State v. Rones

[Cite as State v. Rones, 2023-Ohio-60.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 30073
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
MURRY RONES AKRON MUNICIPAL COURT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. 21-CRB-04351
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: January 11, 2023
CALLAHAN, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Murry Rones, appeals his conviction by the Akron Municipal Court.
This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} On June 6, 2021, two Akron police officers responded to a call that reported a man
exhibiting disruptive behavior. The officers encountered Mr. Rones in a residential neighborhood.
When they approached him to assess his welfare, Mr. Rones became “irate and agitated.” The
officers attempted to engage Mr. Rones in conversation, but his tone and body language became
increasingly aggressive; his behavior escalated to the point where he “was yelling very loudly,
swearing and cursing.” As his behavior became “turbulent[,]” one of the officers cautioned Mr.
Rones that he risked arrest for disorderly conduct. Mr. Rones moved toward his parked vehicle,
cautioning that the officers were “going to have to shoot him.” Throughout his interaction with
2
the officers, Mr. Rones referenced a period of previous incarceration and his history of interactions
with law enforcement.
{¶3} Fearing that Mr. Rones could have a weapon in the vehicle, the officers attempted
to gain control of him physically. They were unsuccessful, however, due to Mr. Rones’ agitated
state, physical size, and notable strength. One of the officers deployed a taser, but it proved
ineffective because of the distance between the officer and Mr. Rones. The two officers eventually
restrained Mr. Rones, who then became “compliant and friendly.” Other officers responded to the
scene for backup, and a sergeant also arrived to interview Mr. Rones pursuant to the department’s
use of force policy.
{¶4} Mr. Rones was charged under the Akron Code of Ordinances with disorderly
conduct, resisting arrest, and obstruction of official business. He filed a motion in limine to
exclude body-worn camera recordings of the incident to the extent that they contained his own
statements referring to a previous period of incarceration. He also moved to exclude any further
references to those statements by the officers. The trial court denied the motion but also stated
that “[o]bviously, part of the ruling of denying the Motion in Limine is that the parties don’t make
any additional issue of the statements that defendant made[.]”
{¶5} A jury found Mr. Rones guilty of each of the charges. The trial court sentenced
him to concurrent jail terms and imposed, but suspended, fines for each conviction. Mr. Rones
appealed, raising three assignments of error.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN
LIMINE TO PRECLUDE CERTAIN RECORDED STATEMENTS MADE BY
DEFENDANT DURING HIS ARREST RELATED TO PRIOR CRIMINAL
CONDUCT AND INCARCERATION. THE STATEMENTS OF DEFENDANT
3
WERE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN PROBATIVE AND
SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED UNDER EVID.R. 403.
{¶6} Mr. Rones’ first assignment of error argues that the trial court erred by denying his
motion in limine to exclude the portion of body-worn camera footage that contained his own
statements about his prior incarceration.
{¶7} As an initial matter, the State maintains that Mr. Rones forfeited this argument by
failing to renew his motion at trial. Since amendments to the Rules of Evidence in 2017, however,
Evid.R. 103 has provided that “[o]nce the court rules definitely on the record, either before or at
trial, a party need not renew an objection * * * to preserve a claim of error for appeal.” See also
State v. Lewis, 9th Dist. Summit No. 29696, 2021-Ohio-1575, ¶ 34. Because the trial court denied
Mr. Rones’ motion in limine definitely on the record, the arguments in his first assignment of error
have not been forfeited.
{¶8} Nonetheless, this Court cannot reach the merits of Mr. Rones’ argument regarding
the motion in limine. “The obligation to ensure that the record on appeal contains all matters
necessary to allow this Court to resolve the issues on appeal lies with the appellant[]” and this
Court has “consistently held that, where the appellant has failed to provide a complete record to
facilitate appellate review, [we are] compelled to presume regularity in the proceedings below and
affirm the trial court's judgment.” State v. Daniel, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27390, 2014-Ohio-5112,
¶ 5. Although the transcript of proceedings references a written motion—and it appears from the
docket that a motion was filed—the motion in limine itself is not part of the record in this appeal.
This Court must, therefore, presume regularity in connection with the trial court’s decision to deny
the motion in limine.
{¶9} Mr. Rones’ first assignment of error is overruled.
4
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2
THE PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE ENGAGED IN PROSECUTORIAL
MISCONDUCT WHEN THEY INQUIRED OF A STATE’S WITNESS ABOUT
DEFENDANT HAVING BEEN IN PRISON AFTER THE [TRIAL] COURT
HAD SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCTED THE STATE IT WAS NOT TO DISCUSS
THE ISSUE IN FRONT OF THE JURY. AS A RESULT OF THIS
MISCONDUCT DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL.
{¶10} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Rones argues that he was deprived of a fair
trial because the State referenced his comments during the direct examination of one of the police
officers. This Court does not agree.
{¶11} When prosecutorial misconduct is alleged, this Court must consider whether the
remarks at issue were improper and, if they were, whether the defendant’s substantial rights were
prejudicially affected. State v. Kirkland, 160 Ohio St.3d 389, 2020-Ohio-4079, ¶ 115. In short,
the test for determining whether prosecutorial misconduct has occurred is “whether the conduct
complained of deprived the defendant of a fair trial.” State v. Fears, 86 Ohio St.3d 329, 332
(1999). It is this consideration—rather than the culpability of the prosecutor—that forms the
touchstone of the analysis. State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54, 2004-Ohio-6235, ¶ 155, quoting
Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982). With respect to determining whether a defendant was
deprived of a fair trial, this Court must consider “the effect the misconduct had on the jury in the
context of the entire trial.” State v. Keenan, 66 Ohio St.3d 402, 410 (1993).
{¶12} Mr. Rones argues that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by asking a
single question: “Okay. Now, we heard some portion there about Mr. Rones stating that he had
done some prior prison time?” Defense counsel immediately objected to the question, and the trial
court sustained the objection without a response by the witness. In a sidebar, the trial court stated
that its ruling required the State to refrain from discussing or mentioning Mr. Rones’ recorded
statements. The State, on the other hand, explained that it believed a follow-up question about
5
what had been heard in the video was within the scope of the ruling. The trial court reiterated the
substance of its ruling as follows: “It was heard and that was it. We don’t discuss it.” No further
mention was made of Mr. Rones’ statements during the trial.
{¶13} Given the context of the State’s question within the trial—including the language
of the trial court’s ruling denying the motion in limine and the clarifying statements that the trial
court made later—this Court cannot conclude that this isolated and unanswered question deprived
Mr. Rones of a fair trial. Moreover, the trial court sustained the objection to the State’s question.
See State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118, 2008-Ohio-3426, ¶ 162 (noting, in the context an argument
regarding prosecutorial misconduct, that “[a]n appellant cannot predicate error on objections the
trial court sustained.”). See also State v. Thompson, 141 Ohio St.3d 254, 2014-Ohio-4751, ¶ 171;
State v. Moreland, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27910, 2016-Ohio-7588, ¶ 26.
{¶14} Mr. Rones’ second assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
MISTRIAL IN RESPONSE TO THE STATE’S DIRECT QUESTIONING OF A
STATE WITNESS ABOUT DEFENDANT’S PREVIOUS PRISON
INCARCERATION IN CONTRADICTION AND VIOLATION OF THE [TRIAL
COURT’S] ORDER.
{¶15} In his third assignment of error, Mr. Rones argues that the trial court erred by
denying his motion for a mistrial in response to the State’s question regarding Mr. Rones’
statement.
{¶16} A mistrial may be granted “when the ends of justice so require and a fair trial is no
longer possible.” State v. Franklin, 62 Ohio St.3d 118, 127 (1991). The determination of whether
a mistrial is warranted rests in the discretion of the trial court, and “[t]here are no exact standards
to apply in evaluating whether a trial court should declare a mistrial in a particular case.” State v.
6
Hickman, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27321, 2015-Ohio-4668, ¶ 21. When alleged prosecutorial
misconduct is the grounds for a motion for mistrial, the substantive standard for considering
whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred is the same. See State v. Moss, 9th Dist. Summit No.
30005, 2022-Ohio-1833, ¶ 44, quoting State v. Dukles, 9th Dist. Medina No. 12CA0100-M, 2013-
Ohio-5263, ¶ 33. This Court reviews a trial court’s decision to deny a mistrial for an abuse of
discretion. Moss at ¶ 43. An abuse of discretion is present when a trial court’s decision “‘is
contrary to law, unreasonable, not supported by evidence, or grossly unsound.’” Menke v. Menke,
9th Dist. Summit No. 27330, 2015-Ohio-2507, ¶ 8, quoting Tretola v. Tretola, 3d Dist. Logan No.
8-14-24, 2015-Ohio-1999, ¶ 25.
{¶17} In resolving Mr. Rones’ second assignment of error, this Court concluded that the
State’s single unanswered question, to which the trial court sustained an objection, did not deprive
Mr. Rones of a fair trial. For the same reason, we must conclude that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion by denying a mistrial on this basis.
{¶18} Mr. Rones’ third assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶19} Mr. Rones’ assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Akron
Municipal Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
7
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Akron Municipal
Court, 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(C). 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.
LYNNE S. CALLAHAN
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, P. J.
CARR, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
DAVID M. LOWRY, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
EVE V. BELFANCE, Director of Law, and KIRSTEN L. SMITH and MICHAEL A. WALSH,
Assistant Directors of Law, for Appellee.