[Cite as State v. McCloud, 2024-Ohio-2190.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 vs.

JEREMIAH MCCLOUD,

 Defendant-Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

APPEAL NO. C-230493

 TRIAL NO. B-2204750

O P I N I O N.

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: June 7, 2024

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and John D. Hill, Jr., 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Michael J. Trapp, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2

ZAYAS, Judge.

{¶1} Jeremiah McCloud appeals his convictions, after a jury trial, for 

aggravated robbery, one count of attempted murder, and two counts of felonious 

assault, all with gun specifications. In four assignments of error, McCloud contends 

that the trial court erred by allowing the admission of hearsay evidence, his conviction 

for aggravated robbery is not supported by sufficient evidence and is contrary to the 

manifest weight of the evidence, and his conviction for attempted murder is against 

the manifest weight of the evidence. For the following reasons, we overrule the 

assignments of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Factual Background

{¶2} On October 6, 2022, Jeremiah McCloud was indicted for shooting Kevin 

Morrison in a Colerain Township park. He pleaded not guilty and proceeded to a jury 

trial.

{¶3} Officer John McMahon, a patrol officer for the Colerain Township 

Police Department, testified that he had met a few other officers at the Speedway gas 

station on Colerain Avenue to purchase water and chat about an earlier call for service. 

The officers noticed a red Chevrolet sedan parked across three parking spaces, and 

while looking at the car, they received a dispatch that a person at the Speedway address 

had been shot. McMahon entered the store and started rendering aid. The shooting 

victim, Morrison, said he had been shot at a park by McCloud.

{¶4} Morrison testified that McCloud’s cousin was a good friend of his, and 

he was acquainted with McCloud. They had spoken a few times and played basketball 

together. For months, they had discussed Morrison purchasing a gun from McCloud. 

They communicated by Snapchat and text messages. One night, while Morrison was 

playing a video game, he received a text from McCloud offering to sell him a gun. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3

Morrison drove to an apartment complex in Fairfield to pick up McCloud and waited 

for McCloud for about an hour and a half. When McCloud finally walked out of the 

apartment, he got into the front passenger’s seat and showed him the small black 

handgun. McCloud told him that he needed $300 cash for the gun, so Morrison 

stopped at an ATM to get the money. McCloud suggested that they go to a park to test 

fire the gun. 

{¶5} They arrived at the park a little after midnight. McCloud loaded the gun, 

and both of them put on Latex gloves. Morrison had worked for Terminix, and the 

gloves were in his trunk because they were part of his uniform. They walked to a 

baseball field, and Morrison had a “funny feeling” because McCloud was really nervous 

and acting suspicious. Morrison walked behind McCloud and kept his cell phone 

flashlight pointed at McCloud. Morrison testified that he held the phone in his hand 

the entire time except for the brief period when he fired the gun. McCloud fired the 

gun two or three times, Morrison shot it once or twice, then McCloud asked for the 

gun. McCloud took the magazine from the gun and dropped a few bullets on the 

ground. When McCloud asked him to pick up the bullets, Morrison said no and 

became suspicious because McCloud kept looking around and pointing the gun at the 

ground. McCloud picked up the bullets, turned around, and started shooting.

{¶6} Morrison was shot in the left wrist, the stomach, and his chest. After 

the first shot, Morrison started swinging at McCloud, but he fell to the ground after 

getting shot in the chest. As Morrison was trying to stand, McCloud pointed the gun 

at his head and said, “I’m going to pop you.” He heard the gun click, but it didn’t fire. 

Morrison started running and hid in some bushes. After five or ten minutes, Morrison 

walked to his car and drove to the Speedway. Morrison’s cell phone, which had his 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

4

driver’s license in the case, and the cash were missing. He did not know if he dropped 

them or if McCloud took them. After McCloud started shooting at him, Morrison 

dropped the phone.

{¶7} When he arrived at the Speedway, Morrison asked the cashier to call 

911, grabbed water, and sat on the floor. Morrison had lost one of his orange Crocs. 

Morrison vaguely remembered speaking to a police officer and telling him that, “It was 

Jeremiah McCloud.” Morrison was taken to University of Cincinnati Medical Center. 

He was in the hospital for two-and-a-half weeks and had multiple surgeries. Morrison 

spoke with Detective Shea when he first woke up, but he could not remember what 

they discussed due to the medications he had been given. Shea attempted to locate his 

iPhone, but the phone had either been turned off or the battery was dead.

{¶8} On cross-examination, Morrison was asked if he told the police during 

his initial interview that McCloud pointed the gun at his head and pulled the trigger, 

and the following questioning occurred:

Morrison: I’m not even going to lie. I can’t say what I said. Everything 

I said in the hospital, I was on medication. I just woke up. You know, I 

don’t really remember everything I told. I know I talked to Det. Shea. I 

told him a lot.

Defense Counsel: But it’s your thought now that that’s what happened?

Morrison: It’s my thought?

Defense Counsel: It’s your testimony that that’s what happened?

Morrison: Yes sir.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

5

{¶9} Morrison agreed that he may have given his phone to McCloud to hold 

while he test fired the gun, but he could not remember. His cell phone flashlight was 

the only light source they had in the park.

{¶10} Detective Chris Cullman, an investigator for Colerain Township police, 

responded to the initial call for assistance at Speedway with Detective Carusone. By 

the time he arrived, Morrison had been transported to the hospital. Morrison did not 

know the name of the park where he was shot, and the police determined it was 

Heritage Park in Colerain Township. The following day, Cullman processed the crime 

scene at the park.

{¶11} Cullman photographed and collected a spent shell casing and a spent 

projectile. He also recovered Morrison’s missing orange Croc in the park’s dumpster. 

A park employee had found the shoe in the grass by the ball fields and put it in the 

dumpster. The other Croc was found at the Speedway. Cullman also participated in 

the search of McCloud’s residence. A small black gun was found in a cabinet above the 

refrigerator, and four cell phones, a live round, and shell casings were collected. The 

ballistic evidence was sent to the Hamilton County Coroner’s Lab for testing.

{¶12} Colerain Township patrol officer Patrick Hoard drove McCloud to the 

police department for an interview and then to the Justice Center. While McCloud 

was being processed at the jail, Hoard was required to wait for the deputies to finish 

searching and processing McCloud. The deputies found Morrison’s identification in 

McCloud’s wallet and gave it to Hoard.

{¶13} Forensic scientist Bridget Chambers from the Hamilton County 

Coroner’s Office testified that she works in the Firearm and Toolmark Identification 

Unit. Her primary duty is to determine whether a bullet or cartridge case was fired 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

6

from a specific firearm. The cartridge case and bullet found in the park had been fired 

from the firearm located in McCloud’s apartment. A second casing also matched the 

gun.

{¶14} Detective Sam Shea responded to University of Cincinnati Medical 

Center to interview Morrison. When he arrived, Morrison was in surgery. The 

following day, Shea was able to speak with him. Morrison told him that he went to an 

ATM in College Hill to withdraw cash to buy the gun. Shea obtained the video of the 

ATM transaction from First Financial Bank. Over objection, Shea testified that during 

the initial interview, Morrison told him that McCloud put the gun to his head and fired.

{¶15} Shea obtained a search warrant for Morrison’s car. A spent shell casing 

was found in the coin compartment of the front passenger door. Shea submitted the 

casing to the lab, and it matched McCloud’s gun.

{¶16} After obtaining Morrison’s phone number, Shea attempted to locate the 

iPhone. Shea received pings from AT&T every 15 minutes that included GPS 

coordinates. Shea plugged the coordinates into Google maps, and the iPhone was in 

the area of Camelot Drive. Shea interviewed McCloud at the police station and learned 

that McCloud lived on Camelot Drive. The state rested after Shea’s testimony.

{¶17} Jeremiah McCloud testified that he knew Morrison through a close 

friend. Morrison and he had discussed a gun sale for at least a month. Morrison had 

texted that evening asking to buy a gun. McCloud left his home around 11 p.m. He 

had been cleaning his house while Morrison waited for him. They drove to a bank in 

College Hill that McCloud had been to on a prior occasion. They agreed to a purchase 

price of $300. Morrison asked to test fire the gun and typed in a location on his phone. 

They drove to Heritage Park, and McCloud loaded the gun. Morrison retrieved gloves 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

7

from his trunk and offered a pair to McCloud, but he declined. McCloud thought it 

was weird that Morrison put on gloves because Morrison had handled the gun when 

McCloud gave it to him while in the car.

{¶18} McCloud fired the gun twice and gave it to Morrison. Morrison gave 

McCloud his phone and asked him to record the test fire. McCloud refused to record 

the test fire and put the phone in his pocket. After Morrison shot the gun, he placed 

the gun on the ground. McCloud picked it up the gun and began walking toward the 

car. While walking, he heard footsteps approaching him and a wind around his neck 

like Morrison was swinging toward him. McCloud thought Morrison was trying to do 

something to him or trying to get the gun. McCloud became scared and nervous, so 

he turned around and fired three shots. Then he ran from the park and walked home. 

McCloud’s cell phone was dead, so he could not call anyone. McCloud testified that he 

fired the gun in self-defense.

{¶19} On cross-examination, McCloud testified that he had originally found 

the gun on the side of a playground in his old neighborhood. When he test fired the 

gun, it jammed. When he released the clip, he saw that it was dirty, so he washed the 

bullets and the gun was no longer jammed.

{¶20} After McCloud left the park, it took him an hour to get home, but he 

could not remember the route he took or the names of the streets he traversed. When 

he was almost home, he realized he had Morrison’s phone in his pocket. McCloud 

searched the phone case, took the ID, and left the phone outside on Camelot. He 

planned to show the ID to identify the person who tried to rob him. McCloud did not 

tell the police he had the ID because he wanted to consult with a lawyer.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

8

{¶21} McCloud testified that when he fired, the second punch was in motion, 

and he feared for his life. He did not know if Morrison had a knife or other weapon. 

When asked about the spent casing in the passenger door, McCloud stated that he did 

not put in there, and someone else must have put it there. When McCloud arrived 

home, he went to sleep. It did not occur to him call an ambulance, and he did not want 

to contact the police. After McCloud’s testimony, the defense rested.

{¶22} The jury found him guilty of all of the charges, and the court sentenced 

McCloud to an aggregate term of 15-18 years in prison.

Inadmissible Hearsay

{¶23} In his first assignment of error, McCloud contends that the trial court 

erred by allowing hearsay evidence that bolstered the testimony of the sole witness on 

the attempted-murder charge.

{¶24} Morrison testified that he could not remember if he told Shea that 

McCloud put the gun to his head and pulled the trigger during his initial interview at 

the hospital because of the medication he was taking. During Shea’s testimony, the 

prosecutor asked him if Morrison told him that McCloud had put the gun to his head. 

McCloud objected arguing that any response would be inadmissible hearsay designed 

to bolster Morrison’s credibility. 

{¶25} McCloud contends that the court erred by allowing Shea to testify that 

Morrison told him, during his initial interview, that McCloud attempted to shoot him 

in his head. McCloud further argues that the testimony was prejudicial because it 

bolstered Morrison’s credibility. In response, the state argues that the statement was 

admissible as a prior consistent statement under Evid.R. 801(D)(1)(b).

{¶26} The admission of evidence lies within the broad discretion of a trial 

court, and a reviewing court should not disturb evidentiary decisions in the absence of 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

9

an abuse of discretion that has created material prejudice. State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 

49, 64, 752 N.E.2d 904 (2001).

{¶27} Hearsay is “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while 

testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter 

asserted.” Evid.R. 801(C). “Under the hearsay rules, the prior consistent statement of 

a testifying witness is not admissible to directly bolster that witness’s credibility.”

State v. Trusty, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-120378 and C-120386, 2013-Ohio-3548, ¶ 

47. However, under Evid.R. 801(D)(1)(b), “[a] statement is not hearsay if * * * [t]he 

declarant testifies at trial * * * and is subject to cross-examination concerning the 

statement and the statement is * * * consistent with declarant’s testimony and is 

offered to rebut an express or implied charge against declarant of recent fabrication or 

improper influence or motive[.]” 

{¶28} Ordinarily, Evid.R. 801(D)(1)(b) allows the state to introduce prior outof-court consistent statements to rebut the charge of “recent fabrication” raised by 

defense counsel during the cross-examination of a state’s witness, if the witness has 

been sufficiently impeached. State v. Strutz, 1st Dist Hamilton Nos. C-100334 and C100335, 2011-Ohio-3660, ¶ 12. “In determining whether to admit a prior consistent 

statement, a trial court should take a ‘generous view’ of the ‘the entire trial setting to 

determine if there was sufficient impeachment to amount to a charge of fabrication or 

improper influence or motivation.’ ” Id., citing State v. Grays, 12th Dist. Madison No. 

CA2001-02-007, 2001-Ohio-8679.

{¶29} Here, Morrison did not remember what he told the investigator at the 

initial interview. “The mere failure of [a witness] to remember the events surrounding 

an interview with police or hospital personnel, without anything further, does not rise 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

10

to the level of implied fabrication.” State v. English, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2013-03-

048, 2014-Ohio-441, ¶ 45. Thus, defense counsel did not sufficiently impeach 

Morrison to attack his credibility. McCloud did not argue in opening or closing 

statements that Morrison fabricated his testimony regarding the gun being pointed at 

his head and fired. Additionally, Morrison did not affirm or deny telling Shea about

the gun to his head. Thus, Shea’s statement that Morrison told him the gun was 

pointed at his head cannot be considered consistent with Morrison’s inability to recall 

what he told the officer.

{¶30} The erroneous admission of hearsay statements does not require 

reversal if the error was harmless. “A reviewing court may overlook an error where 

the remaining admissible evidence, standing alone, constitutes ‘overwhelming’ proof 

of a defendant’s guilt.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Banks, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C200395 and C-200396, 2021-Ohio-4330, ¶ 26. 

{¶31} McCloud argues that the sole evidence to support that he had the 

purpose to murder Morrison was the testimony that he pointed the gun at Morrison’s 

head and said he was going to “pop him real quick.” Therefore, he was prejudiced by 

Shea’s testimony because it bolstered Morrison’s credibility.

{¶32} Here, the error was harmless because Morrison testified that McCloud 

shot him in the chest, stomach, and wrist and pointed the gun to his head and pulled 

the trigger. McCloud’s intent to murder Morrison was established by the fact that 

McCloud fired multiple close-range shots at Morrison, hitting him in the chest, 

stomach, and wrist.

{¶33} We overrule the first assignment of error. 

Sufficiency and Manifest Weight
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

11

{¶34} In his second and third assignments of error, addressed together, 

McCloud contends that the conviction for aggravated robbery was not supported by 

sufficient evidence and is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. 

{¶35} In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing 

court must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of 

the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 

259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.

{¶36} As to the weight of the evidence, we review whether the jury created a 

manifest miscarriage of justice in resolving conflicting evidence, even though the 

evidence of guilt was legally sufficient. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386-

387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). We consider all the evidence in the record, the reasonable 

inferences, the credibility of the witnesses, and 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. Bailey, 1st Dist. 

Hamilton No. C-140129, 2015-Ohio-2997, ¶ 59, quoting Thompkins at 387. We afford 

substantial deference to credibility determinations because the factfinder sees and 

hears the witnesses. See State v. Glover, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180572, 2019-Ohio5211, ¶ 30. 

{¶37} McCloud was convicted of aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 

2911.01(A)(1), which provides:

(A) No person, in attempting or committing a theft offense, as defined 

in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, or in fleeing immediately after 

the attempt or offense, shall do any of the following:
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

12

(1) Have a deadly weapon on or about the offender’s person or under the 

offender’s control and either display the weapon, brandish it, indicate 

that the offender possesses it, or use it[.]

A person commits a theft offense when he knowingly obtains or exerts control over 

another’s property without the owner’s consent. R.C. 2913.02. 

{¶38} McCloud argues that the state failed to produce evidence that he had the 

purpose to commit a theft offense because Morrison admitted that he may have given 

his iPhone to McCloud to hold while he fired the gun. McCloud misstates Morrison’s 

testimony. Morrison testified he had his phone in his hand the entire time except 

when he test fired the gun. After he fired the gun, he again had his phone in his hand 

and dropped it after he was shot. McCloud admitted that he had the phone and left it 

outside his home after taking Morrison’s ID. 

{¶39} Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, the state 

presented sufficient evidence to establish that McCloud obtained Morrison’s phone 

and ID without his consent. Although McCloud testified that he put the phone in his 

pocket after Morrison asked him to hold it and forgot it, the jury believed Morrison’s 

testimony, and we cannot conclude that 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.

{¶40} Accordingly, we overrule the second and third assignments of error.

Manifest Weight

{¶41} In his fourth assignment of error, McCloud argues that the attemptedmurder conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence because Morrison’s 

testimony was “bizarre” and not as credible as McCloud’s “simple and direct” 

testimony.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

13

{¶42} “[I]t is well settled law that matters as to the credibility of witnesses are 

for the trier of fact to resolve.” State v. Brooks, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-220102, 

2023-Ohio-846, ¶ 23, quoting State v. Ham, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-170043, 2017-

Ohio-9189, ¶ 21. “When conflicting evidence is presented at trial, a conviction is not 

against the manifest weight of the evidence simply because the trier of fact believed 

the prosecution testimony.” (Citations omitted.) Id. Given the evidence presented at 

trial, the jury was entitled to reject McCloud’s version of events and find Morrison’s 

testimony to be more credible. We cannot say that the jury lost its way or created a 

manifest miscarriage of justice in finding McCloud guilty.

{¶43} We overrule the fourth assignment of error.

Conclusion

{¶44} Having overruled McCloud’s four assignments of error, we affirm the 

trial court’s judgment. 

Judgment affirmed.

BOCK, P.J., and WINKLER, J., concur.

Please note:

The court has recorded its own entry this date.