of the
statement given to Det. McConnell, and is in a better position than this court to determine
the credibility of witnesses. See Fanning, supra (weight of the evidence and credibility of
witnesses are primarily for the trier of fact at suppression hearing). This Court has
reviewed the video, and throughout the interview, Appellant answered the detective’s
questions clearly and appropriately, was able to recount information upon request, and
engaged in conversation with the detective while displaying no visible signs of intoxication
from drug use. Det. McConnell testified he had interacted with people under the influence
of drugs and alcohol in his work as a police officer, and Appellant did not appear
intoxicated. Further, during the interview Appellant admitted to past drug use, but told the
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00144 8
detective he had stopped using drugs. We find the trial court did not err in finding
Appellant’s statement was voluntary and overruling the motion to suppress.
{¶19} The first assignment of error is overruled.
II.
{¶20} In his second assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in
preventing his brother from testifying at the suppression hearing.
{¶21} Evid. R. 103(A)(2) states:
(A) Effect of Erroneous Ruling. Error may not be predicated upon
a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the
party is affected; and
(2) Offer of Proof. In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the
substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer or was
apparent from the context within which questions were asked. Offer of proof
is not necessary if evidence is excluded during cross-examination.
{¶22} Absent a proffer, a reviewing court has no way of determining if the
excluded evidence prejudiced the appellant, and if no proffer is made, the party seeking
to introduce the evidence in question waives the error on appeal. Dieble v. Auto Owner's
Ins. Co., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2006CA00211, 2007-Ohio-3429, ¶ 32. “While the proffer of
the expected testimony need not be as specific as the testimony itself would have been
it must nonetheless be sufficient to enable the reviewing court to determine roughly what,
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00144 9
if any, impact the testimony may have had upon the final disposition of the case.” Moser
v. Moser, 72 Ohio App.3d 575, 580, 595 N.E.2d 518, 522 (3rd Dist. Allen 1991).
{¶23} Counsel for Appellant made the following statement to the trial court
concerning the testimony of Appellant’s brother:
MR. KOUKOUTAS: Your Honor, Mr. Wood wanted me to call his
brother David Battles to the stand to testify. Mr. Battles did come to the
office, he did review the video with me and it’s my understanding he’ll be
able to tell us, given his experience and knowing his brother, whether he
was high or not during the interview.
{¶24} Supp. Tr. 39.
{¶25} We find counsel’s statement was not a sufficient proffer of Appellant’s
brother’s testimony to preserve the issue for our review. From this statement, we are
unable to determine what impact the testimony might have had on the trial court’s
disposition of the motion to suppress. It is not clear from this statement whether Mr.
Battles would testify in a matter favorably or unfavorably to Appellant. Appellant argues
in his brief because Battles resided with Appellant, it is very likely he encountered
Appellant on the day of the interview and is familiar with Appellant’s behavior when he is
under the influence of drugs. However, this is speculation and is not a part of the record
before this Court on appeal. We find Appellant has waived any error in the trial court’s
exclusion of his brother’s testimony by failing to make a sufficient proffer of the testimony.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00144 10
{¶26} The second assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Stark
County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Baldwin, J. concur