[Cite as State v. Cultrona, 2020-Ohio-3250.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

 : Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

IAN CULTRONA : Case No. 2019 AP 06 0019 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Case No. 2018 CR 12 0462 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: June 5, 2020 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

RYAN STYER LINDSEY K. DONEHUE-ANGLER 

125 East High Avenue 217 North 8th Street 

New Philadelphia, OH 44663 Cambridge, OH 43725 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2019 AP 06 0019 2 

Wise, Earle, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Ian A. Cultrona appeals the May 21, 2019 judgment of 

conviction and sentence of the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas. PlaintiffAppellee is the State of Ohio. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶ 2} On December 5, 2018, Cultrona and four co-defendants – Samantha Owen, 

Lucian Lambes, Doug Casteel, and Lisa Freetage -- arranged to purchase an ounce of 

marijuana from Brennan Wilkin for $200. The actual plan, however, was to rob Wilkin of 

drugs and money. Arrangements were made for the purchase via text and Facebook 

messaging between Owen and Wilkin. Cultrona and his co-defendants also 

communicated via text and cell phone contact throughout the events of the day. 

{¶ 3} Cultrona and his co-defendants took 2 cars to meet Wilkin. Instead of 

meeting Wilkin at his home near Casteel's home where the plan was hatched, Cultrona 

and his cohorts directed Wilkin to a remote country road several miles outside 

Newcomerstown. Cultrona drove his blue minivan with Owen as a passenger. Lambes 

drove Freetage's black Dodge Dart with Freetage and Casteel as passengers. Cultrona, 

Lambes and Casteel all had handguns. 

{¶ 4} The group drove to the prearranged secluded pull-off location on Liberty 

Road. Cultrona and Owen remained there while the other three drove a short distance 

down the road where they backed into a gated lane. All five kept in contact via Cultrona's 

and Lambes' Verizon cell phones and calls between Owen's and Casteel's cell phones. 

At the same time, Owen was texting Wilken to direct him to her location. 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2019 AP 06 0019 3 

{¶ 5} Wilkin arrived with two passengers and parked his Ford Escape SUV 

directly behind Cultrona's minivan. Owen approached Wilkin and asked for a sample of 

the marijuana which Wilkin provided. As Owen walked the sample back to Cultrona's van, 

Lambes burst onto the scene in Freetage's car. Lambes and Casteel exited the car 

wearing bandana facemasks and brandishing handguns. At the same time, Cultrona 

exited his van, also wearing a bandana mask and brandishing a handgun. 

{¶ 6} The three surrounded Wilkin's SUV, aiming their weapons at the occupants 

and demanding Wilkin's marijuana and cash. Wilkin threw a yellow bag containing 

marijuana out the window and sped away. As he did, one of the men fired a shot at the 

SUV, flattening a rear tire. Lambes and Casteel jumped back into the Dodge and gave 

chase for four miles while firing numerous shots at Wilkin's vehicle. Four shots found their 

mark, one of which entered the passenger compartment and severed a fingertip of a 17-

year-old passenger. Wilkin stopped when he spotted another motorist behind him. That 

person gave Wilkin and his three passengers a ride to the Newcomerstown Police 

Department. 

{¶ 7} While that was going on, Cultrona drove in the opposite direction of the 

chase. After receiving a call from Lambes, Cultrona changed course and headed toward 

Kimbolton, a small nearby village. From there Cultrona made several phone calls. Two 

hours after the robbery and shooting, Cultrona and Owens went to Owens' residence. 

Owens was arrested later that evening leaving her child's school Christmas program. 

Approximately the same time, Cultrona was arrested in the basement of Owen's home. A 

.357 revolver was recovered from the pocket of his coat, and a yellow bag containing 

marijuana was recovered among Cultrona's belongings. 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2019 AP 06 0019 4 

{¶ 8} Cultrona was subsequently charged with conspiracy to commit aggravated 

robbery, aggravated robbery, three counts of felonious assault and three counts of 

attempted murder. Each count included a firearm specification. 

{¶ 9} Cultrona pled not guilty to the charges, and on January 29, 2019, was 

released on bond. He was placed on pretrial supervision with the intensive supervision 

unit of the Tuscarwaras County Probation Department. Cultrona was fitted with a GPS 

ankle monitor and advised of the terms and conditions of pretrial supervision. Cultrona 

indicated he understood the terms and conditions. Cultrona failed, however, to report to 

pretrial supervision as directed, allowed the battery in his ankle monitor to die, cut the 

monitor off, and fled the state. On February 22, 2019, investigators from the Tuscarawas 

County Sheriff's Department tracked Cultrona down in Pennsylvania and took him into 

custody. 

{¶ 10} Before trial, counsel for Cultrona filed a motion in limine seeking to prohibit 

the introduction of any evidence concerning violations of the conditions of his bond, and 

flight from the jurisdiction. Counsel argued Cultrona's flight from the jurisdiction was too 

far removed from his alleged crimes to warrant a flight instruction. Before jury selection in 

March 2019, the trial court held a hearing on the matter and took the same under 

consideration. The court ultimately permitted the testimony and included a flight 

instruction in its jury instructions. 

{¶ 11} Also before trial, counsel for Cultrona filed a motion in limine objecting to 

the admission of a map created by Tuscarawas County Sheriff's Office Detective 

Sergeant Hamilton. Hamilton created the map from Cultrona's Verizon Wireless cell 

phone records, and showed where Cultrona was located when he made phone calls to 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2019 AP 06 0019 5 

Lambes on the day in question. Hamilton created the map using an FBI program called 

Castviz, a program on which he had received training. Counsel argued in part that 

Hamilton was not qualified to create such a map. Following a hearing on the matter, the 

trial court overruled Cultrona's motion. 

{¶ 12} Then, during trial, through the testimony of Hamilton, the state presented 

the Verizon Wireless cell phone records of Cultrona and Lambes and the map created by 

Hamilton. Each aided in putting Cultrona at the scene of the robbery. 

{¶ 13} On cross-examination, counsel for Cultrona suggested Hamilton selectively 

chose which records to map, limiting his map to communications between Cultrona and 

Lambes, and had excluded exculpatory records from his map. On redirect, Hamilton 

denied that accusation, and testified he had simply limited his analysis to the two suspects 

in the robbery. 

{¶ 14} Following a weekend break in the trial, at the request of the state, Hamilton 

produced another map which included all of Cultrona's call data from the day in question. 

The new map demonstrated that nothing exculpatory had been omitted from the first map. 

The state intended to recall Hamilton to the stand to discuss the new map and counsel 

for Cultrona objected to the same on the basis that the map was "prepared during the 

middle of trial," and that the information was "somewhat redundant." Transcript of Trial 

(T) 813-814. The court heard arguments on the matter and found Cultrona would suffer 

no prejudice. The court overruled the objection and permitted the state to recall Hamilton 

and present the new map. 

{¶ 15} At the conclusion of his 7-day jury trial, Cultrona was found guilty of 

aggravated robbery and guilty of three counts of felonious assault and each firearm 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2019 AP 06 0019 6 

specification. He was found not guilty of conspiracy. The jury deadlocked on the 

attempted murder charges. A mistrial was declared on thereon and the state declined to 

further pursue the charges. 

{¶ 16} On May 21, 2019 Cultrona was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 

11 years. 

{¶ 17} Cultrona filed an appeal, and the matter is now before this court for 

consideration. He raises two assignments of error as follow: 

I 

{¶ 18} "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR WHEN IT PERMITTED 

SERGEANT HAMILTON TO TESTIFY A SECOND TIME REGARDING HIS NEWLY

CREATED CELL PHONE MAP, AS THAT TESTIMONY VIOLATED DISCOVERY 

RULES AND APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL." 

II 

{¶ 19} "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR WHEN IT OVERRULED 

DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE AND GAVE THE JURY AN INSTRUCTION ON

"FLIGHT"." 

I 

{¶ 20} In his first assignment of error, Cultrona argues the trial court erred when it 

permitted the state to recall Detective Sergeant Hamilton to testify about the newly 

created cell tower map. Specifically, Cultrona argues the trial court's error permitted 

Hamilton to testify to facts in contravention of the rules of discovery and further, 

deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial. We disagree. 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2019 AP 06 0019 7 

{¶ 21} First as to Cultrona's allegation of a discovery violation, as pointed out by 

the state, Cultrona never raised this objection below. An error not raised in the trial court 

must be plain error for an appellate court to reverse. State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 

372 N.E.2d 804 (1978) at paragraph one of the syllabus; Crim.R. 52(B). In order to 

prevail under a plain error analysis, appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that 

the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different but for the error. Id. at 

paragraph two of the syllabus. Notice of plain error "is to be taken with the utmost 

caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of 

justice." Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus. 

{¶ 22} Cultrona has not argued plain error. Even if he had, Cultrona 

characterizes the map as new evidence that should have been disclosed during 

discovery. However, Cultrona was provided with the Verizon records during discovery 

and does not dispute that fact. The map was merely a visual representation of the data 

contained therein. We therefore reject Cultrona's discovery violation argument. 

{¶ 23} Next we find no error in the trial court's decision to permit to the state to 

recall Sergeant Detective Hamilton. 

{¶ 24} Evid.R. 611(A) provides that the trial court shall exercise control over the 

mode and order of interrogating witnesses and the presentation of evidence to ensure 

that the interrogation and presentation of evidence are effective in ascertaining the truth. 

Whether to permit a witness to be recalled to give additional testimony is a matter 

committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Sims, 3 Ohio App.3d 321, 

329, 445 N.E.2d 235 (8th Dist.1981). 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2019 AP 06 0019 8 

{¶ 25} In order to find an abuse of discretion, we must determine the trial court's 

decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely an error of law 

or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). 

{¶ 26} On cross-examination during Hamilton's testimony, Hamilton agreed 

Cultrona made calls to people other than Lambes during the relevant time period which 

Hamilton did not plot on the map. T. 564. Counsel then suggested Hamilton's map of 

Cultrona's phone calls was "* * * trying to show the jury evidence that might be helpful 

to the state but not evidence that might be helpful to the defense * * * " Hamilton replied 

his purpose was to show communications between two suspects during the time of the 

crime. T. 565. 

{¶ 27} Following this testimony, counsel for the state asked Hamilton produce a 

second map, and rather than limiting his analysis to calls between Cultrona and 

Lambes, to instead plot all of Cultrona's cell phone activity on the day of the robbery. 

Hamilton completed this task over a weekend break in the trial. T. 811-815. 

{¶ 28} On the following Monday the state indicated it wished to recall Hamilton to 

the stand to present the new map and counsel for Cultrona objected to the same. T. 

811-816. The trial court overruled the objection and permitted the state to recall 

Hamilton. T. 816. Hamilton then testified using the new visual aid of the call data which 

contained all of Cultrona's cell phone activity on the day of the robbery. Our review of 

the record indicates Hamilton's testimony on recall did not conflict with his previous 

testimony, and further, presented nothing exculpatory. T. 530-540, 829-838. 

{¶ 29} We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the state 

to recall Detective Sergeant Hamilton as the decision cannot be viewed as 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2019 AP 06 0019 9 

unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Rather it clarified questions raised by the 

defense. 

{¶ 30} The first assignment of error is overruled. 

II 

{¶ 31} In his second assignment of error, Cultrona argues the trial court abused 

its discretion when it gave the jury a flight instruction. Cultrona argues because there 

was a two-month time span between his crimes and his flight, the matter was a bond 

violation rather than a flight from justice and did not warrant a flight instruction. We 

disagree. 

{¶ 32} The giving of jury instructions is within the sound discretion of the trial 

court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. State v. 

Martens, 90 Ohio App.3d 338, 629 N.E.2d 462 (1993). In order to find an abuse of 

discretion, we must determine the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or 

unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 

Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1993). Jury instructions must be reviewed as a 

whole. State v. Coleman, 37 Ohio St.3d 286, 525 N.E.2d 792 (1988). 

{¶ 33} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that flight from justice, and its 

analogous conduct, may be indicative of consciousness of guilt. State v. Eaton, 19 Ohio 

St.2d 145, 146, 249 N.E.2d 897, (1969) paragraph six of the syllabus, vacated in part on 

other grounds (1972), 408 U.S. 935, 92 S.Ct. 2857, 33 L.Ed.2d 750. In Eaton, the Court 

quoted 2 Wigmore on Evidence (3 Ed.), 111, Section 276: 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2019 AP 06 0019 10 

Flight from justice, and its analogous conduct, have always been 

indicative of a consciousness of guilt. * * * 

It is today universally conceded that the fact of an accused's flight, 

escape from custody, resistance to arrest, concealment, 

assumption of a false name, and related conduct, are admissible as 

evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself. 

{¶ 34} Eaton at 160. 

{¶ 35} In State v. Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d, 378, the Ohio Supreme Court found "* * 

* admissibility of evidence of flight does not depend upon how much time passes 

between the offense and the defendant's flight. See State v. Alexander (Feb. 26, 1987), 

Cuyahoga App. No. 51784, 1987 WL 7079, *2. Indeed, flight on the eve of trial can carry 

the same inference of guilt as flight from the scene. Id." 

{¶ 36} While Cultrona acknowledges Hand, he attempts to distinguish that matter 

from his own by pointing out that the defendant in Hand was charged with escape, while 

he was not. This is a distinction without a difference. Simply because Cultrona was not 

charged with escape does not make Hand any less applicable. “[F]light may be proven 

where it occurs after any event which would tend to spark a sharp impulse of fear of 

prosecution or conviction in a guilty mind.” State v. Jeffries, 182 Ohio App.3d 459, 477, 

913 N.E.2d 493, (11th Dist. 2009) quoting United States v. Dillon, 870 F.2d, 1125, 1128 

(C.A.6, 1989). 

{¶ 37} Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude the trial court did 

not abuse its discretion in adopting the state's flight instruction. 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2019 AP 06 0019 11 

{¶ 38} The second assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 39} The judgment of conviction and sentence of the Tuscarawas Court of 

Common Pleas is affirmed. 

By Wise, Earle, J. 

Gwin, P.J. and 

Baldwin, J. concur. 

EEW/rw