State v. Flitcraft , 2024 Ohio 3146 ( 2024 )

[Cite as State v. Flitcraft, 2024-Ohio-3146.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAKE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2023-L-113
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Criminal Appeal from the
- vs - Court of Common Pleas
STEPHEN R. FLITCRAFT,
Trial Court No. 2022 CR 001230
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION
Decided: August 19, 2024
Judgment: Affirmed
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Jennifer A. McGee and Adam M.
Downing, Assistant Prosecutors, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street,
P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Eric M. Levy, 55 Public Square, Suite 1600, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For Defendant-
Appellant).
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.
{¶1} Stephen Flitcraft (“Appellant”) appeals his convictions after being found
guilty by jury trial on eight counts. Appellant raises nine assignments of error in support
of his appeal. He asserts that the State did not present sufficient evidence to support his
convictions, that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence, a
variety of evidentiary issues, and ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
{¶2} For the following reasons, the lower court’s judgment is affirmed.
Factual and Procedural History
{¶3} On March 17, 2023, the Lake County Grand Jury indicted Appellant on eight
counts, alleging Appellant, on October 29, 2022, committed: (1) Attempted Murder, a first-
degree felony in violation of R.C. 2923.02; (2) two counts of Aggravated Robbery, first-
degree felonies in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1)&(3); (3) Robbery, a second-degree
felony in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(1) with a Repeat Violent Offender specification
pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(a); and (4) four counts of Felonious Assault, second-
degree felonies in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2).
{¶4} On October 17, 2023, a jury trial commenced.
{¶5} Jeffery Spooner (“Spooner”) testified as a victim of the charged offenses.
He said that he had dated Appellant’s sister, Cynthia Flitcraft, “on and off” for
approximately two years. He said that approximately two weeks before the incident,
Appellant had told him that “he was going to gut me like a fish if I hurt Cindy’s feelings,”
but that he did not perceive the statement as a true threat at the time.
{¶6} The week before the incident, Cynthia told Spooner that she needed “some
time” away from him. Spooner testified that on October 29, 2022, he texted Cynthia and
told her he would “stop by” her residence that day to talk to her. He said that he arrived
at seven or eight in the evening. When he arrived, Cynthia and Appellant were working
in the garden. Spooner said that Appellant suggested they all go to a bar, so Spooner
drove them in his Jeep Grand Cherokee to a local bar, Toth’s Too. After approximately
forty-five minutes, they left the bar and decided to go to another bar, Witz End. Spooner
said that Cynthia asked him to park at a certain spot.
2
Case No. 2023-L-113
{¶7} He described: “I pulled into that spot and as I’m talking to her, she kinda
looks up and I’m like ‘What?’ And [Appellant’s] in my backseat hovering over me. I mean
he stabbed me three times before I even realized what was going on.” Spooner testified
that he had tried to get out of the vehicle, but Cynthia was “leaning against the door.”
Spooner said that as he was being stabbed, Appellant told him that “he was going to
f****** kill me.” Spooner said that as he was “dodging” Appellant in the vehicle, Appellant
stabbed Cynthia “a few times.” Spooner told Appellant: “Dude, you’re stabbing your sister
too.” After that, Appellant “calmed down,” stopped stabbing him, left the vehicle, and
cleaned the knife. Spooner testified that he was stabbed in his “heart, liver, just all over
myself.”
{¶8} Spooner explained that Appellant then reentered the vehicle and asked him
to drive. Spooner drove them “up the road” to “the end of Garden Road and Lakeshore”
Blvd. Appellant and Cynthia exited the vehicle, and Appellant told Spooner “We are going
to need your keys and wallet.” Spooner complied because he “wanted [Appellant] away
from me.” Spooner said he then drove his vehicle to Cynthia’s driveway.1 Spooner
testified that he was “in and out of consciousness,” but that he remembers an officer
approaching his vehicle. Spooner told the officer “[Appellant] did it" and then “passed
out.”
{¶9} Todd Van Allen testified that he had been dating Cynthia Flitcraft “on and
off” for nine years, but, at the time of the incident, they were friends. He said that at
approximately 11:30 p.m. on the evening of October 29, 2022, he saw Cynthia standing
1. Spooner explained that he was able to drive away without his keys because his vehicle is a “push start”
vehicle and will continue to run for a certain amount of time without the keys in the vehicle.
3
Case No. 2023-L-113
outside his front door. He described that she was intoxicated, “pale as a ghost,” there
was “blood profusely dripping down her arm,” her clothes were “saturated” with blood,
and she had marks on her arms that looked like she had been stabbed. Mr. Van Allen
asked Cynthia what had caused her injuries and she “mumbled something about a car
accident.” He said that he did not believe her injuries were consistent with being in a car
accident. He testified that Cynthia was in the bathroom and became non-responsive, so
he called 9-1-1. Responding officers asked him where she resided, and he told them her
address. He testified that while the officers questioned Cynthia at his residence, the
officers arrived at Cynthia’s residence on Garden Road and that’s when “all hell broke
loose” and the officers arrested her.
{¶10} Sergeant Bradley Impala testified that he began investigating a “possible
traffic incident” reported by Cynthia Flitcraft on October 29, 2022, at 11:48 p.m. Sergeant
Impala arrived at Garden Road to look for signs of a possible car crash. He observed a
“jeep with its lights on running close to the road.” He initially left the area, but returned to
the jeep when he learned through a dispatch call that it was parked at Cynthia Flitcraft’s
residence. Sergeant Impala approached the passenger side of the vehicle and saw
Spooner in the driver’s seat, who appeared “unconscious,” “sweating profusely,” with
blood on himself and his clothes. Sergeant Impala “shook” Spooner and he regained
consciousness long enough to tell the Sergeant that he had been stabbed. Sergeant
Impala called for an ambulance to arrive. Once Spooner was in the ambulance, he again
regained consciousness and told Sergeant Impala that Appellant had stabbed him.
Sergeant Impala notified the police department that Appellant was a possible suspect.
He testified that he learned on October 30, 2022, that Appellant had been found and was
4
Case No. 2023-L-113
in police custody between 4:00 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. Sergeant Impala went to where
Appellant was in custody and transported him to jail. Sergeant Impala said that Appellant
appeared intoxicated and stated that he had drunk “more than normal.”
{¶11} Lieutenant John Begovic testified that he helped investigate the incident.
He testified that he collected the jeans and sweatshirt worn by Appellant when he was
arrested. Lieutenant Begovic said that there were minor blood spots on both articles of
clothing. He said that one blood spot on the sweatshirt appeared as if someone had tried
cleaning the blood off. Lieutenant Begovic also testified to a phone call Appellant had
made from jail on October 30, 2022, to an unknown person. During the phone call,
Appellant stated that he did not remember anything from the night before, but that he
“apologizes” if he stabbed Spooner.
{¶12} Cynthia Flitcraft testified as the court’s witness.2 Cynthia testified that on
October 29, 2022, she went to Toth’s Too to drink with Appellant and Spooner. But, she
said that she did not remember anything after being at the bar. Cynthia said that the next
thing she remembered from that night was walking to Todd Van Allen’s residence.
{¶13} During her testimony, the State asked Cynthia if, in mid-October 2022,
Appellant and Spooner had almost fought in her backyard. She replied that she “wasn’t
aware of that.” The State then asked her if she recalled testifying to the event under oath
during her grand jury testimony. Cynthia admitted that she gave the testimony. The State
also asked Cynthia if she remembered telling the grand jury that she “had a feeling that
2. Prior to trial, the State moved the court to call Cynthia Flitcraft as the court’s witness. It argued that the
State was unsure whether or not her testimony would be helpful to the State’s case because they did not
know what she would testify to, and she was “aligned” with Appellant. The State therefore argued that it
was appropriate for Cynthia to be called as the court’s witness. The court granted the motion.
5
Case No. 2023-L-113
something happened in front of Osborne Park.” She replied that she did. The State then
asked if she remembered telling the grand jury that she had a feeling something had
happened in Spooner’s vehicle. She replied that she did not remember giving the
testimony because she has a “poor” memory. The State next asked if she remembered
telling the grand jury that they “stopped at the stoplight in front of Osborne Park.” She
replied that she did not remember giving the testimony. The State asked Cynthia if she
remembered telling the grand jury that she thought she received her injuries from “trying
to block something.” She replied that she did not remember giving the testimony.
{¶14} Detective David Burrington testified that he interviewed Appellant at 9:30
a.m. on October 30, 2022. He said that he did not immediately interview Appellant upon
arrest because Appellant was intoxicated. Detective Burrington stated that Appellant had
a scratch on his face and his right hand was swollen with red dots on it.
{¶15} The State moved to admit the recorded interview at trial and play the video
for the jury. The defense did not object. Before the hour and forty-eight minute video
played, the court instructed the jury that portions of the video had been redacted because
they were not relevant to the proceedings.3
{¶16} While the video played, the court paused the video and asked counsel to
approach the bench. The court asked how much longer until the video was over, and the
State replied, “fourteen minutes.” The court next asked if a redacted version had been
provided to defense counsel. Counsel replied that it had. The court notified counsel that
they had “missed” a “couple things.” Specifically, the court pointed to an instance where
3. It was revealed in conversations between the court and counsel, outside of the jury’s presence, that the
video was redacted to remove any statements Appellant had made about his prior convictions.
6
Case No. 2023-L-113
the statement “right before he went in” was said. The court also noted at least two
instances where Appellant said “I’ve always admit [sic] to everything I’ve done. I always
have.” The court told counsel that further redactions would be needed before the
transcript is given to the jury for deliberation.
{¶17} Outside of the jury’s presence, the State asked the court if it needed to
instruct the jury not to consider the portions of the recorded interview where the
statements had been made that needed to be redacted. The court allowed defense
counsel to make the decision. Defense counsel declined, stating that he did not want to
bring attention to the statements. The court agreed and explained that it did not stop the
video when the statements were made because it did not want to alarm the jury that
“something happened that shouldn’t have happened.”
{¶18} The State rested its case. The defense moved for dismissal under Crim.R.
29. The court denied the motion. The defense did not present any evidence and rested
its case. The defense renewed its Crim.R. 29 motion. The court again denied the motion.
The jury entered deliberations and found Appellant guilty on all counts.
{¶19} On November 3, 2023, the court held a sentencing hearing. It sentenced
Appellant to mandatory terms of imprisonment on each count to be served consecutively
for an aggregate minimum term of 36 years and a maximum term of 41.5 years.
{¶20} Appellant timely appealed and raises nine assignments of error.
Law and Analysis
{¶21} First assignment of error: “The trial court erred in entering Aggravated
Robbery convictions absent sufficient evidence.”
7
Case No. 2023-L-113
{¶22} “‘Sufficiency’ is a term of art meaning that legal standard which is applied to
determine whether the case may go to the [factfinder] or whether the evidence is legally
sufficient to support the [factfinder's] verdict as a matter of law.” State v. Thompkins, 78
Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997), citing Black's Law Dictionary (6 Ed.1990) 1433. The appellate
court's standard of review for sufficiency of evidence is to determine, after viewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, whether a rational trier of fact could
find the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v.
Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶23} When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not consider its
credibility or effect in inducing belief. Thompkins at 387. Rather, we decide whether, if
believed, the evidence can sustain the verdict as a matter of law. Id. This naturally entails
a review of the elements of the charged offense and a review of the state's evidence.
State v. Richardson, 2016-Ohio-8448, ¶ 13.
{¶24} Appellant specifically contends that the State did not present sufficient
evidence to convict him on Aggravated Robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) and
2911.01(A)(3).
{¶25} R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) provides: “No person, in attempting or committing a theft
offense . . . or in fleeing immediately after the attempt or offense, shall . . . Have a deadly
weapon on or about the offender's person or under the offender's control and either
display the weapon, brandish it, indicate that the offender possesses it, or use it.”
{¶26} R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) provides: “No person, in attempting or committing a theft
offense . . . or in fleeing immediately after the attempt or offense, shall . . . Inflict, or attempt
to inflict, serious physical harm on another.”
8
Case No. 2023-L-113
{¶27} The Ohio Supreme Court has held: “For purposes of establishing the crime
of aggravated robbery, a jury is entitled to draw all reasonable inferences from the
evidence presented that the robbery was committed with the use of a [deadly weapon] . .
.” State v. Vondenberg, 61 Ohio St.2d 285 (1980), syllabus. “It is not necessary that the
defendant had actually displayed the weapon in order to establish that he had possessed
one.” State v. Knight, 2004-Ohio-1941, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.). Whether or not the State has
presented sufficient evidence of the actual possession of a deadly weapon is judged
based on the totality of the circumstances. Id., citing State v. Green, 117 Ohio App.3d
644 (1st Dist. 1996). “The factfinder may infer that the defendant possessed a deadly
weapon based on his words and conduct.” Id. at ¶ 16.
{¶28} Appellant argues that there was not sufficient evidence to convict him
because the theft offense occurred after Spooner had been stabbed and drove his vehicle
to a new location.
{¶29} Under R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find
that Appellant committed a theft offense (taking Spooner’s wallet and keys) while having
a deadly weapon (the knife) in his control and while either using the knife or indicating
that he possessed it. There was circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable jury
could infer, through Appellant’s conduct just moments prior, that Appellant possessed the
knife. Appellant’s actions indicated that he possessed it (and used it) when he stabbed
Spooner. Spooner testified Appellant stabbed him in the car. Spooner drove the vehicle
at Appellant’s direction “up the street” before he surrendered his wallet and keys to
Appellant. However, there was no evidence to counter the reasonable inference that
Appellant still possessed the knife. Neither Spooner nor Cynthia testified that Appellant
9
Case No. 2023-L-113
discarded the weapon. Spooner only saw Appellant clean the knife. Spooner testified
that he gave Appellant his wallet and keys because he wanted Appellant “away from him”
since Appellant had stabbed him. Appellant had used the knife; and there was no
evidence that he had dispossessed himself of it prior to demanding Spooner’s wallet and
keys. A reasonable jury could infer he indicated that he possessed a deadly weapon or
at least possessed one at the time of the offense.
{¶30} In regard to R.C. 2911.01(A)(3), there was sufficient evidence for a jury to
find that Appellant committed a theft offense while inflicting serious physical harm on
Spooner. Appellant again argues that the stabbing occurred “well prior” to the theft
offense. But, the evidence demonstrates that the stabbing and the theft occurred within
minutes of one another. The surveillance video from the Witz End parking lot (where
Spooner asserts he was stabbed) shows Spooner’s jeep leaving at 11:15 p.m. Another
surveillance video shows Spooner’s jeep arriving at Garden Road at 11:18 p.m. With
only minutes (at the most) in between the stabbing and the theft, a jury could find there
was sufficient evidence that the events were a continuous sequence of events.
{¶31} The State also presented evidence that contradicted Spooner’s testimony
that he was stabbed in the Witz End parking lot, indicating that it may have happened
after they left the parking lot when Appellant committed the theft. Lieutenant Begovic
testified that he had searched the parking lots of both bars on October 30, 2022, to see if
there was any evidence of the stabbing. He noted that it was “significant” that there was
not any blood found at either parking lot. Lieutenant Begovic opined that the stabbing
occurred “somewhere else.” Courtney Eggers testified that on October 29, 2022, she
was walking on Lakeshore Blvd. past J.T.’s diner, which the evidence showed was near
10
Case No. 2023-L-113
the intersection of Lakeshore Blvd. and Garden Road at approximately 11:15-11:20 p.m.,
when she heard someone screaming. Notably, Lakeshore Blvd. is where Spooner stated
that Appellant demanded, and took, his keys and wallet.
{¶32} Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a
reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the State had proven
each element of the crimes.
{¶33} Appellant’s first assignment of error is without merit.
{¶34} Second assignment of error: “The trial court erred in entering
convictions against [Appellant] which were against the manifest weight of the
evidence.”
{¶35} “When reviewing for manifest weight, the appellate court must weigh the
evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and
determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder of fact clearly lost its
way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be
reversed and a new trial ordered.” In re Z.C.,2023-Ohio-4703, ¶ 14. “In weighing the
evidence, the court of appeals must always be mindful of the presumption in favor of the
finder of fact.” Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 21. The trier of fact is the sole
judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. State v.
Landingham, 2021-Ohio-4258, ¶ 22 (11th Dist.) quoting State v. Antill, 176 Ohio St. 61,
67 (1964).
{¶36} “The underlying rationale of giving deference to the findings of the trial court
rests with the knowledge that the [fact finder] is best able to view the witnesses and
observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in
11
Case No. 2023-L-113
weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony.” Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland,
10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80 (1984).
{¶37} The trier of fact may believe or disbelieve any witness in whole or in part,
considering the demeanor of the witness and the manner in which a witness testifies, the
interest, if any, of the outcome of the case and the connection with the prosecution or the
defendant. Id., quoting Antill at 67.
{¶38} “The discretionary power to grant a new trial should be exercised only in the
exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” State v.
Martin, 20 Ohio App. 3d 172, 175 (1st Dist. 1983).
{¶39} Under his second assignment of error, Appellant argues that his convictions
were against the manifest weight of the evidence only because, he asserts, the stabbing
was not a voluntary act because he was intoxicated.
{¶40} R.C. 2901.21(E) provides: “Voluntary intoxication may not be taken into
consideration in determining the existence of a mental state that is an element of a
criminal offense. Voluntary intoxication does not relieve a person of a duty to act if failure
to act constitutes a criminal offense. Evidence that a person was voluntarily intoxicated
may be admissible to show whether or not the person was physically capable of
performing the act with which the person is charged.”
{¶41} Involuntary acts are defined as “[r]eflexes, convulsions, body movements
during unconsciousness or sleep, and body movements that are not otherwise a product
of the actor's volition.” R.C. 2901.21(D)(2).
{¶42} Appellant’s sole argument is that his stabbing Spooner was not done
voluntarily because his intoxication rendered him “unconscious.” Yet, there is nothing in
12
Case No. 2023-L-113
the record to support that Appellant was unconscious. Appellant argues that he did not
remember stabbing Spooner. But, the record demonstrates otherwise. Appellant’s video
recorded interview shows that he clearly remembered the details of the night until he
stabbed Spooner. Spooner’s testimony did not suggest that Appellant was unconscious,
but that he “calmed down” after realizing he had also stabbed Cynthia.
{¶43} There is also evidence that Appellant was not unconscious minutes before
he stabbed Spooner. Gina Margroff, the bartender who served Appellant at Toth’s Too,
testified that he entered the bar at “roughly” 10:30 p.m. on October 29, 2022, with Cynthia
and Spooner. She said that when they left, no one appeared any more intoxicated than
when they entered, “or walking or tripping. They weren’t belligerent. Nothing of that
nature to me.” Margroff testified that they left between 11:00 p.m. and 11:15 p.m. There
is surveillance video from Witz End and Garden Rd. to suggest that Spooner had been
stabbed between 11:15 p.m. and 11:18 p.m. It is not reasonable to infer the Appellant
could have become so intoxicated between leaving the bar and stabbing Spooner as to
render himself unconscious.
{¶44} The manifest weight of the evidence supports a reasonable jury finding that
Appellant was not unconscious when he stabbed Spooner.
{¶45} Appellant’s second assignment of error is without merit.
{¶46} Third assignment of error: “The trial court erred and entered a
sentence contrary to law where a mandatory sentence was imposed on the
Felonious Assault conviction prejudicing [Appellant] by denying him any future
opportunity to file for judicial release.”
{¶47} R.C. 2953.08 governs our standard of review and provides:
13
Case No. 2023-L-113
The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise
modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may
vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing
court for resentencing. The appellate court's standard for
review is not whether the sentencing court abused its
discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized
by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the
following:
(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court's
findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division
(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section
2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{¶48} Appellant argues that his sentence was contrary to law because it imposed
a mandatory prison term pursuant to R.C. 2929.13(F)(6). Appellant asserts that R.C.
2929.13(F)(4) exclusively allows a court to issue a mandatory prison term for Felonious
Assault pursuant to R.C. 2903.11.
{¶49} R.C. 2929.13(F) provides in relevant part,
Notwithstanding divisions (A) to (E) of this section, the court
shall impose a prison term or terms . . . for any of the following
offenses:
(4) A felony violation of section 2903.04, 2903.06,
2903.08, 2903.11, 2903.12, 2903.13, 2905.32, 2907.07,
2921.321, or 2923.132 of the Revised Code if the section
requires the imposition of a prison term;
(6) Any offense that is a first or second degree felony and
that is not set forth in division (F)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this
section, if the offender previously was convicted of or pleaded
guilty to aggravated murder, murder, any first or second
degree felony, or an offense under an existing or former law
of this state, another state, or the United States that is or was
substantially equivalent to one of those offenses[.]
{¶50} Appellant argues that the trial court must sentence a defendant to a
mandatory prison sentence for Felonious Assault only under R.C. 2903.11. Appellant
14
Case No. 2023-L-113
correctly observes that this court has not ruled on the interplay between R.C.
2929.13(F)(4) and (6). However, other appellate courts in this State have and their
analyses are persuasive, and we adopt them.
{¶51} In State v. Clark, 2006-Ohio-6068 (2d Dist.), the Second District Court of
Appeals directly addressed this question, holding:
R.C. 2903.11(D) requires a mandatory sentence for felonious
assault in a particular circumstance, and R.C. 2929.13(F)(4)
recognizes that fact. R.C. 2929.13(F)(6) requires a mandatory
sentence in an additional circumstance and is not inconsistent
with R.C. 2929.13(F)(4). In our view, the legislature's
recognition in the felonious assault statute of one
circumstance in which a mandatory sentence was
appropriate-where a peace officer is seriously injured, even
on a first offense-and its recognition of additional
circumstances under the sentencing statute, such as for
repeat serious offenders, does not create a conflict. Thus, the
trial court properly imposed a mandatory sentence under R.C.
2929.13(F)(6) based on the commission of a previous first or
second degree felony.
{¶52} More recently, in State v. Paskins, 2022-Ohio-4024 (5th Dist.) and State v.
Spaulding, 2017-Ohio-7993 (6th Dist.), the Fifth and Sixth District Appellate Courts also
have held that a trial court is required to sentence a defendant to a mandatory prison term
for Felonious Assault if R.C. 2929.13(F)(6) applies.
{¶53} It is not contested that Appellant had been convicted previously of first and
second degree felonies. For the foregoing reasons, the court properly sentenced
Appellant to a mandatory prison term under R.C. 2929.13(F)(6).
{¶54} Appellant’s third assignment of error is without merit.
{¶55} Fourth assignment of error: “The trial court erred and prejudiced
[Appellant] when it granted the State’s motion and called Cynthia Flitcraft as a court
witness.”
15
Case No. 2023-L-113
{¶56} Appellant asserts two arguments under this assignment. First, he argues
that the trial court erred in calling Cynthia as the court’s witness. He also contends that
trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when he did not oppose the State’s motion
to call Cynthia as the court’s witness.
{¶57} Because Appellant did not oppose the motion below, we review his first
argument for plain error.
{¶58} Crim.R. 52(B) provides that “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial
rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” “To
prevail under the plain-error standard, a defendant must show that an error occurred, that
it was obvious, and that it affected his substantial rights.” State v. Obermiller, 2016-Ohio-
1594, ¶ 62. The requirement that the error must have affected substantial rights means
that the error must have affected the outcome of trial. State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459,
¶ 22. “We take ‘[n]otice of plain error . . . with the utmost caution, under exceptional
circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” Obermiller at ¶ 62,
quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 97 (1978).
{¶59} Pursuant to Evid.R. 614(A): “[t]he court may, on its own motion or at the
suggestion of a party, call witnesses, and all parties are entitled to cross-examine
witnesses thus called.”
{¶60} “The court's power to call a witness pursuant to Evid.R. 614(A) is inherent,
and should be exercised in fulfillment of the court's fundamental obligation to assist in
arriving at the truth.” State v. Brown, 2015-Ohio-950, ¶ 15 (11th Dist.), citing State v.
Davis, 1993 WL 548033 (11th Dist. Dec. 10, 1993), citing Evid.R. 614(A), Staff Notes.
“The decision whether to call individuals as witnesses of the court is a matter within the
16
Case No. 2023-L-113
trial court's discretion.” Id., citing State v. Knapp, 2012-Ohio-2354, ¶ 69 (11th Dist.).
Accordingly, “‘a trial court does not abuse its discretion in calling a witness as a court's
witness when the witness's testimony would be beneficial to ascertaining the truth of the
matter and there is some indication that the witness's trial testimony will contradict a prior
statement made to police.” Id., citing State v. Schultz, 2005-Ohio-345, ¶ 29 (11th Dist.).
{¶61} This court has previously recognized that it may be the most prudent course
to actually determine whether a witness is varying materially from prior statements before
calling her as a court's witness for impeachment purposes. Knapp, at ¶ 72. Still, Evid.R.
614 does not mandate this method of calling a court's witness. And, “[t]his procedure is
not necessary where the trial judge is reasonably justified in believing that the calling of
the person as a court witness would benefit the jury in performing its fact-finding
responsibilities.” Id., citing State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 158 (1980). Accordingly,
“Evid.R. 614(A) does not require a witness to be shown hostile or shown that she will
testify inconsistently prior to a court calling that witness.” State v. Brown, 2015-Ohio-950,
¶ 19 (11th Dist.).
{¶62} In this case, the State moved for Cynthia to be called as the court’s witness
because the State believed she would be aligned with Appellant’s defense, and she may
have testified contrary to the State’s case. As the only witness to the October 29, 2022
events other than Spooner, Cynthia’s testimony was fundamental to assist the trier of fact
in arriving at the truth.
{¶63} Appellant contends that he was prejudiced by her testimony because it
allowed the State to ask Cynthia leading questions, to many of which she replied that she
did not remember some things or having previously testifying about them. We do not find
17
Case No. 2023-L-113
this argument persuasive. Cynthia’s responses regarding her lack of memory did not
incriminate Appellant. In fact, Cynthia’s testimony supported Appellant’s character, as
she testified that she did not believe he had stabbed her or Spooner.
{¶64} The trial’s outcome would not have changed if she had not testified. Her
answers did not provide any additional support for the State’s case. In fact, her testimony
proved nothing. She never was asked to confirm or deny the truth of her grand jury
testimony. She simply said she did not remember giving most of it. Moreover, Spooner’s
testimony already had detailed the October 29 events.
{¶65} Importantly, Evid.R. 614(A) grants the court inherent authority to call a
court’s witness. Appellant has not demonstrated that the court erred and abused its
discretion in calling Cynthia as the court’s witness.
{¶66} We next consider whether or not trial counsel rendered ineffective
assistance.
{¶67} “‘In evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel claims, Ohio appellate
courts apply the two-part test enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in
Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668[.]” State v. Woodard, 2010-Ohio-2949, ¶
11 (11th Dist.). “First, it must be determined that counsel's performance fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness.” Id. “Second, it must be shown that prejudice
resulted.” Id. “Prejudice exists when ‘the result of the trial would have been different’ but
for counsel's ineffectiveness.’” Id., quoting State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989),
paragraph 3 of the syllabus.
{¶68} In applying the foregoing standard, a reviewing court indulges a strong
presumption that counsel's conduct is within the wide range of reasonable professional
18
Case No. 2023-L-113
representation. Strickland at 689. An attorney's arguably reasoned strategic or tactical
decisions do not generally constitute ineffectiveness. State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio St.3d 72,
85 (1995).
{¶69} Having found that Appellant did not establish prejudice from Cynthia’s being
called as the court’s witness, Appellant’s argument that his trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to oppose the motion similarly fails.
{¶70} Appellant’s fourth assignment of error is without merit.
{¶71} Fifth assignment of error: “[Appellant] suffered prejudice from the
prosecution’s improperly questioning court witness [Cynthia Flitcraft] by implying
alleged grand jury statements to be considered as evidentiary testimony.”
{¶72} Appellant raises two arguments under this assignment. First, he argues
that the trial court erred in permitting the State to question Cynthia on her grand jury
statements. He also contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing
to object.
{¶73} Appellant did not object below. Thus, we review his first argument for plain
error.
{¶74} Appellant argues plain error because the trial court allowed the State to read
the statements aloud without first letting the witness read them and because the questions
were asked for the purpose of reading the statements into evidence instead of refreshing
Cynthia’s recollection. We disagree for the following reasons.
{¶75} First, we do not know why, or to what end, the State proceeded as it did.
Second, it does not matter. The answers the State’s questions elicited did nothing to
prove any element of the alleged offenses, and Spooner’s testimony had provided ample
19
Case No. 2023-L-113
(and unrebutted) evidence for those. Appellant has not shown that the trial court
committed plain error.
{¶76} At most, if the court erred, it was harmless in this case because there was
other sufficient evidence on which a jury could find Appellant guilty. Importantly, Spooner
had already testified in detail to the events before Cynthia testified. The substance of the
questions did not reveal new information to the jury, nor did Cynthia’s responses
substantiate their truthfulness. Moreover, the court instructed the jury that “[e]vidence is
all the testimony received from the witnesses . . .” It did not instruct the jury that questions
asked to witnesses were considered evidence.
{¶77} Having found that Appellant did not establish that the trial’s outcome would
have been different, Appellant’s argument that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to object to the questions similarly fails.
{¶78} Appellant’s fifth assignment of error is without merit.
{¶79} Sixth assignment of error: “Admission of prior bad acts evidence and
failure to declare a mistrial.”
{¶80} Under his sixth assignment of error, Appellant argues that the court erred in
not declaring a mistrial when certain statements regarding Appellant’s prior convictions
were played to the jury through his recorded interview. He also argues that trial counsel
was ineffective for failing to move for a mistrial.
{¶81} Appellant did not object at trial. We therefore review for plain error.
{¶82} The decision to deny or grant a motion for mistrial lies within the sound
discretion of the trial court. State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 59 (1995). “A mistrial
should be declared only when the ends of justice so require and ‘a fair trial is no longer
20
Case No. 2023-L-113
possible.’” State v. Franklin, 62 Ohio St.3d 118, 127 (1991). If a mistrial is based on
erroneously admitted evidence, that evidence should be “‘of an exceptionally prejudicial
character such that its withdrawal from consideration by the jury cannot be expected to
remove the harm.’” State v. Marshall, 2014-Ohio-4677, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.), quoting United
States v. Carr, 5 F.3d 986, 993 (6th Cir. 1993).
{¶83} Evid.R. 404(B) provides: “Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not
admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion
the person acted in accordance with the character.” “This type of evidence is commonly
referred to as ‘propensity evidence’ because its purpose is to demonstrate that the
accused has a propensity or proclivity to commit the crime in question.” State v. Hartman,
2020-Ohio-4440, ¶ 21, citing State v. Curry, 43 Ohio St.2d 66, 68 (1975).
{¶84} “While it is generally true that deference is given to trial counsel's tactical
decisions, evidence of other crimes that comes before the jury due to defense counsel's
neglect, ignorance, or disregard of key facts or defendant's rights—and that bears no
reasonable relationship to a legitimate trial strategy—can be sufficient to render counsel's
performance deficient.” State v. J.J.S., 2024-Ohio-2645, ¶ 31 (10th Dist.).
{¶85} It is uncontested in this case that any statements relating to Appellant’s prior
convictions were supposed to be redacted from the recorded interview shown to the jury.
The statements at issue are: (1) one instance in which a person referred to Appellant and
said “right before he went in”; and (2) at least two instances where Appellant said “I’ve
always admit [sic] to everything I’ve done. I always have.”
{¶86} These statements are not “extremely prejudicial.” No details on his
convictions were revealed in the video. Moreover, the court noted to counsel that it
21
Case No. 2023-L-113
amounted to “two seconds” of an almost two hour video. The court, in its discretion,
decided to not draw the jury’s attention to the statements. There is also nothing in the
record to demonstrate that a jury would hear those statements and use it to prove
Appellant acted in accordance with his prior convictions.
{¶87} Appellant has not demonstrated that the court committed plain error, and
that the trial’s outcome would have been different, if the statements were redacted.
{¶88} Trial counsel’s decision to not move for a mistrial was trial strategy. Trial
counsel expressed this when the court asked if he wanted the court to instruct the jury to
disregard the statements. Trial counsel replied that he did not want to draw attention to
the statements. Moreover, Appellant did not demonstrate that he was prejudiced or that
the trial outcome would have been different.
{¶89} Appellant’s sixth assignment of error is without merit.
{¶90} Seventh assignment of error: “[Appellant] was prejudiced where the
defense(s) of involuntary act(s) and blackout were not raised/argued and the jury
was not instructed on involuntary acts/blackout or to consider it in reaching its
verdict.”
{¶91} “A trial court has broad discretion to decide how to fashion jury instructions,
but it must ‘fully and completely give the jury all instructions which are relevant and
necessary for the jury to weigh the evidence and discharge its duty as the fact finder.’”
State v. White, 2015-Ohio-492, ¶ 46, quoting State v. Comen, 50 Ohio St.3d 206 (1990),
paragraph two of the syllabus. “Requested jury instructions should ordinarily be given if
they are correct statements of law, if they are applicable to the facts in the case, and if
reasonable minds might reach the conclusion sought by the requested instruction.” State
22
Case No. 2023-L-113
v. Adams, 2015-Ohio-3954, ¶ 240, citing Murphy v. Carrollton Mfg. Co., 61 Ohio St.3d
585, 591 (1991).
{¶92} Involuntary acts are “[r]eflexes, convulsions, body movements during
unconsciousness or sleep, and body movements that are not otherwise a product of the
actor's volition . . ..” R.C. 2901.21(F)(2).
{¶93} The blackout defense applies where a person commits an act while
unconscious, as in a blackout, due to disease, injury, sleep, or heart failure. State v.
Blanton, 2023-Ohio-89, ¶ 38 (2d Dist.) citing Ohio Jury Instructions, CR Section 417.07,
paragraph one. “Under those circumstances, such act is not a criminal offense even
though it would be a crime if such act were the product of a person's will or volition.” Id.Thus, the blackout defense requires proof that the defendant was “unconscious” and
acted involuntarily during the offense. Id. at ¶ 35-40 citing State v. Cutlip, 2001 WL
687493 (11th Dist. June 15, 2001). “Blackout or unconsciousness is a defense only
where such condition is involuntary[.]” Id. at * 7.
{¶94} To obtain a jury instruction on the blackout defense, a defendant must
present evidence that he committed the offense while he was unconscious, as in a
blackout due to disease or injury. State v. Nicholson, 2024-Ohio-604, reconsideration
denied, 2024-Ohio-1577, ¶ 334, citing State v. Ireland, 2018-Ohio-4494, ¶ 1, 4, 6, 24-26.
{¶95} Appellant asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the
defenses of involuntary acts and blackout, and for failing to request jury instructions on
those defenses.
{¶96} Appellant has not demonstrated that he was entitled to the defenses or jury
instructions of involuntary acts or blackout. Specifically, he has not shown that his bodily
23
Case No. 2023-L-113
movements were not a product of his own volition. The facts here are important.
Appellant stabbed Spooner while threatening that he was going to kill him. He then
calmed down and cleaned off the knife. There is nothing in the record to suggest these
acts were not on Appellant’s own volition.
{¶97} Appellant also is not entitled to a blackout defense or jury instruction
because any unconsciousness he claims would have been caused by his own voluntary
intoxication. Likewise, we analyzed under Appellant’s second assignment of error that
he has not shown that he was unconscious when the incident occurred. Even if we were
to accept Appellant’s argument, his unconsciousness was not caused by disease, injury,
sleep, or heart failure.
{¶98} Appellant has not demonstrated that trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to raise the defenses or for failing to request the jury instructions.
{¶99} Appellant’s seventh assignment of error is without merit.
{¶100} Eighth assignment of error: “[Appellant] was prejudiced by the jury
instruction and State’s comments that voluntary intoxication may not be
considered in determining if [he] intended the attempted murder.”
{¶101} Appellant specifically contends that the court’s jury instruction “that
voluntary intoxication may not be considered by the jury in determining if [Appellant] acted
purposely was in error and defense counsel was required to object.” Appellant did not
object below. Thus, we review for plain error.
{¶102} “Requested jury instructions should ordinarily be given if they are correct
statements of law, if they are applicable to the facts in the case, and if reasonable minds
24
Case No. 2023-L-113
might reach the conclusion sought by the requested instruction.” Adams, 2015-Ohio-
3954 at ¶ 240, citing Murphy v. Carrollton Mfg. Co., 61 Ohio St.3d at 591.
{¶103} As noted in our discussion of appellant’s second assignment of error, R.C.
2901.21(E) provides: “Voluntary intoxication may not be taken into consideration in
determining the existence of a mental state that is an element of a criminal offense.
Voluntary intoxication does not relieve a person of a duty to act if failure to act constitutes
a criminal offense. Evidence that a person was voluntarily intoxicated may be admissible
to show whether or not the person was physically capable of performing the act with which
the person is charged.”
{¶104} The court in this case provided the following instruction to the jury:
[I]n determining the existence of a mental state that is an
element of any of the crimes defined above, voluntary
intoxication may not be taken into consideration. Evidence
that a person was voluntarily intoxicated, may be admissible,
however, to show whether or not the person was physically
capable of performing the acts with which the person is
charged. Intoxication is not an excuse for an offense.
However, evidence of intoxication has been admitted for the
purpose of showing that the defendant was so intoxicated that
he/she was incapable of performing the act with which he/she
has been charged.
{¶105} The jury instruction provided was proper because it was a correct statement
of the law. The jury instruction adequately tracks R.C. 2901.21(E). Appellant was not
prejudiced by the court’s instructing the jury that “in determining the existence of a mental
state that is an element of any of the crimes defined above, voluntary intoxication may
not be taken into consideration.” That is the law that the jury needed to assist in its
deliberation.
{¶106} Appellant has not shown that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance.
25
Case No. 2023-L-113
{¶107} Appellant’s eighth assignment of error is without merit.
{¶108} Ninth assignment of error: “[Appellant] was prejudict [sic] by the
cumulative failure of the trial court and trial counsel which resulted in improper
convictions.”
{¶109} Appellant argues under his final assignment of error: “If this Court has found
that the prejudice caused on any single error was not enough to warrant vacating the
convictions it should find the totality of the errors prejudicial and vacate the convictions
on the basis of cumulative error.”
{¶110} This argument is without merit. We have analyzed each assignment of error
and have found that Appellant’s arguments were without merit. We decline to accept
Appellant’s “cumulative error” argument as we did not find reversible error in our analyses.
{¶111} Appellant’s ninth assignment of error is without merit.
{¶112} The judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.,
ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,
concur.
26
Case No. 2023-L-113