State v. Hunt

[Cite as State v. Hunt, 2023-Ohio-962.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
CLARK COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Appellee : C.A. No. 2022-CA-40
:
v. : Trial Court Case No. 21-CR-0165A
:
DAVON L. HUNT : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas
: Court)
Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on March 24, 2023
...........
IAN A. RICHARDSON, Attorney for Appellee
FRANK MATTHEW BATZ, Attorney for Appellant
.............
EPLEY, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Davon L. Hunt appeals from his conviction in the Clark
County Court of Common Pleas after he was found guilty of discharge of a firearm on or
near a prohibited premises (with a firearm specification), having weapons while under
disability, and carrying a concealed weapon. He was sentenced to a total of 10½ years
-2-
in prison. For the reasons that follow, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On the evening of March 5, 2021, the Mini Mart at 961 Selma Road in
Springfield was a busy place, with many customers entering and exiting the store, and
others simply loitering in the parking lot in front of the entrance. Hunt and his three
associates were among those hanging out in the parking lot.
{¶ 3} At approximately 8:21 p.m., Arlie Addis, Jr. was driving south on Selma Road
directly in front of the Mini Mart in his 2010 Chevy Silverado truck when shots rang out
from the store’s parking lot. Addis heard the gunfire and attempted to accelerate past the
area to avoid the danger. As he sped up, however, he heard more shots and then heard
a “thud” as his car was struck on the passenger side door by a bullet. Addis continued
driving to the Sunoco gas station on corner of Selma and Sunset Avenue, where he found
two Springfield police officers. He informed the officers about what had just transpired,
and law enforcement was dispatched to the Mini Mart.
{¶ 4} When officers arrived, they first made sure there were no victims in or around
the building. Once it was determined that no one needed medical care, Officer Allison
Craig looked for cartridge casings, and Officer Tim Melvin went inside to view the store’s
surveillance footage. Upon viewing the videos from the front and side of the store, Officer
Melvin immediately recognized several individuals, including Hunt. Officer Craig located
a large number of casings in the front parking lot on the north side of the building, as well
as casings on the Oak Street (east) side.
{¶ 5} Based on the surveillance footage, Hunt became a suspect, but he was not
-3-
immediately apprehended. When he was finally arrested several months later, he was
indicted (in this case) on: Count 1 – discharge of a firearm on or near a prohibited
premises, a felony of the third degree; Count 2 – having weapons while under disability,
a felony of the third degree; and Count 3 – carrying a concealed weapon, a fourth-degree
felony. A firearm specification was associated with Count 1.
{¶ 6} After an unsuccessful motion to suppress, on December 7-8, 2021, the case
proceeded to a jury trial. There, the jury heard testimony from Addis, multiple Springfield
police officers involved in collecting evidence in the case, and Detective Ron Jordan. Hunt
did not testify. The jury also considered dozens of exhibits, including surveillance video
of the incident, bullets and cartridge casings, pictures of the crime scene, and photos of
Addis’s damaged truck. After approximately three hours of deliberation, the jury found
Hunt guilty of all charges and the specification.
{¶ 7} Hunt was sentenced on April 22, 2022 after several delays due to COVID
and a change in defense counsel. The trial court considered the presentence investigation
report and statements from counsel on both sides; Hunt was sentenced to 36 months on
Count 1, 36 months on Count 2, and 18 months in prison on Count 3. Additionally, a
mandatory, consecutive three-year term was imposed for the firearm specification
attached to Count 1. The court then ordered all sentences be served consecutively, for a
total of 10½ years in prison.
{¶ 8} Hunt has filed a timely appeal with two assignments of error, which we will
consider together.
II. Sufficiency and Manifest Weight of the Evidence
-4-
{¶ 9} Hunt raises two related assignments of error: that his convictions were
against the manifest weight of the evidence and were based upon insufficient evidence.
{¶ 10} “[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). It is essentially a test of adequacy: whether the
evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict is a question of law. Id.{¶ 11} “An appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to
determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the
defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Marshall, 191 Ohio App.3d 444,
2010-Ohio-5160, 946 N.E.2d 762, ¶ 52 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d
259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. The relevant inquiry is
whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, any rational trier
of fact could have found the crime’s essential elements proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. Id.{¶ 12} On the other hand, when an appellate court reviews whether a conviction is
against the manifest weight of the evidence, “[t]he court, reviewing the entire record,
weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of the
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.” Thompkins at 387, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio
-5-
App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist.1983). A case should not be reversed as being against the
manifest weight of the evidence except “ ‘in the exceptional case in which the evidence
weighs heavily against the conviction.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Id.{¶ 13} “Although sufficiency and manifest weight are different legal concepts,
manifest weight may subsume sufficiency in conducting the analysis; that is, a finding that
a conviction is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence necessarily includes a
finding of sufficiency.” (Citations omitted.) State v. McCrary, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP-
881, 2011-Ohio-3161, ¶ 11. Accord State v. Winbush, 2017-Ohio-696, 85 N.E.3d 501,
¶ 58 (2d Dist.). As a result, a determination that a conviction is supported by the weight
of the evidence will also be dispositive of sufficiency. State v. Farra, 2d Dist. Montgomery
No. 28950, 2022-Ohio-1421, ¶ 50.
Discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises
{¶ 14} Hunt’s conviction for discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises
is, in many ways, the cornerstone of his other convictions; the facts set forth to prove this
crime are vital to the others. R.C. 2923.162(A)(3) states that no person shall discharge a
firearm upon or over a public road or highway. Basically, the State had to prove that Hunt
had a gun and that he fired it over a roadway. That burden was met.
{¶ 15} Detective Jordan testified that after he was assigned to the Mini Mart
shooting, he collected surveillance videos from multiple cameras around the store. In a
video from a camera on the front of the store (facing Selma), Hunt can be seen at the
8:20:38 p.m. mark wearing blue jeans, which were torn in the front, distinctive blue and
white Nike tennis shoes, and a dark-colored Nike hoodie with a swoosh on the front. The
-6-
view of his face was unobstructed. Both Detective Jordan and Officer Melvin testified that
they immediately recognized Hunt.
{¶ 16} The jury also saw video footage from a camera on the side of the store
beginning at 8:21:39 p.m. The video showed Hunt pull an object from his waistband, and
then two seconds later, he is seen with his right arm extended, pointing across Oak Street
toward Selma. Officer Melvin noted that he saw Hunt “kind of duck down behind the
vehicle,” and then “[h]e reaches up and starts shooting.” Trial Tr. at 121. At 8:21:43 p.m.,
Hunt’s arm is still raised, and another individual is seen with a gun in his hand, arm
pointing in the same direction as Hunt. At 8:21:45 p.m., a third individual is seen with a
firearm. A moment later, they take off running toward the front of the store and out of that
camera’s view.
{¶ 17} The front-of-the-store camera picked the men back up, and the video shows
Hunt running across the parking lot with his arm pointing toward Selma. Detective Jordan
testified, “If you look here at the right hand, you can actually see what appears to be a
firearm in his hand. You can see the top slide of the firearm and the back of the firearm
where his thumb and finger would be pictured here.” Trial Tr. at 165. Detective Jordan
further noted that he believed the video shows a muzzle flash from Hunt’s weapon.
{¶ 18} Around that same time, at 8:21:36-40 p.m., a camera on the front of the Mini
Mart captured a truck driving south down Selma. This truck was the Chevy Silverado
driven by Addis that was struck by a bullet on the passenger side door, just below the
mirror.
{¶ 19} Based on the surveillance footage, testimony of Springfield officers, and the
-7-
abundance of cartridge casings found on both the Selma and Oak Street sides of the Mini
Mart, the jury could have reasonably found that Hunt had a gun and that he fired it. Based
on the footage alone, it would be hard to come to any other conclusion. As to whether he
fired upon or over a public road or highway, that was shown by the testimony of Addis,
the damage to his truck, and the surveillance footage showing his truck driving down
Selma at the same time the shots were fired.
{¶ 20} Nevertheless, Hunt argues that the State failed to meet its burden because
a gun was never produced. As to the production of the gun, it is well established that a
conviction for gun crimes can stand even if no gun is ever recovered. See State v.
Sanders, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2011-L-024, 2012-Ohio-400, ¶ 41 (no gun is required to
support a conviction for discharging a firearm at or into a habitation, a related crime from
the same statute as here); State v. Marshall, 5th Dist. Richland No. 03-CA-106, 2005-
Ohio-931, ¶ 26-30 (even though neither the gun used nor the bullets fired were
discovered, a conviction was upheld when other evidence was presented, including
testimony regarding shots being heard and damage consistent with a bullet being fired);
State v. Higginbottom, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2012-P-0028, 2012-Ohio-5834, ¶ 58 (there
is no requirement that the State present physical evidence of a weapon when there is
substantial testimonial and circumstantial evidence to justify a conviction); State v. Leigh,
2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28821, 2023-Ohio-91, ¶ 34.
{¶ 21} The same is true for a firearm specification: a firearm’s existence may be
inferred from the surrounding facts and circumstances. State v. Vann, 2d Dist.
Montgomery No 22818, 2009-Ohio-5308, ¶ 27. “It is not necessary to admit the firearm
-8-
used during the crime in evidence in order to establish a firearm specification.” Id., citing
State v. Murphy, 49 Ohio St.3d 206, 551 N.E.2d 932 (1990).
{¶ 22} Based on the record before us, we cannot say that Hunt’s convictions for
discharge of a firearm on or near a prohibited premises or the attendant firearm
specification were based on insufficient evidence or against the manifest weight of the
evidence. As to this count (and specification), the assignments of error are overruled.
Having Weapons While Under Disability
{¶ 23} Hunt also argues that his conviction for having weapons while under
disability was based on insufficient evidence and against the manifest weight of the
evidence.
{¶ 24} R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) states: Unless relieved from disability under operation
of law or legal process, no person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use any firearm
or dangerous ordinance if the person is under indictment for or has been convicted of any
felony offense of violence. Here, the State presented evidence that Hunt had been
convicted in Calhoun County, Alabama of robbery (an offense of violence) in case number
CC-2016000978.00. (State’s Ex. 28, Trial Tr. at 172-173.) Notwithstanding the conviction
for an offense of violence, Hunt argues that there was no weapon ever found and he was
never tested for gunshot residue (GSR).
{¶ 25} As to the first argument, Hunt is correct that a gun was never recovered, but
that fact is not dispositive. Courts have upheld convictions for having a weapon while
under disability in cases where the weapon was not recovered by law enforcement. State
v. Freeman, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19AP-181, 2020-Ohio-3381; State v. Bloodworth, 9th
-9-
Dist. Summit No. 26346, 2013-Ohio-248 (holding witness testimony was sufficient to
support having weapons while under disability conviction when no gun was recovered);
State v. While, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90839, 2008-Ohio-6152 (holding witness
testimony was sufficient to support having weapons while under disability conviction). In
this case, based on the video evidence and the testimony from Officer Melvin and
Detective Jordan, the jury reasonably found that Hunt had possessed a firearm. Hunt’s
second argument, that he was never tested for GSR, fails because he was arrested
months after the Mini Mart shooting occurred; no one could logically expect to find GSR
from that incident still on his person.
{¶ 26} We cannot say that Hunt’s conviction for having weapons while under
disability was based on insufficient evidence or against the manifest weight of the
evidence. As to this count, the assignments of error are overruled.
Carrying A Concealed Weapon
{¶ 27} While Hunt does not make any specific arguments regarding his conviction
for carrying a concealed weapon, we can conclude that it was based on sufficient
evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 28} To support a guilty verdict on Count 3, the State had to prove that Hunt
knowingly carried or had, concealed on his person, or concealed ready at hand, a
handgun other than a dangerous ordinance. R.C. 2923.12(A)(2). This burden was met by
the presentation of video evidence from surveillance cameras and testimony of Detective
Jordan. State’s Ex. 18, Channel 7, Clip 1, at 8:21:39-41 p.m. shows the moments just
before and just after the shooting began. Hunt is seen at the beginning of the clip without
-10-
any visible weapon, then the video shows him retrieve an object from around his mid-
section and extend his right arm in a manner that leaves no doubt what he was doing. In
subsequent camera angles (from just a few seconds later), Hunt is seen running with a
gun and firing across the street. Additionally, Detective Jordan testified during both direct
and cross examinations that it was his belief that Hunt had reached into his waistband
and pulled out a firearm.
{¶ 29} Based on the exhibits and testimony, the jury reasonably concluded that
Hunt had the firearm secreted in his waistband and then pulled it out and started firing.
The crime’s essential elements were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, the
jury’s guilty verdict was not such that it created a manifest miscarriage of justice. Hunt’s
conviction for carrying a concealed weapon was based on sufficient evidence and was
not against the manifest weight of the evidence. As to this count, the assignments of error
are overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 30} Having found that Hunt’s convictions were based on sufficient evidence and
not against the manifest weight of the evidence, the judgment of the trial court will be
affirmed.
.............
LEWIS, J. and HUFFMAN, J., concur.