State v. Doyle

[Cite as State v. Doyle, 2014-Ohio-285.]
COURT OF APPEALS
FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P. J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-
Case No. 13 CA 8
TIMOTHY M. DOYLE
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. 11 CR 332
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 27, 2014
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
GREGG MARX DAVID A. SAMS
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Post Office Box 40
CRYSTAL A. BENNETT West Jefferson, Ohio 43162
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR
239 West Main Street, Suite 101
Lancaster, Ohio 43130
Fairfield County, Case No. 13 CA 8 2
Wise, J.
{¶1} Appellant Timothy M. Doyle appeals from his convictions for aggravated
burglary and domestic violence in the Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County.
Appellee is the State of Ohio. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.
{¶2} On July 21, 2011, a 911 dispatcher received a call from a woman
identified as “Mrs. Mason,” indicating a domestic disturbance which had just occurred at
405 West Main Street, Lancaster, Ohio, the residence of female victim M.B., where the
other female victim, K.A. had stopped by to visit.1 According to other witnesses,
appellant had come in a state of rage to M.B.’s residence to tell K.A. to go back home,
where she lived with appellant. After forcing his way through the door into M.B.’s home,
appellant began punching and yelling at K.A., calling her a “whore”, and at one point
knocking her down. M.B. came out on her porch indicating that appellant had hurt her
arm. M.B. also fell on a table as a result of appellant forcing his way into the home. K.A.
later testified that she was injured, but did not want to go to the hospital because
appellant had threatened to destroy her belongings.
{¶3} Officers arrived on scene after the 911 call was placed. Tr. 79, 84. Officer
Matt Mullett of the Lancaster Police Department questioned the victims and collected
evidence. Appellant had fled the scene and various officers began a search in the area
for appellant. K.A. was escorted back to her residence as the suspect was at large and
she was scared to go into her home alone. The residence had been ransacked prior to
their arrival, and K.A.’s clothes had been thrown into a creek. Officers Rod Sandy and
Daniel Thomas caught appellant on his bicycle later that same evening. Appellant
1
Mrs. Mason, a neighbor, did not testify at trial, although her daughter did. See
testimony of Cheryl Mason-May, Tr. at 220-234.
Fairfield County, Case No. 13 CA 8 3
immediately fled upon seeing the officers and struggled when officers finally caught up
with him.
{¶4} On August 26, 2013, appellant was indicted for aggravated burglary (R.C.
2911.11(A)(1)), domestic violence (R.C. 2919.25(A)), assault (R.C. 2903.13(A)), and
violation of a civil protection order (R.C. 2919.27(A)).
{¶5} The case proceeded to a jury trial. During the trial, as further discussed
infra, a 911 call made from the scene was admitted as evidence at trial after the
testimony of the 911 dispatcher. Appellant was ultimately found guilty of all counts on
November 15, 2012. The court thereafter sentenced appellant to four years for
aggravated burglary, which was merged with the assault count, and 180 days each on
the counts of domestic violence and VCPO, with all said sentences to be served
concurrently.
{¶6} Appellant herein raises the following two Assignments of Error:
{¶7} “I. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE RIGHT OF
CONFRONTATION UNDER THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.
{¶8} “II. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE
MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE
WAS BASED ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO OHIO LAW AND THE
STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.”
I.
{¶9} In his First Assignment of Error, appellant argues the trial court violated
his constitutional right to confrontation by allowing the presentation at trial of a recorded
911 emergency telephone call.
Fairfield County, Case No. 13 CA 8 4
{¶10} The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution guarantees that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
right * * * to be confronted with the witnesses against him * * *.” Section 10, Article I,
Ohio Constitution also guarantees a defendant's right to “meet the witnesses face to
face.” In Crawford v. Washington (2004), 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177,
the United States Supreme Court held that under the Confrontation Clause,
“testimonial” statements of a witness who does not appear at trial may not be admitted
or used against a criminal defendant unless the declarant is unavailable to testify and
the defendant has had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
{¶11} “[Q]uestions of the scope and effect of constitutional protections, such as
the Sixth Amendment, are matters of law and therefore reviewed de novo.” State v.
Dunivant, Stark App.No. 2003CA00175, 2005–Ohio–1497, ¶ 7, citing United States v.
Wilmore (C.A.9, 2004), 381 F.3d 868, 871. However, it is well-established that failure to
raise objections to proceedings on constitutional grounds results in a waiver of such
assignments of error. In re Willis, Coshocton App.No. 02CA15, 2002–Ohio–6795, ¶ 10,
citing State v. Awan (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 120, 489 N.E.2d 277. The waiver doctrine
has been applied in cases where a defendant has failed to object to claimed violations
of the Confrontation Clause. See, e,g., State v. Vanculin, Miami App.No. 2011–CA–8,
2012-Ohio-292, ¶ 2.
{¶12} Appellant did not object at trial during the playing of the recorded call to
the jury. Although, as an appellate court, we have the ability to review this issue under a
plain error standard, we are not inclined to do so in the case sub judice. As recognized
by the Second District Court of Appeals: “Typically, 911 calls made to report an ongoing
Fairfield County, Case No. 13 CA 8 5
emergency that requires police assistance to resolve that emergency are not
‘testimonial’ in nature and therefore the Confrontation Clause does not apply.” State v.
McDaniel, Montgomery App.No. 24423, 2011-Ohio-6326, ¶ 24. We find the 911 call at
issue was made during an ongoing emergency. The caller had caught the “tail end” of
the event in question. See Tr. at 82-83. Another male voice could be heard on the
phone also relaying information. Tr. at 83. No officer was on scene when the 911 call
was made, and the call ended after an officer arrived. Tr. 79, 84.
{¶13} Accordingly, appellant’s First Assignment of Error is overruled.
II.
{¶14} In his Second Assignment of Error, appellant argues his convictions were
against the manifest weight of the evidence and his domestic violence conviction was
not supported by the sufficiency of the evidence. We disagree.
{¶15} Our standard of review on a manifest weight challenge to a criminal
conviction is stated as follows: “The 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. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d
717. See also, State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541. The
granting of a new trial “should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which the
evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” Martin at 175, 485 N.E.2d 717.
Fairfield County, Case No. 13 CA 8 6
Manifest Weight re: Identity of Suspect
{¶16} Appellant first argues that based on the evidence of the 911 call the jury
was likely confused as to the identity of the assailant reported on July 21, 2011. Our
review indicates that the 911 caller stated several times to the dispatcher that the name
of the perpetrator being relayed to her was “Dole,” rather than “Doyle.” See Tr. at 77-79.
However, after checking further with others at the scene while on the telephone, the
caller stated that the man’s name was indeed “Doyle.” See Tr. at 79. Moreover, based
upon K.A.’s and M.B.’s subsequent identifications of appellant and the recollections of
the police officers, we find no reversible error regarding identification issues.
Manifest Weight re: Burglary and “Break-in”
{¶17} Appellant next contends there was confusion created for the jury because
of conflicting testimony as to the nature of the break-in at the residence, i.e., whether
the door was kicked off its hinges or left undamaged. See Tr. at 128, 203, 208, 277.
However, both K.A. and M.B. indicated that appellant forcibly entered the residence
without obtaining permission. See Tr. at 177, 246. Another witness saw appellant
dragging and punching K.A. a few minutes later. Tr. at 232-233. We are unpersuaded
that the presentation of evidence regarding the burglary charge caused the jury to lose
their way in reaching its verdict.
Manifest Weight re: Acts of Assault/Domestic Violence
{¶18} Appellant again challenges discrepancies in the testimony of M.B. and
K.A. regarding the nature of the assaultive acts perpetrated by appellant, such as a
contradiction as to whether M.B. was ever punched in the face. Furthermore, Officer
Mullett and the 911 caller did not report observing injuries to M.B. However, at trial,
Fairfield County, Case No. 13 CA 8 7
pictures of bruising on each victim were admitted into evidence without objection. Tr. at
328.
{¶19} To find appellant guilty of assault, the trier of fact would have to find that
he knowingly caused or attempted to cause physical harm to another. R.C. 2903.13(A).
Physical harm to persons is defined as “any injury, illness, or other physiological
impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration.” R.C. 2901.01(A)(3). Upon review of
the various witnesses' testimony at trial, we are unpersuaded the jury lost its way in
assessing the assault and domestic violence evidence in this case. The jurors, as the
firsthand triers of fact, were patently in the best position to gauge the truth.
Manifest Weight and Sufficiency of the Evidence
re: Domestic Violence Statutory Elements
{¶20} In reviewing a claim based on 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 (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259,
574 N.E.2d 492, paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶21} Specifically, to find appellant guilty of domestic violence, the trier of fact
would have to find that he knowingly caused or attempted to cause physical harm to a
“family or household member.” R.C. 2919.25(A). Appellant and K.A. were not married,
and, according to K.A., they lived together but did not sleep together or share in paying
bills. See Tr. at 238-239. The pertinent terminology under R.C. 2919.25(F)(2) is whether
appellant and K.A. were “cohabitating.” Testimony was elicited that appellant was K.A.’s
“boyfriend” and that there was a loving relationship at one point, but that appellant had
become extremely controlling. Tr. at 239, 293. During the incident in question, appellant
Fairfield County, Case No. 13 CA 8 8
kept trying to get K.A. to go home. Tr. 247, 248, 277-278. We find no grounds for
reversal of the domestic violence count on sufficiency grounds, and we hold the jury's
decision did not create a manifest miscarriage of justice requiring that appellant's
conviction for domestic violence be reversed and a new trial ordered.
{¶22} Appellant’s Second Assignment of Error is therefore overruled.
{¶23} For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the Court
of Common Pleas, Fairfield County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.
By: Wise, J.
Farmer, P. J., and
Baldwin, J., concur.