[Cite as State v. Callender, 2015-Ohio-4255.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State of Ohio, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

v. : No. 15AP-15 

 (C.P.C. No. 14CR-1433) 

Jesean Callender, : 

 (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on October 13, 2015 

 

Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Sheryl L. Prichard, 

for appellee. 

Todd W. Barstow, for appellant. 

 

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 

TYACK, J. 

{¶ 1} Jesean Callender is appealing from his convictions of the charge of 

aggravated murder and related specifications. For the following reasons, we affirm the 

judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. 

{¶ 2} Callender assigns two errors for our consideration: 

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND DEPRIVED 

APPELLANT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE 

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE ONE 

SECTION TEN OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION BY 

FINDING HIM GUILTY OF AGGRAVATED MURDER AND 

MURDER AS THOSE VERDICTS WERE NOT SUPPORTED 

BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND WERE ALSO AGAINST 

THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. 
No. 15AP-15 2 

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF 

APPELLANT BY PERMITTING THE STATE TO INTRODUCE HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT 

ESTABLISHING A PROPER FOUNDATION. 

I. Factual and Procedural History 

{¶ 3} The basic facts are not in dispute. On January 17, 2013, a large group of 

students left Linden-McKinley High School at the end of the school day and walked a few 

blocks to a nearby McDonald's restaurant. Many of the students made this trip to observe 

a fight between rival gang members. The two gangs were "PTSQ" and "Squad." Callender 

was a member of PTSQ and went by the street name "J Dunk." The two participants in 

the fight were supposed to have been Demonte Walker, a/k/a Monte, and Michael 

Douglas, a/k/a Magic Mike. Prior to Monte's arrival, Magic Mike and Kaewaun Coleman 

agreed to engage in a fight. Coleman was a member of Squad. Before Monte and Magic 

Mike could begin, witnesses saw Callender fire a pistol several times into the crowd. 

Coleman was hit by those shots and died as a result. Witnesses claimed that Shyquan 

Washington, a/k/a Lil Mook, a member of PTSQ, had provided the firearm to Callender 

immediately before the shooting. 

{¶ 4} Officers found a 9-millimeter handgun near McDonald's. They also found a 

spent shell casing from a 9-millimeter round. In December of 2012, Columbus police 

officers had been called to Lil Mook's residence to investigate a "shots fired" call where 

they collected shell casings. Subsequent testing by the Columbus Crime Laboratory 

confirmed that the pistol found at the scene fired all the shell casings found at Lil Mook's 

residence; the shell casing found at McDonald's; and the bullet recovered from Coleman's 

corpse. 

{¶ 5} Callender was indicted on March 19, 2014 on one count of aggravated 

murder and one count of murder. Both counts contained a three-year firearm 

specification and a three-year criminal gang specification. On October 24, 2014, after a 

four-day trial, the jury returned verdicts of guilty as to both aggravated murder and 

murder and returned verdicts of guilty as to the specifications. On November 6, 2014, the 

trial court held a sentencing hearing and imposed a term of imprisonment of 30 years to 

life on Count One of aggravated murder, plus three years for the gun specification and 
No. 15AP-15 3 

three years for the gang specification. The judgment entry was filed on December 11, 

2014, and a notice of appeal was timely filed on January 9, 2015. 

II. Analysis of the Convictions

{¶ 6} The facts clearly demonstrate that a firearm was used to commit the crime, 

so a firearm specification was appropriate. "[T]he offender had a firearm on or about the 

offender's person or under the offender's control while committing the offense and * * * 

used it to facilitate the offense." R.C. 2941.145. 

{¶ 7} The testimony at trial also demonstrated that the gang membership was a 

motivating factor in the shooting and in the confrontation between gang members, which 

originally was just supposed to be a fight. The gang-specification finding was also 

consistent with the evidence. "[T]he offender committed the felony that is an offense of 

violence while participating in a criminal gang." R.C. 2941.142. Callender further 

admitted to a corrections officer his gang membership and the point was conceded at trial. 

(R. 134, Tr. Vol. 2, 333; R. 135, Tr. Vol. 3, 448.) 

{¶ 8} Murder requires a finding that the accused purposely caused the death of 

another as a proximate result of the offender's committing or attempting to commit an 

offense of violence that is a felony of the first or second degree. R.C. 2903.02(B). 

Aggravated murder is distinguished by a requirement that the accused acted with prior 

calculation and design. "No person shall purposely, and with prior calculation and design, 

cause the death of another." R.C. 2903.01(A). 

{¶ 9} The facts set forth clearly show that Callender was correctly convicted of 

murder. Callender shot at Coleman and killed him. 

{¶ 10} The facts are less clear as to prior calculation and design. The firearm was 

given to Callender by another member of PTSQ, a/k/a Lil Mook, almost immediately 

before Callender started shooting. The facts do not inform us if Callender planned to get 

the firearm from a fellow gang member to shoot Coleman and knew the gun would be 

available. The jury felt that sufficient evidence was presented that the shooting was 

planned in advance, consistent with Callender going from the high school with other gang 

members to a place where a gang confrontation was about to take place. Callender was 

with a gang member he knew was armed. Multiple witnesses testified that Lil Mook 
No. 15AP-15 4 

showed the crowd that he had a gun. Callender got the gun and began shooting at a 

member of a rival gang. 

III. The Manifest Weight of the Evidence Supports the Verdict 

{¶ 11} The first assignment of error is divided into two arguments: first, that the 

verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence; and second, that the convictions were 

against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

{¶ 12} Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine 

whether the case should have gone to the jury. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 

386 (1997). In other words, sufficiency tests the adequacy of the evidence and asks 

whether the evidence introduced at trial is legally sufficient as a matter of law to support a 

verdict. Id. "The 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, 61 Ohio St.3d 

259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 

(1979). The verdict will not be disturbed unless the appellate court finds that reasonable 

minds could not reach the conclusion reached by the trier of fact. Jenks at 273. If the 

court determines that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law, a judgment of 

acquittal must be entered for the defendant. See Thompkins at 387. 

{¶ 13} Even though supported by sufficient evidence, a conviction may still be 

reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. at 387. In so doing, the 

court of appeals sits as a " 'thirteenth juror' " and, after " '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.' " Id., quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st 

Dist.1983); see also Columbus v. Henry, 105 Ohio App.3d 545, 547-48 (10th Dist.1995). 

Reversing a conviction as being against the manifest weight of the evidence should be 

reserved for only the most " 'exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against 

the conviction.' " Thompkins at 387, quoting Martin at 175. 

{¶ 14} As this court has previously stated, "[w]hile the jury may take note of the 

inconsistencies and resolve or discount them accordingly, see [State v.] DeHass [10 Ohio 
No. 15AP-15 5 

St.2d 230 (1967)], such inconsistencies do not render defendant's conviction against the 

manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence." State v. Nivens, 10th Dist. No. 95APA09-

1236 (May 28, 1996). It was within the province of the jury to make the credibility 

decisions in this case. See State v. Lakes, 120 Ohio App. 213, 217 (4th Dist.1964) ("It is 

the province of the jury to determine where the truth probably lies from conflicting 

statements, not only of different witnesses but by the same witness.") 

{¶ 15} Callender claims that three of the witnesses that the state relied on are not 

credible for various reasons. First, Callender argues the witness from the rival gang 

Squad, R.T.R., did not know Callender very well and that he heard other gunshots during 

the event. The second witness, L.R., who also heard other gunshots, lied under oath to 

protect the reputation of Coleman. The third witness, L.M., whom Callender 

characterizes as a classic jailhouse informant, was not to be believed when he testified that 

Callender admitted to being Coleman's killer. Callender argues that the veracity of these 

three witnesses is so lacking that there is a deficiency of sufficient evidence, and the 

convictions are not supported by a manifest weight of evidence. 

{¶ 16} A jury as the trier of fact is in best position to judge the credibility of a 

witness. The weight to be given evidence and the credibility of witnesses are primarily 

jury issues. State v. Ballew, 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 249 (1996), citing State v. Waddy, 63 

Ohio St.3d 424 (1992). As an appellate court, we must give deference to the fact finders 

because they are in the best position to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, 

gestures, and voice inflections and are entitled to believe or disbelieve any witness. State 

v. Antill, 176 Ohio St. 61, 67 (1964). 

{¶ 17} A jury may believe a witness even if there are reasons to doubt the witness. 

See State v. Harris, 73 Ohio App.3d 57, 63 (10th Dist.1991) (even though there was reason 

to doubt the credibility of the prosecution's chief witness, he was not so unbelievable as to 

render verdict against the manifest weight). The believability of such a witness's 

testimony is enhanced if there is some limited testimony from other witnesses. Id. at 67. 

{¶ 18} The jury found these three witnesses credible. The three witnesses' stories 

do not contradict each other. We cannot say that the jury clearly lost its way or created a 

manifest miscarriage of justice in finding these witnesses credible. 
No. 15AP-15 6 

IV. The Law Proving Prior Calculation and Design 

{¶ 19} The state must prove Callender caused the death of Coleman as a proximate 

result of committing or attempting to commit an offense of violence, felonious assault. 

R.C. 2903.02(B). The state must also prove prior calculation and design. R.C. 2903.01. 

{¶ 20} Intent may be determined from the surrounding facts and circumstances. 

State v. Johnson, 56 Ohio St.2d 35, 38 (1978); State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 168 (1990). 

Purpose and intent can be proven by circumstantial evidence. State v. Nicely, 39 Ohio 

St.3d 147 (1988); Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259. Moreover, purpose may be inferred where the 

natural and probable consequences of the wrongful act produces death. State v. 

Robinson, 161 Ohio St. 213 (1954); State v. Fugate, 36 Ohio App.2d 131 (2d Dist.1973). 

Intent may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, including the instrument 

used to produce death and the manner of death. Robinson; Fugate at 132. A jury may 

presume an intention to kill where the natural and probable consequence of an act is to 

produce death, and the jury may conclude from the surrounding circumstances that there 

was an intention to kill. Robinson at 219-20. 

{¶ 21} While "prior calculation and design" requires something more than 

instantaneous deliberation, it does not require a drawn-out thought process. State v. 

Cotton, 56 Ohio St.2d 8 (1978), paragraph two of the syllabus. The Supreme Court of 

Ohio also listed factors to consider:

[T]he court of appeals found three factors important in 

determining whether prior calculation and design exists: 

(1) Did the accused and victim know each other, and if so, was 

that relationship strained? (2) Did the accused give thought or 

preparation to choosing the murder weapon or murder site? 

and (3) Was the act drawn out or "an almost instantaneous 

eruption of events?" 

State v. Taylor, 78 Ohio St.3d 15, 19 (1991), quoting State v. Jenkins, 48 Ohio App.2d 99, 

102 (8th Dist.1976). A timespan as short as two or three minutes can be sufficient, neither 

the degree of care nor the length or time the offender takes to ponder the crime 

beforehand are critical factors in themselves, but momentary deliberation is insufficient. 

Taylor at 22, quoting Committee Comment to Am.Sub.H.B. No. 511; R.C. 2903.01.

{¶ 22} There are numerous pieces of testimony and evidence of prior calculation 

and design to kill Squad members. The state proved the motive for the killing was based 
No. 15AP-15 7 

on the dispute between the gangs PTSQ and Squad through multiple witnesses, as well as 

YouTube videos. 

{¶ 23} Witness R.T.R., a minor and student of Linden-McKinley High School, who 

was a member of the gang Squad, the rival gang of Callender's gang, testified as to the 

shooting and to YouTube videos and Facebook posts. 

{¶ 24} R.T.R. testified about a YouTube video titled "Fuck Monte," in which both 

Callender, Lil Mook, and Magic Mike appear. It is clear from the testimony and from the 

YouTube videos published before the killing that Callender stated in his rap that he was a 

"shooter," that Monte "should find him in the street," as well as "[y]ou don't want to fight 

me boy. I might end your life boy," and "bullets comin for you boy." (State's Exhibit M.) 

The evidence is clear of the animosity between the two gangs and threats made by 

Callender and very specifically in his YouTube videos, which where published under his 

street name J Dunk. 

{¶ 25} R.T.R. testified that, on the day of the killing, Magic Mike approached 

Coleman and that, as a result of the conversation Monte was called and came to the 

location near McDonald's. (R. 133, Tr. Vol 1.) R.T.R. testified that he saw Lil Mook with a 

gun in his jacket pocket that was identified as the murder weapon. (R. 133, Tr. Vol. 1, 97.) 

R.T.R testified that, as Monte and Magic Mike approached each other to begin to fight, 

Callender, who was standing in front of Lil Mook, pulled out the gun and started firing at 

the crowd. R.T.R. stated Callender fired at him and Coleman who was standing right 

beside him. (R. 133, Tr. Vol. 1, 100-02.) 

{¶ 26} Another witness, L.R., who was a student at Linden-McKinley High School 

and not a member of either gang, testified about the shooting and identified most of the 

people involved in the incident. L.R. testified that Coleman was in the gang Squad, and he 

identified three members of the gang PTSQ, including Callender. (R. 134, Tr. Vol. 2, 171-

73.) L.R. testified about the events after school that day leading up to the fight and that he 

saw a member of PTSQ, Lil Mook, with a gun. (R. 134, Tr. Vol. 2, 173-78.) He testified 

that, while the fight was getting ready to start, another member of PTSQ exchanged 

something with Callender: 

A. I seen Lil Mook go in his pocket. I'm not gonna – he had 

the gun at the school, but I don't know for sure if it was a gun 
No. 15AP-15 8 

he gave him when they was doing the little hand-off or 

whatever, but I seen them do like a little hand-off, like 

[Callender] had turned around a little bit and Mook had like 

handed him something. 

 

Q. And before the hand-off you said he went into a pocket. Is 

that the same pocket he had the gun in when you saw him? 

A. Yeah, yeah. So I assumed it was the gun still. 

Q. But you saw him hand something to [Callender]? 

A. Yes sir. 

(R. 134, Tr. Vol. 2, 184.) L.R., after identifying Callender, testified about the actual 

shooting itself, having stated that he had a clear view of the whole situation and saw 

Callender shoot toward Coleman four or five times. L.R. also indicated in his testimony 

that he saw PTSQ member Magic Mike act like he was about to hit Squad member Monte 

but, instead, take a side-step that acted as a signal for Callender to start shooting: 

A. That's when like Monte and Magic Mike started squaring 

up or whatever and then, like when Magic Mike went to 

swing, he like – he ain't going to swing. He like side-stepped a 

little bit. And I guess when he did like that little side-step or 

whatever, that was like the key to start shooting or something. 

I don't know, like it was their little code. So that is when – 

MR. BOYLE: Your Honor, I object. That is all speculation. 

MR. LOWE: It is based on what he saw, what he was 

interpreting. 

THE COURT: Overruled. 

Q. Go ahead. 

A. So they was sitting there. My – okay. Magic Mike had his 

hoodie off or whatever and he started – Monte and them 

started squaring up. Magic Mike act like he was about to hit 

him, but he side-stepped. And before he side-stepped, like 

[Callender] was (unintelligible) around the house and then 

that is when I was – I was still in the alley, I could see 
No. 15AP-15 9 

everything, and then that's when [Callender] had stepped out 

from the side of the house a little bit and that's when he just 

started shooting. 

* * * 

Q. You said you saw [Callender] shoot. How many times 

would you say you saw him shoot? 

A. At least four or five times. 

* * * 

Q. When you saw [Callender] shoot, how – what direction was 

he shooting? 

A. Towards the direction of the crowd that was in McDonald's. 

Q. Is that toward where [Coleman] and Monte were? 

A. Yeah, yes, sir. 

(R. 134, Tr. Vol. 2, 185-87.) 

{¶ 27} Callender challenged L.R.'s credibility at the trial, claiming he lied under 

oath to protect the reputation of the victim, Coleman. The lie occurred at a previous 

hearing when L.R. initially claimed that Coleman was not in a gang. L.R. admitted in that 

same hearing that he lied to protect Coleman's reputation. This issue was fully discussed 

in court, both the instance of the lie, the reasons for it, and then the admitting to it. The 

jury is the ultimate judge of credibility, and it is clear that this issue of credibility was fully 

presented to the jury. 

{¶ 28} Witness L.M testified that, while incarcerated with Callender at the juvenile 

detention center, Callender talked to him about the killing. L.M. testified that Callender 

told him that, when the fight was about to start, he pulled out a gun and started shooting. 

L.M. testified that Callender said that he got the gun from "Mook" that day and that he 

saw that Callender had shot Coleman. L.M. also testified that Callender laughed about the 

killing, did not show any remorse, and acted like he had accomplished something. 
No. 15AP-15 10 

{¶ 29} Applying the standards we are required to follow by the precedents from the 

Supreme Court of Ohio, the jury's verdicts were supported by sufficient evidence and were 

not against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

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

V. Evidence Admitted at Trial was Properly Authenticated 

{¶ 31} The second assignment of error argues the trial court erred by permitting 

the state to introduce highly prejudicial evidence without establishing a proper 

foundation. The pieces of evidence in question are YouTube videos and Facebook posts 

that show hostility and threats made against the victim. Callender claims that the witness 

who viewed and testified about the videos stated he did not know Callender or other 

members of PTSQ very well and could not authenticate that it was PTSQ that made the 

video or the video's content. 

{¶ 32} Evid.R. 901 states that all evidence must be properly authenticated before it 

is admissible into evidence. Exhibits are properly authenticated when there is evidence 

"sufficient to support finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims." 

Evid.R. 901(A). Authenticity can be demonstrated by extrinsic evidence or the evidence 

can be self-authenticating. Authentication is satisfied when a proponent presents 

foundational evidence or testimony from which a rational jury may determine that the 

evidence is what its proponent claims it to be. State v. Farrah, 10th Dist. No. 01AP-968,

2002-Ohio-1918, ¶ 39. "The proponent need not offer conclusive evidence as a foundation 

must merely offer sufficient evidence to allow the question as to authenticity or 

genuineness to reach the jury." State v. Caldwell, 9th Dist. No. 14720 (Dec. 4, 1991). 

{¶ 33} The trial court has broad discretion in the admission and exclusion of 

evidence and, unless it has clearly abused its discretion and the defendant has been 

materially prejudiced thereby, should not be reversed. See State v. Hymore, 9 Ohio St.2d 

122, 128 (1967). "The term 'abuse of discretion' connotes more than an error of law or 

judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or 

unconscionable." Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). 

{¶ 34} The evidence which is being contested on appeal are videos and pictures 

from social media in which members of Squad, including Coleman, were being threatened 

with death. The videos and pictures were posted on YouTube over a period of months and 
No. 15AP-15 11 

continued up until four days before the shooting. Callender is mistaken in his argument 

about the witness's ability to identify individuals in the videos. While the witness was a 

member of the rival gang Squad and did not know the members of PTSQ well, he clearly 

identified members of PTSQ, including Callender, in the video. The witness also testified 

that he had seen the PTSQ members before in person prior to the killing. The YouTube 

videos were properly authenticated by the testimony of the witness pursuant to Evid.R. 

901(B)(1). 

{¶ 35} Evidence may also be authenticated by distinctive characteristics and the 

like; "[a]ppearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive 

characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances." Evid.R. 901(B)(4). The videos 

and pictures clearly demonstrate the hostility between PTSQ and Squad and provide 

strong support for the motive for Callender when he shot Coleman. The clear content of 

the videos in particular make them authentic exhibits as to the hostility between the gangs 

and the threats of shooting members of Squad. 

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

VI. Conclusion 

{¶ 37} Both assignments of error having been overruled, the judgment of the 

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

DORRIAN and LUPER SCHUSTER, JJ., concur. 

_______________________