State v. Terrion , 2011 Ohio 3800 ( 2011 )

[Cite as State v. Terrion, 2011-Ohio-3800.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 25368
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
MATTHEW R. TERRION COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. CR 09 05 1488
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: August 3, 2011
MOORE, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Matthew R. Terrion, appeals from the judgment of the Summit County
Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} By April of 2009, the relationship between Terrion and his wife, Cherilyn
Terrion, had become rocky. When Mr. and Mrs. Terrion moved back to Ohio from Las Vegas,
they purchased a home in Lakewood. Mr. Terrion began a business designing parts for Jeep
Wranglers. That business failed and, with the added debt from the Lakewood home, the Terrions
were forced to file for bankruptcy in October 2008. Mrs. Terrion began working outside the
home while Mr. Terrion served as a stay-at-home dad for their two children. Around the time of
the bankruptcy, the couple was forced to move out of the Lakewood home and into Mr. Terrion’s
parents’ house. This created a strain on the marriage. The two began seeing a marriage
counselor. Around April of 2009, Mrs. Terrion began spending more time outside the home.
2
Mr. Terrion became suspicious that she was having an affair. He installed a keylogger program
on her computer and discovered her MySpace and Facebook accounts, as well as a Yahoo!
personal ad. The personal ad included such statements as “I am attracted to men that can take
care of themselves,” “a man’s-man type of guy, if that helps the description,” “I don’t want to
hold your hand and let you cry. I want to be busy holding other things for you,” and “I just don’t
want a crybaby that needs his momma every five minutes.” Her marital status was set as
separated and living alone. Mr. Terrion confronted her about it and she said it was old and
nothing for him to worry about. On April 1, 2009, he confronted her and asked if she was having
an affair. In response, she told him she wanted out of the marriage.
{¶3} Around April 8, 2009, Mrs. Terrion moved into her own apartment in Twinsburg.
On April 10, 2009, the Terrions agreed to amicably divorce. However, Mr. Terrion read her
lawyer’s resolution of the marriage and refused to sign the documents. On April, 13, 2009, she
filed for divorce. Mr. Terrion began taking the prescription medication Zoloft. On April 19,
2009, he spoke with her on the phone and read to her a letter that he had typed. In response, she
agreed to call off the divorce but wanted to remain in her apartment. Mr. Terrion was ecstatic.
Things continued to go well and, on April 27, 2009, Mrs. Terrion dismissed the divorce action.
On April 29, 2009, Mr. Terrion placed a pistol and silencer in a box with shoes and took it to her
apartment. He testified that he was going to give her the gun and silencer as a gift because it was
his favorite gun and the gesture would let her know that she was more important to him than his
gun collection. After eating dinner with Mrs. Terrion he bought her a television at Walmart and
installed it at her apartment. Afterwards, he used the bathroom, blew his nose and put the tissue
in the trash, where he saw wadded up toilet paper and became furious. At trial on cross-
3
examination Mr. Terrion admitted that he was rooting around in her trash can because he still did
not trust her. Inside the toilet paper he found a condom wrapper.
{¶4} At trial, Mr. Terrion explained that when they had used condoms in the past, Mrs.
Terrion would wad them up in toilet paper before discarding them. He immediately knew that
the reconciliation was a lie and that she had been with someone else. He returned to his truck
and retrieved the box with the gun and silencer and set it on the bed. He showed her the condom
wrapper and asked her what it was. She told him it was none of his business. He was furious
and she was acting defensive. Eventually she told him to leave.
{¶5} He grabbed the gun out of the box; he testified that he just wanted to scare her.
He further testified that she grabbed it and it fired. He admitted that he shot her pointblank in the
top of the head and killed her.
{¶6} Mr. Terrion then attempted to delay the investigation by taking the shell casing,
returning to his parents’ home, cleaning himself and the weapon, removing the barrel that
attaches to the silencer and reattaching the factory barrel. He also hid the shell casing, keys that
he took from Mrs. Terrion’s apartment, some ammunition, and the condom wrapper in plastic
bags in the attic. When his parents left for work the next day, Mr. Terrion, a former police
officer, put on a bullet-proof vest, barricaded the doors and windows, and positioned numerous
firearms throughout the house in preparation for a standoff. He then ingested any pills that he
could find. Eventually, he was arrested without further violence.
{¶7} On May 19, 2009, the Summit County Grand Jury indicted Terrion on one count
of murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A), a special felony, a firearm specification to that count,
a criminal forfeiture specification to that count, and a firearm muffler or silencer specification to
that count, one count of murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B), a special felony, also with
4
firearm, criminal forfeiture, and silencer specifications, one count of tampering with evidence in
violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), a felony of the third degree, and one count of domestic violence
in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a misdemeanor of the first degree.
{¶8} The charges were tried to a jury from March 9, 2010, through March 12, 2010.
On March 12, 2010, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on each count, including the attendant
specifications. The court sentenced Mr. Terrion to six years of incarceration on the silencer
specification to the murder count under R.C. 2903.02(A), as well as 15 years to life on the
murder count under R.C. 2903.02(A). The court merged the additional firearm specification to
this count. The court also merged the second murder charge and its specifications. The court
further sentenced Terrion to five years of incarceration on the tampering with evidence
conviction and 6 months of incarceration on the domestic violence conviction. The court
ordered that the sentence on the silencer specification be served first and consecutively to the
sentence for murder. The court further ordered that the sentences for tampering with evidence
and domestic violence be served concurrently with each other and concurrently with the murder
sentence, yielding an aggregate sentence of 21 years to life imprisonment.
{¶9} Mr. Terrion timely filed a notice of appeal. He raises two assignments of error for
our review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OF
[TERRION] IN DENYING HIS REQUESTS FOR SPECIFIC JURY
INSTRUCTIONS ON INFERIOR DEGREE OFFENSES TO MURDER.”
{¶10} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Terrion contends that the trial court erred in
denying his request for a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter. We do not agree.
5
{¶11} Voluntary manslaughter is not a lesser-included offense of murder. State v. Shane
(1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 630, 632. This is so because “its elements are * * * contained within the
indicted offense, except for one or more additional mitigating elements * * *.” State v. Deem
(1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 205, 209. Instead, it is an inferior degree of murder. Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d
at 632. Voluntary manslaughter, as defined in R.C. 2903.03(A), “permits a defendant to mitigate
a charge of * * * murder to manslaughter if the defendant establishes the mitigating
circumstances of sudden passion or a sudden fit of rage in response to serious provocation by the
victim sufficient to incite the defendant to use deadly force.” State v. Benge (1996), 75 Ohio
St.3d 136, 140.
{¶12} “Even though voluntary manslaughter is not a lesser included offense of murder,
the test for whether a judge should give a jury an instruction on voluntary manslaughter when a
defendant is charged with murder is the same test to be applied as when an instruction on a lesser
included offense is sought.” Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d at 632, citing State v. Tyler (1990), 50 Ohio
St.3d 24, 37. That is, the instruction is warranted if “the evidence presented at trial would
reasonably support both an acquittal on the crime charged and a conviction on the lesser-
included offense.” State v. Carter (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 593, 600.
{¶13} Additionally, before providing a voluntary manslaughter instruction, the trial
court must make a determination that “evidence of reasonably sufficient provocation occasioned
by the victim has been presented to warrant such an instruction.” Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d at
paragraph one of the syllabus. The inquiry into the mitigating circumstances consists of both
objective and subjective components. Id. at 634. The objective component determines whether
the provocation in a given case “is reasonably sufficient to bring on sudden passion or a sudden
fit of rage[.]” Id. Reasonably sufficient provocation is provocation “sufficient to arouse the
6
passions of an ordinary person beyond the power of his or her control.” Id. at 635. If the
objective standard is met, the subjective component involves an inquiry into the “emotional and
mental state of the defendant and the conditions and circumstances that surrounded him at the
time” to determine if he was in fact provoked. (Internal citation omitted.) Id. at 634. If the
objective component is not met then the trial court need not conduct a subjective inquiry and a
voluntary manslaughter instruction is inappropriate. Id. In evaluating these components, “‘[t]he
trial judge should evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, without
weighing the persuasiveness of the evidence[,]’ although the trial court still decides the issue as a
matter of law.” State v. Williams, 9th Dist. No. 24169, 2009-Ohio-3162, at ¶14, quoting Shane,
63 Ohio St.3d at 637.
{¶14} In Shane, supra, the Supreme Court of Ohio identified several situations that are
particularly appropriate for voluntary manslaughter instructions, including “assault and battery,
mutual combat, illegal arrest and discovering a spouse in the act of adultery[.]” Id. at 635. The
Shane Court then declined to state a bright-line rule under which words alone could never cause
sufficient provocation but wrote that they would not reasonably provoke deadly force in most
situations. Id. at 637.
{¶15} The Shane Court further examined the effect of Shane’s fiancée telling him of her
sexual infidelity. Id. at 638. At the time of the crime, Shane awakened his fiancée and
repeatedly asked her questions in an attempt to gain a confession. Id. at 637. She denied his
accusations and he accused her of lying. Id. Eventually she admitted her infidelity and he lost
control. Id. He murdered her via strangulation, a process that expert testimony described as
requiring between one and five minutes to complete. Id. The Court distinguished this from a
gunshot that could occur quickly and be immediately regretted. Id. The Court held that, under
7
the objective standard, no reasonable person would have been sufficiently provoked by the
victim’s actions. Id.
{¶16} This Court has previously addressed the appropriateness of a voluntary
manslaughter instruction under stronger provocation than Mr. Terrion experienced. In State v.
Nelson (June 13, 2001), 9th Dist. No. 20365, Nelson’s wife informed him that she was having an
affair with a co-worker. Id. at *2. The co-worker then bragged to Nelson that he slept with his
wife “‘and you won’t forget it and neither will she.’” Id. The next day, Nelson went to the co-
worker’s workplace, killed him with a shotgun, and scalped him. Id. Noting that timing is
irrelevant to the issue of sufficient provocation, the panel assessed only “whether the upsetting
event presented a ‘reasonably sufficient provocation,’ to cause the death of another.” Id., citing
Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d at 634. Concluding that mere disclosure of adultery did not “partially
excuse” the killing of her lover, this Court affirmed the trial court’s refusal to give a voluntary
manslaughter instruction. Nelson, 9th Dist. No. 20365, at *2.
{¶17} This case is analogous to Shane in that Mr. Terrion did not trust, in this case, his
wife, and sought to confirm that she was cheating on him. Before interrogating Mrs. Terrion, as
Shane did with his fiancée, Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d at 637, Mr. Terrion installed a keylogger
program on her computer, discovered her personal ad, and admitted that on the night of her
murder he discovered the condom wrapper while rooting through her trash because he did not
trust her. Rather than admit infidelity, Mrs. Terrion told him that it was none of his business and
asked him to leave. Like Shane, Mr. Terrion created much of his own anger by spying on Mrs.
Terrion and then rooting through her trash. Id. Additionally, the Nelson case involved much
more egregious action on the part of the victim. Nelson, 9th Dist. No. 20365, at *2. In that case,
the victim specifically taunted the defendant about his wife’s infidelity. Id. Nonetheless, this
8
Court held that Nelson was not entitled to a voluntary manslaughter instruction because the
alleged remarks, even if true, did not constitute reasonably sufficient provocation. Id. Even if
we accept Mr. Terrion’s argument that finding a condom wrapper is closer to witnessing one’s
spouse in the act of adultery than it is to mere words, it is only incrementally so. Moreover, the
fact that the condom wrapper was hidden in toilet paper in a trash can cannot reasonably be
considered a confession. On the facts of this case, Mrs. Terrion’s conduct was to tell her
husband that her activities were none of his business and that he should leave her apartment.
This conduct was insufficient to justify a voluntary manslaughter jury instruction. Accordingly,
the trial court did not err when it determined as a matter of law that Mr. Terrion was not entitled
to a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter due to insufficient provocation on the part of the
victim. Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d at 637; Nelson, 9th Dist. No. 20365, at *2.
{¶18} Mr. Terrion’s first assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN VIOLATION OF [TERRION’S]
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS IN DENYING HIM THE
RIGHT TO PRESENT THE TESTIMONY OF ANDREW GOSELIN, AND IN
DENYING [HIS] MOTION FOR MISTRIAL AS A RESULT.”
{¶19} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Terrion contends that the trial court erred
in violation of his right to due process in denying him the right to present the testimony of
Andrew Goselin, and in denying his resulting motion for mistrial. We do not agree.
{¶20} “Due process requires only ‘that criminal defendants be afforded a meaningful
opportunity to present a complete defense.’” State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118, 2008-Ohio-
3426, at ¶46, quoting California v. Trombetta (1984), 467 U.S. 479, 485. The right to due
process does not, however, provide defendants with the right to present evidence that is
9
otherwise inadmissible under the rules of evidence. Id., citing Taylor v. Illinois (1988), 484 U.S.
400, 410.
A. Relevancy
{¶21} “The issue of whether testimony is relevant or irrelevant, confusing or misleading,
is best decided by the trial judge who is in a significantly better position to analyze the impact of
the evidence on the jury.” City of Columbus v. Taylor (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 162, 164. A
determination regarding admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court.
Id. Under the abuse of discretion standard, we must determine whether the trial court’s decision
was arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d
217, 219. When applying the abuse of discretion standard, this Court may not substitute its
judgment for that of the trial court. Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621.
{¶22} Mr. Terrion attempted to present the testimony of Andrew Goselin, who, had he
been allowed to testify, would have stated that, “He was at the [wife’s] house, that he had a
Durex condom, that he left the wrapper, he believes either on the floor or on the bedspread when
he left. That he took the actual condom with him.” After arguments from counsel for each side,
the trial court ruled that “this would be duplicative, prejudicial, it is not relevant, it is not
material, and the Court, if that’s the proffered basis, the Court will, in the interests of justice,
preclude this witness from testifying.” The trial court further pointed out that, “It is not relevant
whether or not, in fact, she had sex with someone and that was, as I said, his condom or Joe
Schmo’s condom. It doesn’t matter who the owner was. It was what Matthew Terrion knew
himself, his state of mind, what he knew, not what subsequently was developed in evidence.”
{¶23} The trial court was correct in its assessment. Under Evid.R. 401, relevant
evidence is “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of
10
consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be
without the evidence.” Under Evid.R. 402, evidence that is not relevant is inadmissible. The
defense attempted to call Mr. Goselin after Mr. Terrion testified. Mr. Terrion’s testimony did
not indicate that he had any knowledge regarding the identity of Mrs. Terrion’s paramour, nor
did his testimony indicate that he had knowledge of actual infidelity. Based on his understanding
of Mrs. Terrion’s behavior related to condom use he could reasonably conclude that she engaged
in sexual activity with another man. The identity of the man or confirmation of actual sexual
activity were each irrelevant to Mr. Terrion’s state of mind at the time because he did not have
knowledge of anything beyond the existence of the condom wrapper. Because Mr. Terrion only
knew of the condom wrapper, Mr. Goselin’s proffered testimony that he engaged in sexual
activity with the victim would not make Mr. Terrion’s knowledge of actual infidelity more or
less probable at the time he committed the crime. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in ruling that Mr. Goselin’s testimony was irrelevant and inadmissible. Evid.R. 401;
Taylor, 39 Ohio St.3d at 164.
B. Denial of Mistrial
{¶24} Mr. Terrion moved for a mistrial as a result of the trial court’s exclusion of Mr.
Goselin’s proffered testimony. “The grant or denial of a mistrial lies within the sound discretion
of the trial court. However, a trial court need not declare a mistrial unless the ends of justice so
require and a fair trial is no longer possible.” (Quotation and citation omitted.) State v. Trimble,
122 Ohio St.3d 297, 2009-Ohio-2961, at ¶173. Having determined that the trial court did not err
in ruling that Mr. Goselin’s testimony was inadmissible, the motion for mistrial predicated on
that determination was properly overruled. Further, this ruling did not violate Mr. Terrion’s due
11
process rights because he had no right to present testimony otherwise barred by the rules of
evidence. Hale at ¶46, citing Taylor, 484 U.S. at 410.
{¶25} Mr. Terrion’s second assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶26} Mr. Terrion’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
CARLA MOORE
FOR THE COURT
12
CARR, P. J.
WHITMORE, J.
CONCUR
APPEARANCES:
JEFFREY N. JAMES, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.