State v. Hannah ( 2024 )

[Cite as State v. Hannah, 2024-Ohio-2103.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-23-1115
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202202769
v.
Shomari L. Hannah DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: May 31, 2024
*****
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Laurel A. Kendall, for appellant.
*****
SULEK, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant Shomari Hannah appeals the judgment of the Lucas County Court
of Common Pleas convicting him, following a jury trial, of six counts of attempted
murder, six counts of felonious assault, and numerous firearm specifications. For the
following reasons, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
I. Factual Background and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On October 19, 2022, the Lucas County Grand Jury returned a twelve-count
indictment against Hannah and Chicha Harris. The indictment charged Hannah with six
counts of attempted murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A) and 2923.02, felonies of the
first degree, and six counts of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) and
(D), felonies of the second degree, along with attendant firearm specifications under R.C.
2941.145(A), (B), (C), and (F) and 2941.146(A), (B), and (D). The charges stemmed
from a drive-by shooting that occurred in the early morning hours of January 21, 2022.
Hannah entered a not guilty plea and the matter proceeded to a four-day jury trial.1
{¶ 3} Surveillance video entered into evidence showed that around 1:09 a.m. on
January 21, 2022, a man wearing a yellow jacket entered the Gas & Go convenience store
located at 1530 Cherry Street in Toledo, Ohio. Twenty seconds later, a blue Dodge
Charger pulls up to a gas pump and two men get out of the passenger side of the car. One
is taller and slender and is wearing light colored pants and a beige-colored sweatshirt
with a design on the front. He is seen texting or using his phone with his left hand. The
other is shorter and wearing red pants, a black sweatshirt, and a red hat. A third person
wearing a blue jacket is seen briefly stepping out of the driver’s door of the car, but
ultimately stays in the vehicle. The two men enter the convenience store and within
1
Prior to the trial, Hannah’s co-defendant, Chicha Harris, pleaded guilty to one count of
attempted murder with a firearm specification, one count of felonious assault with a
firearm specification, and two counts of attempted felonious assault. The remaining
counts were dismissed.
2.
seconds run back out of it, meeting up with the driver of the blue Charger. The three
individuals get back into the car, with the person wearing the beige-colored sweatshirt
getting into the rear passenger seat.
{¶ 4} Once in the car, the man wearing the black sweatshirt begins firing a gun
from the front passenger door towards the entrance of the Gas & Go. When he begins
firing, there are two cars between him and the store. The driver also appears to reach out
and over the car and begins firing his weapon. The blue Charger then begins to pull away
but stops suddenly and the front passenger opens the door and looks towards the entrance
of the store. A gun then sticks out of the rear passenger window and muzzle flashes can
be seen coming from it. At that point, it appears that another volley of bullets comes
from the blue Charger, shooting out the window of the vehicle next to it. Multiple
muzzle flashes can be seen from the front and rear passenger windows of the blue
Charger, which then speeds away. Seconds later, the man wearing the yellow jacket runs
out of the store carrying a gun. He gets back into his car and drives away.
{¶ 5} Footage from inside the convenience store shows the man in the yellow
jacket standing next to the counter with a gun hanging out of his pocket. He looks
towards the front door and pulls out the gun. Bullets then start flying into the store and
the clerk, the man in the yellow jacket, and a third person dive to the floor behind the
counter and then out of the frame. More bullets can be seen flying into the store
knocking merchandise off the shelves. After a few more seconds, the man in the yellow
jacket leaves through the front door of the store.
3.
{¶ 6} Two people, T.K. and R.P., suffered gunshot wounds while in their cars
from the rounds fired by the men in the blue Charger. Both survived. Four other victims
were identified as being in the convenience store at the time; two were employees and
two were customers. They were unharmed. None of the victims that were interviewed
identified Hannah as one of the shooters.
{¶ 7} During the trial, the state introduced a video depicting the parking lot of the
Moody Manor apartment complex on the evening of January 20, 2022, at around 6:00 -
7:00 p.m. In the video, the blue Charger can be seen pulling into the parking lot.
Eventually four individuals get out of the car and flashes can be seen appearing to
indicate that photographs are being taken in front of the apartments. The four individuals
then walk down the sidewalk around one of the buildings. One of the individuals is
wearing a blue jacket and is carrying what appears to be an assault rifle. Another
individual is wearing red pants, a black sweatshirt, and a red hat, identical to the person
seen later that night at the Gas & Go before the shooting. None of the four individuals
are wearing light colored pants and a beige-colored sweatshirt similar to the other
individual at the Gas & Go. The four individuals returned to the car and drove away.
{¶ 8} Social media photos posted on the night of January 20, 2022, show the man
wearing the blue jacket holding the assault rifle next to another man wearing light colored
pants and a black jacket while standing in front of the Moody Manor apartments. The
man wearing the blue jacket was also wearing yellow, slide-on sandals. Similar yellow
sandals were recovered from the area immediately surrounding the blue Charger after it
4.
was abandoned following a police chase from the shooting on the morning of January 21,
2022.
{¶ 9} Also found in the blue Charger were a number of items, including bullet
casings for rifle ammunition, clothes, two cell phones, drink bottles, and some suspected
ecstasy. The car was processed for fingerprints and DNA, but nothing came back
identifying Hannah. DNA evidence was found, however, linking Chicha Harris and
Christopher Jones to the blue Charger. Toledo Police Detective James Tucker testified
that Harris was the individual seen in the social media photograph posted on January 20,
2022, wearing the blue jacket and the yellow sandals, and holding the assault rifle.
Tucker also identified Jones as the individual in the red pants and black jacket seen in the
Moody Manor surveillance video as well as the video of the shooting at the Gas & Go.
{¶ 10} As part of his investigation, Tucker began looking through Harris’s social
media history and came upon a picture of Harris and two other men. Harris was pointing
a gun at the camera in the photograph and all three men were displaying what appeared to
be gang signs with their hands. Tucker took note of the picture because one of the men
was tall and slender and was wearing a beige-colored sweatshirt with a design on the
front. Tucker identified that it was the same sweatshirt that was seen in the surveillance
video from the Gas & Go. Tucker also remarked that the man in the video was tall and
slender and wore his pants the same way as the man in Harris’s social media photo.
Tucker identified that person as Hannah. Additionally, he noted that Hannah was left-
5.
handed. Hannah himself later admitted in a police interview that he was the person in
Harris’s social media photo.
{¶ 11} Hannah’s police interview was also played for the jury. In the interview,
Hannah stated that he was acquainted with Chicha Harris, but denied having a close
relationship with him or having any involvement in the events of January 21, 2022.
Instead, Hannah told Tucker that he was with his girlfriend that night. Tucker made
multiple attempts to contact the girlfriend using the numbers provided by Hannah but was
unsuccessful. Later in the investigation, Tucker obtained a different number for the
girlfriend and was able to make contact. The girlfriend agreed to meet Tucker at the
police station for an interview but never appeared.
{¶ 12} During the interview with Hannah, Tucker brought up that the sweatshirt
he was wearing in Harris’s social media photo looked identical to the one that was worn
by the tall, slender person in the surveillance video from the shooting. Hannah told
Tucker that it was a custom graphic sweatshirt that he ordered or printed to sell. Hannah
said that he sold over 100 of those sweatshirts. At trial, during Tucker’s cross-
examination, Tucker acknowledged that a portion of a fourth person’s arm could be seen
in Harris’s social media photo, and that person was wearing a shirt that was similarly
colored to Hannah’s custom graphic sweatshirt.
{¶ 13} Following the state’s presentation of the evidence, Hannah moved for an
acquittal pursuant to Crim.R. 29, which the trial court denied. Hannah then rested
6.
without calling any witnesses. The case was submitted to the jury, which returned with a
verdict of guilty on all counts.
{¶ 14} Prior to sentencing, Hannah moved the court for relief from registration on
the Violent Offender Registry under R.C. 2903.42. At the sentencing hearing, Hannah
expounded on the motion, arguing that he was not the principal offender because the
majority of the shots were fired from the front passenger’s seat and the driver’s seat,
while Hannah was alleged to be in the rear passenger’s seat. Upon consideration of the
parties’ arguments, the trial court denied the motion, reasoning that the video clearly
showed shots being fired from the rear of the blue Charger as it was leaving the gas
station. Thus, the court stated that it “does not find by a preponderance of the evidence
that the offender was not the principal offender. He was one of the principal offenders,
one of three.”
{¶ 15} The court then proceeded to merge the counts of felonious assault with
their corresponding counts of attempted murder, with the state electing to proceed to
sentencing on the counts of attempted murder. In total, the trial court ordered Hannah to
serve an indefinite prison term of 38 to 43 years.
II. Assignments of Error
{¶ 16} Hannah has timely appealed his judgment of conviction and presents three
assignments of error for review:
7.
1. The trial court abused its discretion by denying Appellant’s
motion for acquittal pursuant to Crim.R. 29, because the convictions herein
were not supported by sufficient evidence to submit to the jury.
2. Appellant’s convictions were not supported by the manifest
weight of the evidence because the State of Ohio did not prove the identity
of defendant/appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. The trial court abused its discretion when it found Appellant
subject to the Violent Offender Registry.
III. Analysis
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence
{¶ 17} In his first assignment of error, Hannah argues that the trial court erred
when it denied his Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal. “The denial of a motion for acquittal
under Crim.R. 29(A) ‘is governed by the same standard as the one for determining
whether a verdict is supported by sufficient evidence.’” State v. Haynes, 2020-Ohio-
1049, ¶ 24 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Tenace, 2006-Ohio-2417, ¶ 37. In reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence, “[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence
in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61
Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Sproles, 2023-Ohio-3403,
¶ 33 (6th Dist.).
8.
{¶ 18} Hannah argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove his identity as
one of the shooters beyond a reasonable doubt; he does not contest that the evidence was
insufficient to prove the elements of attempted murder or felonious assault. Specifically,
he notes that no one at the scene identified him or even gave a physical description such
as a tattoo, hair style, or facial feature. Further, none of the fingerprint or DNA evidence
recovered from the blue Charger was linked to him. Finally, the only evidence that tied
him to the crime was that a sweatshirt worn by one of the shooters appeared to be similar
to one that he was wearing in a non-contemporaneous social media post; a sweatshirt
design of which he stated he produced and sold over 100 copies.
{¶ 19} The state, on the other hand, argues that Hannah’s identity was proven
through his admission to wearing the sweatshirt in the social media photo that was then
seen in the video of the shooting, the similarity of Hannah’s build to the tall, thin build of
the shooter, and the testimony that Hannah was left-handed and the shooter was seen
using his phone with his left hand.
{¶ 20} Upon review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,
the evidence is sufficient to support Hannah’s convictions. The jury was presented with
evidence that Hannah was well-acquainted with Harris, who was the driver of the blue
Charger and one of the shooters. Notably, in the photo of Hannah and Harris together,
Harris is holding what appears to be an assault rifle and both are making the same sign
with their hands. This, coupled with the fact that the man in the video had a similar build
to Hannah and was wearing the same sweatshirt that Hannah was seen in while he was
9.
with Harris, albeit at a different time, is sufficient for a rational juror to conclude beyond
a reasonable doubt that Hannah was one of the shooters.
{¶ 21} Accordingly, Hannah’s convictions were not based on insufficient evidence
and his first assignment of error is not well-taken.
B. Manifest Weight
{¶ 22} In his second assignment of error, Hannah argues that his convictions are
against the manifest weight of the evidence. “Insufficiency and manifest weight are
distinct legal theories.” State v. Petitto, 2024-Ohio-186, ¶ 30 (6th Dist.), quoting State v.
Fenderson, 2022-Ohio-1973, ¶ 73 (6th Dist.). When reviewing a manifest weight claim,
“[t]he court, reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable
inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving
conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest
miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” State
v. Lang, 2011-Ohio-4215, ¶ 220, quoting State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387
(1997). “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.” Id.,quoting Thompkins at 387.
{¶ 23} Hannah makes two arguments under his manifest weight challenge. First,
he raises the same purported deficiencies in the evidence as to identity that he asserted in
his insufficiency argument, with the additional observation that in Harris’s social media
photo, a portion of another person’s arm can be seen next to Hannah, and that other
10.
person is wearing a shirt that is arguably similarly colored to Hannah’s. Hannah posits
that this other shirt, coupled with Hannah’s statements that he sold hundreds of the same
type of shirt, undermines the state’s identification of Hannah based on the sweatshirt
worn by the shooter.
{¶ 24} Upon review of the entire record, this is not the exceptional case in which
the jury clearly lost its way and the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction. As
noted above, Hannah knew Harris, was seen in a photograph with him displaying the
same signs while Harris was holding an assault rifle, was seen wearing the same
sweatshirt as the shooter in the surveillance video, and had a similar build to the shooter.
Further, the jury was not presented with any alternative explanation for where Hannah
was on the night of the shooting because despite Tucker’s best efforts, he was unable to
verify Hannah’s purported alibi and Hannah did not present any evidence to establish the
alibi himself. Finally, there is very little, if any, evidentiary value to the visibility of a
portion of a person’s elbow wearing a similarly colored shirt to Harris. It is much easier
to believe that the shooter seen wearing the same sweatshirt as Hannah was, in fact,
Hannah. His convictions, therefore, are not against the manifest weight of the evidence
as it pertains to his identity.
{¶ 25} Alternatively, Hannah argues that his convictions are against the manifest
weight of the evidence because he did not “purposely” or “knowingly” attempt to kill or
injure any of the victims other than the man in the yellow jacket. To be convicted of
attempted murder under R.C. 2903.02(A), the state must prove that Hannah attempted to
11.
“purposely cause the death of another.” To be convicted of felonious assault under R.C.
2903.11(A)(2), the state must prove that Hannah “knowingly . . . [c]ause[d] or
attempt[ed] to cause physical harm to another . . . by means of a deadly weapon or
dangerous ordnance.” Hannah states that, at most, he acted recklessly towards the other
victims.
{¶ 26} This case presents a textbook example of the doctrine of transferred intent,
which is a “general principle which permits liability for any crime involving a mens rea
of intent—be it arson, assault, theft, or trespass—where the actual object of the crime is
not the intended object.” State v. Dean, 2015-Ohio-4347, ¶ 142, quoting Dillon,
Transferred Intent: An Inquiry into the Nature of Criminal Culpability, 1
Buff.Crim.L.Rev. 501, 504 (1988).
{¶ 27} Applied here, Hannah purposely attempted to kill or knowingly attempted
to cause harm to the man wearing the yellow jacket when he fired his gun into the Gas &
Go. While the man wearing the yellow jacket was the intended object of the crime, he
along with the other five individuals were the actual objects of the crime with T.K. and
R.P. being struck by the gunfire while in their cars and the other four being in Hannah’s
line of fire as he shot into the Gas & Go. See Dean at ¶ 147 (doctrine of transferred
intent applied to the charges of attempted murder of four victims that were standing on
the porch during a drive by shooting in one incident and to one victim that was seated in a
car next to the target in a second incident). Therefore, Hannah’s intent transferred to the
12.
other five victims of his crimes such that his convictions are not against the manifest
weight of the evidence.
{¶ 28} Accordingly, Hannah’s second assignment of error is not well-taken.
C. Violent Offender Registry
{¶ 29} In his third and final assignment of error, Hannah argues that the trial court
erred when it denied his motion for relief from registration on the Violent Offender
Registry.
{¶ 30} R.C. 2903.41 through 2903.44, otherwise known as Sierah’s Law,
establishes a database for violent offenders. State v. Hubbard, 2021-Ohio-3710, ¶ 19.
“Sierah’s Law establishes a presumption that a violent offender must enroll in the
database in person, reenroll annually in person, and provide notice of any change of
address for ten years after the offender’s initial enrollment.” Id. at ¶ 22, citing R.C.
2903.42(A) and 2903.43(D)(1). R.C. 2903.42(A)(4) provides that an offender may rebut
this presumption by filing a motion and proving to the court by a preponderance of the
evidence that “the offender was not the principal offender in the commission of the
offense that classifies the person a violent offender.”
{¶ 31} A trial court’s denial of a motion to be excused from enrolling in the
violent offender database is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Misch, 2021-
Ohio-756, ¶ 17 (6th Dist.). An abuse of discretion connotes that the trial court’s attitude
is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157,
(1980); State v. Whitfield, 2024-Ohio-187, ¶ 10 (6th Dist.).
13.
{¶ 32} In support of his assignment of error, Hannah argues that he was not the
principal offender because he was not the driver of the blue Charger and because the
majority of the shots arguably came from the front seat. Here, however, the offenses of
attempted murder were committed through Hannah’s conduct in firing his gun from the
rear seat of the car into the Gas & Go. Thus, although others were also firing, Hannah
was the principal offender “in the commission of the offense that classifies the person a
violent offender.” R.C. 2903.42(A)(4).
{¶ 33} This case is similar to State v. Morgan, 2020-Ohio-3955 (9th Dist.), in
which the Ninth District upheld the trial court’s finding that Morgan did not rebut the
presumption that he was the principal offender. In Morgan, a car of four teenagers drove
to meet Morgan and another individual named Smith. Id. at ¶ 2. When Morgan and
Smith approached the driver’s side of the car with guns drawn, the driver of the car
attempted to drive away, at which point Morgan and Smith fired shots into the car, hitting
and killing one of the passengers. Id. For these actions, Morgan ultimately pleaded no
contest to one count of murder. Id. at ¶ 5.
{¶ 34} Prior to sentencing, Morgan filed a motion to rebut the presumption that he
should be classified as a violent offender, which the trial court denied. On appeal, the
Ninth District held that the trial court did not err when it found that Morgan did not meet
his burden to rebut the presumption. Id. at ¶ 41. It reasoned that the presentence
investigation summary indicated that Morgan and Smith both had weapons and both shot
at the vehicle, noting that witnesses reported hearing the sound of two different guns fire
14.
six or seven shots at the car. Id. Thus, the court concluded that the presentence
investigation report demonstrated that Morgan was the principal offender. Id.
{¶ 35} Similarly, in this case Hannah was one of three individuals that fired into
the Gas & Go. As shown in the surveillance video, multiple muzzle flashes can be seen
coming from the back seat of the blue Charger where Hannah was sitting. The trial court
did not abuse its discretion when it found that Hannah had not rebutted the presumption
that he was the principal offender.
{¶ 36} Accordingly, Hannah’s third assignment of error is not well-taken.
IV. Conclusion
{¶ 37} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed. Hannah is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to
App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Christine E. Mayle, J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, J.
____________________________
Charles E. Sulek, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
____________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
15.