State v. Bridges , 2014 Ohio 4570 ( 2014 )

[Cite as State v. Bridges, 2014-Ohio-4570.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 100805
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
ANDREY BRIDGES
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-13-574201-A
BEFORE: Boyle, A.J., Celebrezze, J., and Jones, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 16, 2014
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
David L. Doughten
David L. Doughten Co., L.P.A.
4403 St. Clair Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44103
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: John Patrick Colan
Brian R. Radigan
Assistant County Prosecutors
Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
MARY J. BOYLE, A.J.:
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Andrey Bridges, appeals his convictions for murder,
felonious assault, tampering with evidence, and abuse of a corpse. He raises the
following three assignments of error for our review:
1. The convictions of murder and felonious assault are against the manifest
weight of the evidence.
2. The evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of tampering with
evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A).
3. The evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of offenses against a
human corps[e] in violation of R.C. 2927.01(B).
{¶2} Finding no merit to his appeal, we affirm.
Procedural History and Facts
{¶3} In May 2013, Bridges was indicted on six counts: aggravated murder in
violation of R.C. 2903.01(A), murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B), felonious assault in
violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(2),
tampering with evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), and abuse of a corpse in
violation of R.C. 2927.01(B). He pleaded not guilty to all charges. The following facts
were presented to a jury.
{¶4} On April 17, 2013, the body of Carl Acoff, Jr. was found in a pond behind
an apartment located at 7168 McKenzie Road, in Olmsted Township. Jeffrey Bland,
who was living at the McKenzie Road apartment in April 2013, testified that he first
noticed something floating in the pond the day before the body was found. Bland
thought it looked like clothes floating in the pond, which he explained would be normal
because there were always various items and debris floating in the pond. The next day,
however, the object was closer to shore. Bland said that the object looked like a
mannequin because he thought he could see legs. Bland called his boss, Paul Schmitt, to
come over to look at it. After Schmitt arrived, Bland threw a stick at the object. When
he did, “oils came out of the crotch area.” Bland and Schmitt called the police at that
point.
{¶5} Bland explained that he had been living in the apartment since sometime in
January or February 2013. The apartment, however, was actually leased by Jason
Quinones. Quinones kept all of his furniture and personal things at the apartment, but
stayed with his girlfriend, Irene, in Columbia Station. Quinones’s apartment was one of
two apartments in the building. The apartments were located on the second floor of the
building, above a garage. The second apartment was vacant and had been for a long
time.
{¶6} Gerald Krug testified that his family owned the apartment building located
at 7168 McKenzie Road. He stated that he rented the apartment to Quinones. He knew
that Quinones let others stay there as well. Krug said that Quinones still came to the
apartment frequently.
{¶7} Police and special dive teams recovered Acoff’s body from the pond.
Acoff’s body had two black and orange ropes tied around it — one around his chest and
one around his pelvis. The ropes around Acoff’s body were attached to two yellow
ropes that were also removed from the pond; one had a metal pipe attached to it and one
had a rock or a “cinder block” attached to it.
{¶8} Police collected blood samples from the stairwell leading from the garage to
the apartment, all throughout the apartment, and the garage. Police also found rope in
the garage similar to what was wrapped around the victim’s body, and tarps in the garage
with blood stains on them.
{¶9} Dr. Andrea Wiens, an expert in forensic pathology, performed the autopsy
on Acoff’s body. Dr. Wiens testified that Acoff’s body could have been placed in the
pond anytime between December 2012 and March 2013. Acoff had at least 28 “cutting
wounds” to his neck and head areas, and many other “cutting wounds” to his chest and
arms. Acoff also had a fracture to his hyoid bone in his neck that was likely caused by
some kind of compression around the neck or manual strangulation. Dr. Wiens
concluded that Acoff’s “cause of death was homicidal violence with hyoid fracture and
multiple sharp force injuries of skin, soft tissues and viscera.”
{¶10} When Acoff’s body was pulled from the pond, he was not wearing clothing
from his waist down. Acoff was wearing a black jacket, a pink tank top, and three bras;
one of the bras had “stuffing” inside of it.
{¶11} Martha Acoff, the victim’s mother, testified that she first learned that her
son dressed as a woman in 2010. She stated that she was aware that her son went by the
names Cemia Dove or Cee Cee. Martha stated that her son lived with her at 911 Rondel
Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio until he went missing.
{¶12} Nicole Cantie, the victim’s cousin, testified that she was very close to the
victim, but had not seen him much after 2010 when he started dressing “feminine.”
Cantie stated that she was friends with the victim on Facebook. She saw photos that the
victim posted of himself dressed “in feminine clothes.” Cantie later became aware (after
Acoff’s body was found) that the victim was prostituting himself on a social website
called Photobucket.
{¶13} Cantie testified that the last time she saw the victim was right before
Christmas 2012. She realized that he might be missing around the second or third week
of January. She filed a missing persons report on March 29, 2013. She told police at
that time that the victim was transgender. She also told police that the last time anyone
had heard from Acoff was on January 3, 2013, when Cantie’s daughter, who was also
very close to him, instant messaged him through Facebook.
{¶14} On cross-examination, Cantie agreed that she later learned that there was a
Facebook post from the victim’s account on January 22, 2013, that said “Good night
world.”
{¶15} The day after Acoff’s body was discovered in the pond, police found a piece
of mail on the ground near the mailbox at 7168 McKenzie Road. The mail was from
MetroHealth and addressed to Bridges at that address. It was the first police learned of
Bridges’s name. Police obtained a search warrant to open the mail. It was a bill from
MetroHealth indicating that Bridges had gone to the hospital on January 6, 2013.
{¶16} Matthew Vanyo, a lieutenant for Olmsted Township Police Department,
talked to neighbors who lived near the McKenzie Road apartment. Lieutenant Vanyo
learned that a taxicab had “come and gone” to the apartment. He and a detective from
the Olmsted Township Police Department called every cab company in the greater
Cleveland area looking for “fares that may have gone to the residence in question on
McKenzie Road.”
{¶17} Timothy Lewis, general manager of Ace Taxi Service in Cleveland, Ohio,
testified that after he was contacted by the Olmsted Township Police Department, he
found through Ace’s GPS tracking system that one of Ace’s taxicabs had been to 7168
McKenzie Road twice on the morning of January 5, 2013. Lewis was also able to
recover the telephone request information for that date as well. Lewis was able to
determine that Ace “had a call requesting service from a specific address of 911 Rondel
Road in Cleveland, Ohio, and they were looking to be delivered to 7168 McKenzie Road
in Olmsted Township.” The request came from the phone number 216-645-5520 (that
was later determined to be Bridges’s cell phone). There were three call requests made
that morning, all from the same phone number, made within 20 minutes of each other.
{¶18} Based on the GPS tracking system, Lewis was able to determine that the
Ace taxi 2146 arrived at 7168 McKenzie Road at approximately 9:20 a.m. on the morning
of January 5, 2013, and then “moved southbound on McKenzie to a location nearby on
Cook Road and stayed for no more than a couple minutes and was back at the destination
of 7168, about ten minutes later at about 9:33 or so.”
{¶19} Lewis identified the three calls made from the phone number 216-645-5520,
made at 7:31 a.m., 8:06 a.m., and 9:23 a.m. The calls were played in court. In the first
call, the caller requested service from 911 Rondel Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio to 7168
McKenzie Road, for one passenger, a female named “Shea.” In the first call, the caller
also asked what that fare would be. In the second call, the caller wanted to know when
the taxi would arrive at 911 Rondel Avenue. In the third call, made after the taxi arrived
at 7168 McKenzie Road, the caller wanted to know again what the fare was from Rondel
Avenue to McKenzie Road.
{¶20} Abdifatah Mohamoud testified that he is a self-employed contractor for Ace
Taxi Service. Mohamoud picked up one person on Rondel Avenue on January 5, 2013;
he was not sure if the person was a man or a woman. Mohamoud recalled that when he
got to the McKenzie Road address, he picked up a man, took the two of them to a
convenience store to get change, and then the man, who had been waiting at the 7168
McKenzie Road address, paid the cab fare with cash.
{¶21} Mohamoud testified that in May 2013, he identified the victim in a photo
array, dressed as a woman, as the person he picked up on Rondel Avenue. Mohamoud
also chose Bridges out of a photo array as the man who was waiting at the McKenzie
Road address and who paid for the cab fare. Mohamoud explained that he recognized
Acoff’s and Bridges’s faces, but he was not 100 percent sure if it was from January 5,
2013.
{¶22} Jason Quinones testified that he lived in Columbia Station with his
girlfriend, Irene. He stated that he had been with Irene for six years. Quinones said that
he had been renting an apartment from Gerard Krug at 7168 MacKenzie Road in Olmsted
Township for almost three years, since November 2010. Quinones explained that
Bridges moved into Quinones’s apartment “right after the 4th of July,” in 2012.
Quinones allowed Bridges to move in because he was at Irene’s all the time. Quinones
made Bridges pay electric and gas, but not rent. Bridges lived there until January 2013.
Quinones said that he would still go to his apartment to get his mail, pay his bills, and
check on his dog, but he was mostly at Irene’s.
{¶23} Quinones learned on April 17, 2013, that a body had been found in the pond
behind his apartment. Quinones went to the police immediately and told them that he
might know something about the murder.
{¶24} By looking at his cell phone, Quinones was able to tell police that he had
visitation with his daughter during the weekend of January 4, 5, and 6, 2013. Quinones
remembered that because it was his sister’s birthday and he and Irene could not make the
party because he had his daughter that weekend. Quinones testified that on Friday,
January 4, 2013, he was at Irene’s with his daughter, Irene’s two grandchildren, Irene’s
two sons and their girlfriends, and Irene’s friend, Bill King. Quinones said that he got up
on Saturday, January 5 around 9:00 a.m. Quinones drove to Check Smart to pay his gas
and electric bill. King came with him. Quinones then decided to drive “past his
apartment” to get money from Bridges that Bridges owed him for the gas and electric
bills.
{¶25} Quinones testified that when they pulled into the driveway at the apartment,
Bridges was standing in the front yard, right next to the driveway, “with a fire going” in
Quinones’s “fire ring.” Quinones said that Bridges was wearing a T-shirt and jeans.
Quinones wondered what Bridges was doing standing outside in the “freezing cold with a
T-shirt and a fire going.” Quinones could see that Bridges was burning carpet padding
and “a little bit of jean material.”
{¶26} Quinones said that Bridges’s “eyes looked crazy,” and Bridges’s hand “was
gushing blood everywhere.” Quinones identified a cell phone photo taken by King on
that morning of Bridges standing by the fire ring in his T-shirt. Quinones said that the
photo was an accurate depiction of that morning. Quinones did not know that King had
taken the photo until later, but he knew of it before Acoff’s body was found.
{¶27} Quinones testified that when he tried to go in his apartment, Bridges did not
want him to. Bridges told Quinones that “something had happened, and he would take
care of it.” Bridges asked Quinones to leave. But Quinones went inside of his
apartment. Quinones testified that blood was “all the way up the steps.” Quinones said
that his door had been kicked in, and his table had been “flipped over.” Quinones saw a
“heater type thing” that had blood all over it. There was blood all over the kitchen floor
and counters. Quinones said that someone had tried to clean the blood off of the
counters because it was smeared.
{¶28} Quinones asked Bridges what happened. Bridges gave Quinones “three
different answers real fast.” First, Bridges told Quinones that Quinones’s friends had
come looking for Quinones and “jumped him.” Then, Bridges told him that “it was
something that he got into with his friends,” and that he “beat the dudes up” and handled
it. Quinones could not remember what the third thing was. Quinones said that he was
“so mad at that point,” and just told Bridges to clean up his mess and move out of the
apartment.
{¶29} Quinones noticed that day that one of his rugs was missing. Later,
Quinones learned that a “whole bunch of stuff” was missing from his apartment,
including his bed, his comforters, his sheets, pillow, pillow cases, decorative towels from
his bathroom, a long runner rug, a heater, a piece of rug that was outside his front door,
and a “thing” that goes “underneath your door to stop the cold air from going in and out.”
{¶30} Before he left on January 5, 2013, Quinones asked Bridges for the money
that he owed him. Bridges pulled a couple hundred dollar bills out of his pocket. They
were crumpled up and saturated with blood.
{¶31} Quinones testified that within the next day or two, Bridges came to Irene’s.
Bridges wanted to explain to Quinones what had happened. Bridges told Quinones that
he had arrived at the apartment, and “there was a car there waiting for him with two guys
in it.” Bridges told him that he went in the garage and “chilled” with the two guys for a
bit. Bridges then said that “shit got out of hand.” Bridges thought that one of the men
had a weapon, so Bridges took off running up the stairs to the apartment. Bridges pulled
the table in front of the door, but one of the men kicked the door in and knocked the table
over. The man came into the apartment; he had a knife and tried to attack Bridges.
Bridges told Quinones that is how his hand had been cut. Bridges said that he picked up
“the radiator” and started “beating the guy with the radiator.” The man then left.
Bridges said the second man never touched him.
{¶32} Quinones said that he went over to his apartment the day after seeing
Bridges at the fire ring, but before Bridges came to Irene’s to tell him what happened.
Quinones went to the apartment because he knew that Bridges had left and because
Quinones thought it had been “a little fishy because of what [he] had walked into.”
Quinones said that there was snow on the ground. Quinones saw a trail of blood drops
and footprints on a trail around the pond. Quinones believed that the footprints were
Bridges and the blood drops were from Bridges’s cut hand because all the blood drops
were on one side of the footprints, and then on the way back, the blood drops were on the
opposite side of the footprints. Quinones followed the footprints, and then they just
stopped. Bridges told him on the phone that he thought that “somebody must have killed
a deer in the backyard because there was blood everywhere.”
{¶33} Quinones never called the police because he did not think it was as serious
“as it ended up being.” He believed Bridges “story” that he was attacked. Bridges even
told Quinones and Quinones’s brother-in-law that he had been arrested for felonious
assault for beating that man who came into the apartment. Bridges told Quinones that
criminal case was why Bridges did not have the money to pay him the rest of the money
that he owed Quinones.
{¶34} Quinones’s girlfriend, Irene, testified that she lived in Columbia Station
with her three children and her boyfriend, Quinones. She said that Quinones stays with
her “99 percent of the time.” In January 2013, Bill King was also living with Irene. He
was an old friend who she was helping get “back on his feet.”
{¶35} Irene testified that she recalled the weekend of January 3, 4, and 5, 2013,
because Quinones’s sister celebrated her birthday and Irene remembered that they could
not go to the party because Quinones had his daughter that weekend. She said that they
played cards until 1:00 a.m. on Friday night. On Saturday, January 5, 2013, she recalled
Quinones and King leaving sometime between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m.
{¶36} Candice Perachhio testified that she used to date Irene’s son. Perachhio
stated that she dated Irene’s son for about two-and-a-half years, but she had not spoken to
him or Irene since they broke up. Perachhio recalled the night of January 4, 2013, and
the morning of January 5, 2013. She essentially corroborated Quinones’s and Irene’s
testimony.
{¶37} George William King (who went by “Bill”) testified that he had known
Irene since 1987. He used to work with Irene’s ex-husband. When he first met
Quinones, he said it was weird, but he later became friends with Quinones. King had a
felony record, mostly felonious assault cases. He explained that he had been to prison
several times. He was last released from prison on September 25, 2009.
{¶38} King testified that on January 5, 2013, he was living at Irene’s house. He
recalled leaving Irene’s house with Quinones that morning. King said that Quinones told
him that he had to pay some utility bills and check on his dog at his apartment in Olmsted
Township. King said that they arrived at Quinones’s apartment around 12:00 p.m. He
explained that when they pulled in the driveway, they saw Bridges standing outside, next
to a fire, in a T-shirt. He thought that Bridges must be crazy, because it was 19 degrees
outside, with a “20 knot wind.” King said that he did not get out of the car, but as soon
as the car door opened, he could smell “burning tires” or plastic, not wood.
{¶39} King saw Quinones go inside of his apartment. King said that Quinones
came out seven or eight minutes later, looking pale as a ghost. Quinones immediately
told King what he saw. King stated that he took the photo of Bridges standing by the fire
pit after Quinones came back to the car and told him what he saw in his apartment. But
King said that he had been taking random photos with his cell phone that weekend
because he discovered a new app on his phone.
{¶40} King identified the photo that he took that morning of Bridges standing by
the fire pit in his T-shirt. After the body was found in the pond, police contacted King.
King sent the photo to the police and gave a statement about what he saw on January 5,
2013.
{¶41} David Roose, a detective for the city of Euclid, testified that he specializes
in digital evidence. Detective Roose testified that he examined King’s cell phone. He
obtained the photo off of King’s phone that King took of Bridges standing by the fire pit.
The date of the photo was January 5, 2013, and the timestamp was 15:27 hours and 45
seconds. Detective Roose explained that the date and time may not be accurate because
there are many variables that can affect time, including user modification. Detective
Roose opined, however, that he did not think that this cell phone had been modified by
the user. Detective Roose also verified that King had taken random photos that weekend
as he had testified to.
{¶42} Christine Ross, senior computer intelligence analyst for the state of Ohio
Bureau of Criminal Investigations, testified that she was contacted by Olmsted Township
police regarding 12 cell phone numbers for her to analyze associated with five
individuals: Carl Acoff, Andrey Bridges, Anthony Miller, Jason Quinones, and Jeffrey
Bland. Ross stated that police gave her three numbers for Acoff, six numbers for Andrey
Bridges, and three numbers for the other three individuals. She analyzed the time frame
of January 5, 2013, from 7:00 a.m. until 10:24 p.m.
{¶43} Ross found that several calls were made between Acoff and Bridges on
January 5, 2013. The first call was made from Bridges to Acoff at 7:10 a.m., lasting for
seven minutes and 45 seconds. The second call, again from Bridges to Acoff, occurred
at 7:19 a.m., for five minutes and seven seconds. Bridges called Acoff again at 7:55
a.m., and talked for 11 minutes. Bridges called Acoff again at 8:13 a.m., lasting for one
minute and three seconds. At 8:38 a.m., Acoff called Bridges; the call lasted 38 seconds.
Acoff called Bridges again at 8:43 a.m., for 26 seconds. At 8:43 a.m., Bridges called
Acoff for 37 seconds. At 9:07 a.m., Acoff called Bridges for 28 seconds. At 9:12 a.m.,
Bridges called Acoff for 38 seconds. The last call was made at 9:15 a.m., from Bridges
to Acoff, lasting a little over five minutes.
{¶44} Ross testified that none of the other persons, Anthony Miller, Jason
Quinones, or Jeffrey Bland, had contact with Acoff during that time period. Ross stated
that the last call made or received from Acoff’s cell phone was on January 5, 2013, a call
that Acoff made to a “440 number” at 12:20 p.m., and it lasted for five seconds.
{¶45} Ross also testified that Bridges’s cell phone was the only cell phone in the
same tower location as Acoff during the relevant time frame. The last ping on a cell
phone tower made from Acoff’s phone was from mobile data, which she explained was
“like an app, not a phone call” at 1:37 p.m., lasting for 42 minutes. Ross stated that this
could include an app updating automatically, and not necessarily someone using the app.
{¶46} Lieutenant Vanyo and Detective Sonneborn interviewed Bridges several
times. The interviews were recorded and played for the jury. When they played the
calls requesting taxi service to Bridges, he stated, “that’s my voice.” Bridges told police
that he cut his hand when he opened a can while preparing dinner for his girlfriend.
Bridges at first denied that he recalled anything else about January 5, 2013.
{¶47} Bridges later told police that it was Quinones and King who wanted the
prostitute and that Quinones gave him the money to pay for the taxicab. Bridges stated
that he left the apartment after the prostitute arrived, but came back and while standing
outside, heard Quinones say, “that’s a fucking dude.” He then heard someone saying,
“don’t kill me, don’t kill me.” When he walked in the apartment, Bridges stated that he
saw King with a knife, but did not see anything else. Bridges said that when he went
back the next day, he did not see anything. He began to make dinner for his girlfriend
and that is when he cut his hand and got blood all over. Quinones came over and saw the
blood and got angry with him that he ruined his things by getting blood on them. Bridges
said that is why he cleaned up the blood.
{¶48} Lieutenant Vanyo testified that Bridges later gave police a written statement
saying that although everything he said in his oral statements was true, he was retracting
everything that he said about Quinones and King because he feared for the safety of his
“kids and family.”
{¶49} The evidence that was collected at the scene was processed by trace
evidence and DNA experts working at the Cuyahoga County medical examiner’s office.
These experts testified that the rope that was found on the body matched the rope that was
found in the garage. The experts also determined that most of the blood samples taken
from the garage (including blood found near the rope in the garage), the apartment, and
the stairwell leading to the apartment all matched Bridges’s DNA except for one.
{¶50} The experts determined that one blood sample taken from the power cable
of a portable heater found in the bedroom of the apartment had major and minor DNA
components; the major component matched that of the victim and the minor component
was inconclusive because there was not enough DNA to determine whose it was.
Quinones and King were excluded from all DNA tests; none of the items matched their
DNA. Bland’s DNA was tested at a later point and was excluded from all blood
samples (although “touch DNA” determined that he touched the prong of the plug on the
same heater where the victim’s blood was found).
{¶51} At the close of the state’s case, Bridges moved for a Crim.R. 29 acquittal,
which the trial court granted as to the kidnapping count, but denied as to the remaining
counts.
{¶52} The jury found Bridges not guilty of aggravated murder, but guilty of the
lesser-included offense of murder under R.C. 2903.02(A), guilty of murder under R.C.
2903.02(B), and guilty of felonious assault, tampering with evidence, and abuse of a
corpse.
{¶53} The trial court merged the murder and felonious assault counts. The state
elected to proceed on the lesser-included offense of murder under R.C. 2903.02(A). The
trial court then sentenced Bridges to a total of 18 years and six months to life in prison, 15
years to life for murder, 30 months for tampering with evidence, and 12 months for abuse
of a corpse, all to be served consecutive to one another. It is from this judgment that
Bridges appeals. We will address Bridges’s assignments of error out of order for ease of
discussion.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
{¶54} In his second and third assignments of error, Bridges claims that the state
failed to present sufficient evidence for his convictions of tampering with evidence and
offenses against a human corpse.
{¶55} “‘[S]ufficiency’ is a term of art meaning that legal standard which is applied
to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally
sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio
St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), citing Black’s Law Dictionary 1433 (6th
Ed.1990). When an appellate court reviews a record upon a sufficiency challenge, “the
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, 574 N.E.2d 492(1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.
A. Tampering with Evidence
{¶56} Bridges argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction
for tampering with evidence. He contends that even assuming for the sake of argument
that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a conviction for murder, the
fact that he was seen burning material in front of his residence, or that he “allegedly
cleaned up the apartment according to a single witness,” is not sufficient evidence to
convict him of tampering with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. He asserts that “the
law does not allow the trier of fact to convict [him] on mere absence of evidence.”
{¶57} Tampering with evidence under R.C. 2921.12(A)(1) provides that “[n]o
person, knowing that an official proceeding or investigation is in progress, or is about to
be or likely to be instituted, shall * * * [a]lter, destroy, conceal, or remove any record,
document, or thing, with purpose to impair its value or availability as evidence in such
proceeding or investigation[.]”
{¶58} Bridges’s conviction is not just based on the absence of evidence, as he
claims. Quinones and King testified that when they arrived at Quinones’s apartment on
January 5, 2013, Bridges was standing outside at a fire pit burning what appeared to be
carpet material and jean material. This evidence, coupled with the fact that Acoff’s
body was found in the pond without clothing on the lower portion of his body and the fact
that Acoff’s blood was found in the bedroom of the apartment (albeit one drop of blood),
was sufficient evidence to convict Bridges of tampering with evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt.
{¶59} Further, Quinones’s testimony that Bridges cleaned up blood from the scene,
as well as Bridges’s own statements to police that he cleaned up blood from the scene
(even if he was claiming that it was only his own blood), also supported a tampering with
evidence conviction. Again, Acoff’s blood was found in Bridges’s apartment.
{¶60} Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to convict Bridges of tampering
with evidence.
B. Abuse of a Corpse
{¶61} Bridges argues that the mere concealment of the body in the pond was not
sufficient to convict him of abuse of a corpse. He further maintains that the fact that
Acoff had been stabbed would not amount to abuse of a corpse because those facts
supported the homicide, which he claims is separate and apart from abuse of a corpse.
{¶62} Abuse of a corpse under R.C. 2927.01(B) provides that “[n]o person, except
as authorized by law, shall treat a human corpse in a way that would outrage reasonable
community sensibilities.”
{¶63} In State v. Nobles, 106 Ohio App.3d 246, 665 N.E.2d 1137 (2d Dist.1995),
the defendant killed her son, put his body in a garbage bag, and kept it in a closet for
several days before disposing of it in a dumpster. The Second District explained this
was sufficient evidence of gross abuse of a corpse, holding that “gross abuse of a corpse
can apparently be found in any attempt to conceal a body.” Id. at 267, citing State v.
Benge, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA93-06-116, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 5419 (Dec. 5, 1994)
(victim found at the bottom of a river with a 35-pound piece of concrete on her body);
State v. Eades, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 13807, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 653 (Feb. 25,
1994) (wrapped the body in a blanket, drove to another county and disposed of the body
in “some brush”); State v. Riggs, 4th Dist. Meigs No. 503506, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS
5063 (Oct. 4, 1993) (dumped the victim’s body over a hill); State v. Wolf, 11th Dist. Lake
No. 91-L-096, 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 6185 (Dec. 11, 1992) (victim’s body placed in
plastic bags and dumped in a vacant lot); State v. Frazier, 5th Dist. Fairfield No.
13-CA-91, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 6220 (Dec. 18, 1991) (victim’s body disposed of by
weighting it with a concrete block and throwing it into a creek); and State v. Hoeflich, 5th
Dist. Morrow No. CA-689, 1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 2751 (June 22, 1989) (body placed in
the hatchback of a car and later buried).
{¶64} The state presented circumstantial evidence that after Bridges killed Acoff,
he tied a metal pipe and cinder block to Acoff’s body and placed his body in the pond
behind the apartment building. Bridges’s treatment of Acoff’s body was sufficient to
outrage reasonable community sensibilities.
{¶65} Accordingly, Bridges’s second and third assignments of error are overruled.
Manifest Weight of the Evidence
{¶66} In his first assignment of error, Bridges maintains that his convictions for
murder and felonious assault were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Unlike
sufficiency of the evidence, a challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence attacks the
credibility of the evidence presented. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d
541. Because it is a broader review, a reviewing court may determine that a judgment of
a trial court is sustained by sufficient evidence, but nevertheless conclude that the
judgment is against the weight of the evidence. Id., citing State v. Robinson, 162 Ohio
St. 486, 487, 124 N.E.2d 148 (1955).
{¶67} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the
evidence, the court of appeals functions as a “thirteenth juror.” Id. In doing so, it must
review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the
credibility of witnesses and determine “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.” Thompkins at 387, quoting State v.
Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). Reversing a
conviction as being against the manifest weight of the evidence and ordering a new trial
should be reserved for only the “exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily
against the conviction.” Id.{¶68} Murder under R.C. 2903.02(A) states that “[n]o person shall purposely
cause the death of another[.]” Felonious assault under R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) provides that
“[n]o person shall knowingly * * * [c]ause serious physical harm to another[.]”
{¶69} Bridges argues that the only evidence against him was Quinones’s
testimony, and “his testimony is simply not credible.” Bridges further maintains that the
evidence against him was circumstantial and that without Quinones’s testimony, there
would not have even been sufficient evidence to convict him.
{¶70} We note at the outset that proof of guilt may be made by circumstantial
evidence, real evidence, and direct evidence, or any combination of the three, and all
three have equal probative value. State v. Nicely, 39 Ohio St.3d 147, 529 N.E.2d 1236(1988); Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492, paragraph one of the syllabus.
Indeed, “‘direct evidence of fact is not required[;] circumstantial evidence * * * may also
be more certain, satisfying and persuasive than direct evidence.’” State v. Lott, 51 Ohio
St.3d 160, 167, 555 N.E.2d 293 (1990), quoting Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc., 364
U.S. 325, 330, 81 S.Ct. 6, 5 L.Ed.2d 20 (1960).
{¶71} We agree that the evidence against Bridges was mostly circumstantial. The
circumstantial evidence against Bridges, however, was overwhelming. The following
evidence was presented at trial. On the morning of January 5, 2013, Bridges and Acoff
spoke on their cell phones nine times between 7:10 a.m. and 9:15 a.m. Bridges called
Acoff six times; Acoff called Bridges three times.
{¶72} That same morning, Ace Taxi Service received a call for service from
Bridges’s cell phone number. When hearing a recorded voice requesting the taxi
service, Bridges admitted to police, “that’s my voice.” The evidence established that
Bridges called Ace Taxi Service three times on the morning of January 5, 2013 — at 7:31
a.m., 8:06 a.m., and at 9:23 a.m.
{¶73} In the first call, Bridges requested a taxi to pick up a female named “Shea”
at 911 Rondel Avenue in Cleveland and take her to 7168 McKenzie Road in Olmsted
Township. Acoff lived at 911 Rondel Avenue. In the first call, Bridges also asked
what the fare would be. Bridges called back at 8:06 a.m., wondering what was taking so
long. The cab arrived at 7168 McKenzie Road at 9:20 a.m. Bridges called back at
9:23 a.m., asking the operator again what the fare was. The taxi driver testified that
Bridges argued with him about the fare when he arrived at the McKenzie Road address.
{¶74} The taxi driver identified Acoff in a photo array, dressed as a woman, as the
person he picked up at 911 Rondel Avenue. The taxi driver also identified Bridges in a
photo array as the person who paid for the taxi when it arrived at 7168 McKenzie Road.
{¶75} The evidence also established that the taxi driver drove Acoff and Bridges to
a convenience store so that Bridges could get change to pay the taxi driver. The taxi
driver drove them back to the 7168 McKenzie Road address at around 9:33 a.m. The
taxi driver left at that point. He saw Acoff and Bridges walking toward the house as he
drove away.
{¶76} Police learned that Acoff began dressing as a woman in 2010. Police
further learned that Acoff began prostituting himself on several websites. Nicole Cantie,
Acoff’s cousin, testified that the last known conversation that anyone in the family had
with Acoff was on January 3, 2013, when her daughter was instant messaging him on
Facebook.
{¶77} Quinones testified that he recalled the weekend of January 5, 2013, because
it was his sister’s birthday. He remembered that he could not go to his sister’s birthday
party because he had visitation with his daughter that weekend. Quinones’s girlfriend,
Irene, Bill King, and Irene’s son’s ex-girlfriend all corroborated Quinones’s testimony.
All four testified as to what they did on the night of January 4, 2013, and the morning of
January 5, 2013.
{¶78} Quinones and King went to Quinones’s apartment on January 5, 2013, to get
money from Bridges that he owed Quinones for the utility bills at the apartment. When
they arrived, sometime in the late morning or early afternoon, Bridges was standing
outside of the apartment in a T-shirt and jeans, burning items in a fire pit. Quinones
remembered wondering what Bridges was doing outside in the “freezing cold with a
T-shirt and fire going.” King also recalled it being very cold that day.
{¶79} Quinones and King stated that Bridges’s hand was bleeding; Quinones said
that it was “gushing blood everywhere.” When Quinones tried to go inside of his
apartment, Bridges did not want him to. Quinones did anyway. Quinones said that
there was blood “all the way up the steps” to the apartment. The house was in disarray.
There was blood all over the kitchen counter and floor. It also appeared that someone
had tried to clean up the blood because it was smeared. Quinones said that he was so
mad at Bridges, he told Bridges to clean everything up and leave the apartment.
{¶80} King said that he took a photo of Bridges standing at the fire pit in his
T-shirt after Quinones came back down from the apartment because of what Quinones
had told him when he got back in the truck. The photo, which was entered into
evidence, was dated January 5, 2013, and depicted Bridges standing outside by a fire pit,
with snow all over the ground, in a T-shirt and jeans, burning what appears to be a lot of
items. An expert opined that King had not altered his cell phone in any way.
{¶81} Quinones said that Bridges gave him different versions of what happened.
A couple of days later, Bridges told Quinones another version of what happened, that two
guys “jumped him” and he fought them off. Quinones did not call police because he
said that he believed Bridges; Bridges even told him that the men were pressing charges
against him for felonious assault. King said that although he suspected foul play, he did
not call police because Quinones believed what Bridges told him.
{¶82} Finally, most of the blood samples collected by police matched Bridges’s
DNA, but one sample collected matched that of Acoff’s DNA. And none of the blood
samples collected by police, throughout the apartment, garage, and stairwell leading to the
apartment, matched Quinones’s, King’s, or Bland’s DNA (although one “touch DNA”
sample matched Bland’s, but he lived in the apartment after Bridges). Indeed, Bridges’s
blood was found all through the apartment, in the stairwell, and in the garage, near rope
that was found that matched the rope that was tied around Acoff’s body. Moreover, only
Bridges’s cell phone was in the same five-mile cell tower vicinity, near the 7168
McKenzie Road address, as Acoff’s cell phone around the last time Acoff’s cell phone
was used.
{¶83} After reviewing the entire record, weighing all of the evidence and all
reasonable inferences, considering the credibility of witnesses and determining whether in
resolving any conflicts in the evidence, we conclude that this is not the “exceptional case”
where 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.” Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d
380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541.
{¶84} Accordingly, Bridges’s first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶85} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant the costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common
pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s conviction having
been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court
for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MARY J. BOYLE, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., and
LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR