[Cite as State v. Kyles , 2023

- Ohio

- 489.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO

,

Appell ee

,

- vs

-

CAMERON S. KYLES

,

Appell ant

. :

:

:

:

:

: CASE NO S

. CA 202 1

- 1 1

- 141

CA 2021

- 11

- 142

O P I N I O N

2/21/2023

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Case No. CR2019

- 06

- 0862 ; CR2019

- 10

- 1671

Michael T. Gmoser

, Butler Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, and Willa Concannon,

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee

.

Yavitch & Palmer, Co., L.P.A., and Stephen E. Palmer

, for appel lant

.

M

. POWELL

, P. J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Cameron Kyles, appeals his conviction in the Butler County Court

of Common Pleas for participating in a criminal gang and the gang specification attached

to eight felonious offenses. This case involves two criminal gangs in Middletown, Ohio, the

Crips and the Bloods.

{¶ 2} On June 26, 2019, appellant was indicted in Case No. CR2019

- 06

- 0862 onButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 2

- one count of participating in a criminal gang

. The indictment stemmed from a video

streamed on Facebook Live showing appellant burning a teddy bear he had taken from a

memorial for Blood gang member Joseph Davis ( who had been murdered by Crip gang

member Gonnii White)

. During the video, appellant is seen displaying Crip hand signs. On

October 18, 2019, appellant was indicted in Case No. CR2019

- 10

- 1671 on two counts each

of aggravated murder, murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and felonious

assault

, and one count of having weapons while under disability

. With the exception of the

weapons under disability count, all the offenses in Case No. CR2019

- 10

- 1671 were

accompanied by firearm and gang specificatio ns. The indictment stemmed from appellant's

involvement in the October 12, 2019 murder of Michael Stewart, a marijuana dealer and

Blood gang member

.

{¶ 3} Appellant entered not guilty pleas to all charges and the indictments were

consolidated for trial. Appellant moved to suppress the statements he made to police during

interviews. In particular, appellant argued that his I.Q. of 66 prevented him from making a

knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights. A suppression hearing was held before

the trial court. Detective Stephen Winters testified, and the pertinent portion of appellant's

recorded interviews was played and admitted into evidence. On September 23, 2020, the

trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress.

{¶ 4} The consolidated cases proceeded to a jury trial on August 23, 202 1. Several

witnesses testified on behalf of the state

, including Gamareon Campbell, Stephen Kubaska,

and Detective Kristi Hughes of the Middletown Police Department

. Appellant did not testify

or present witnesses on his behalf

. However, his October 14, 2019 interviews with police

were played during the state's case

- in

- chief and admitted into evidence. The trial testimony

revealed the following facts.Butler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 3

- {¶ 5} On the afternoon of October 12, 2019, Campbell, Camron Pawlowski, and

Joseph Boggs went to Stewart ' s home and purchased marijuana from him. The trio then

picked up appellant and all four returned to Pawlowski 's home

. W hi le there, Pawlowski's

mother took a photograph of the four; appellant and Pawlowski are flashing Crip hand signs;

appellant is wearing a white sweater with a red strip on the sleeves. The four planned to

rob Stewart. Appellant was seeking to join a Crip sub

- gang known as " 8

- ball mafia " and

initiation required that he commit a robbery. In preparation for the robbery

, Boggs provided

appellant with a black 9 mm handgun. Pawlowski provided appellant with clothing to wear

—

grey sweatpants

, a black hooded jacket with lettering on it

, and whi t e Nike Air F orce 1

sneakers.

{¶ 6} The four dr o ve to Stewart 's home around 9:30 p.m. Upon arrival

, Campbell

went to Stewart 's home and purchased marijuana. As Campbell was leaving Stewart 's

home

, he saw appellant

, with the outline of a handgun in his pocket

, entering Stewart 's

home alone. Campbell heard gunshots as he returned to the car. Within seconds

, appellant

ran to the car with a handgun in his hand

, a bag of marijuana

, and cash. Appellant asked

,

" Am I 8

- ball yet "? Pawlowski replied affirmatively. Appellant bragged that Stewart tried to

get up but that he had repeatedly shot him. Appellant and Pawlowski wrapped the handgun

in the white sweater appellant had worn earlier and hid it behind a church

.

{¶ 7} The four returned to Pawlowski 's home where appellant showered

, changed

clothes

, and put the clothes he wore to kill Stewart in the washing machine

. Pawlowski

divided the blood

- stained cash between the four but kept the bag of marijuana and put it in

his bedroom

. Appellant and Pawlowski subsequently retrieved the handgun and Pawlowski

hid it in the woods behind his house. Later that evening

, appellant visited his friend

,

Stephen Kubaska. Kubaska recalled that appellant had blood

- stained cash and wasButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 4

- wearing a GPS ankle monitor. Appellant told Kubaska that he had shot someone four times

and killed that person

.

{¶ 8} Four 9 mm shell casings and one bullet were recovered from the scene of

Stewart 's murder. A black 9 mm Smith & Wesson semiautomatic pistol wrapped in a white

sweater was recovered from the woods behind Pawlowski 's home. The sweater was

identical to the one worn earlier by appellant as depicted in the photograph taken by

Pawlowski's mother

. Firearms testing revealed that the bullet and shell casings found at

Stewart 's home were fired from th e 9 mm Smith & Wesson pistol police had recovered from

behind Pawlowski's home

. Police searched Pawlowski 's home and recovered a bag of

marijuana which contained Stewart 's DNA

, a 9 mm silver cartridge consistent with the

ammunition used to kill Stewart

, $300 in cash which testing found to have the presence of

blood

, and a pair of white Nike Air Force 1 sneakers which tested presumptive for blood.

Police recovered a black hood ed jacket with lettering on it and an elastic waist toggle from

Pawlowski's washing machine

. From Kubaska 's home

, where appellant was arrested

,

police recovered blood

- stained cash which DNA testing determined to be Stewart 's blood.

{¶ 9} Video footage was obtained from Stewart 's surveillance camera. The video

depicted the killer in Stewart 's home for about 30 seconds. The killer was dressed in a dark

hood ed jacket with lettering on the front and an e lastic waist toggle and was wearing white

Nike Air Force 1 sneakers. The killer 's height

, weight

, and nose matched those of appellant

.

Data from the GPS ankle monitor worn by appellant revealed that he was within 27 feet o f

Stewart 's home at the time of the murder.

{¶ 10} After his arrest

, appellant was read his Miranda rights and confessed to killing

Stewart. Appellant stated he killed Stewart to " earn his stripes " because the Crips " want to

have a body on everybody 's record. " Appellant stated he had been a Crip gang memberButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 5

- for " like four " years. Appellant admitted that he and Pawlowski had been discussing robbing

Stewart for months. On the day of the murder

, appellant s tated that Pawlowski gave him a

black handgun and that he changed into a black hoodie

, p ants

, and white Nike Air Force 1

sneakers before going to Stewart 's home. Appellant admitted that he intended to kill

Stewart before he got there and detailed the robbery and his shooting Stewart.

{¶ 11} Detective Hughes is an expert on Middletown

, Ohio gangs. She testified that

the Crips are the most violent gang in Middletown

, are comprised of mostly black male

juveniles, and ha d two s ub

- gangs in 2019 : the Road r unners and a newer sub

- gang

, the 8

-

ball mafia. The Crip hand sign s are a "C," or a "B" and "K" for "blood" and "killer" ; their

colors are black and blue. Initiation into the Crips requires commission of a violent felony

such as murder

, robbery

, or assault. Detective Hughes also testified that a criminal gang

has a leader, also known as the shot caller, a gun handler, and soldiers /shooters

. The

Roadrunners served as the soldiers/shooters for the Middletown Crips

. In 2019, Pawlowski

was the shot caller for the 8

- ball mafia ; appellant, White

, Boggs

, and Campbell were

Roadrunners

. The Bloods are the Crips ' rival gang in Middletown. Stewart was a Blood

gang member

.

{¶ 12} Detective Hughes also testified about her interview of appellant in May 2019

concerning the destruction of the teddy bear removed from th e memorial for Blood gang

member Davis

. Appellant admitted he had removed a teddy bear from Davis ' memorial and

then live streamed himself burning it while flashing Crip hand sign s

. The interview was

played to the jury and admitted into evidence.

{¶ 13} On August 27

, 2021

, t he jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts and

specifications of the indictments. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of

50

- 53 years.Butler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 6

- {¶ 14} Appellant now appeals, raising ten assignments of error. For ease of

discussion, the assignments of error will be addressed out of order, and the first and second

assignments of error will be addressed together.

{¶ 15} As conceded by appellant in his third through eighth assignments of error, he

did not object to (1) the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on accomplice testimony, (2)

Detective Hughes' expert and law enforcement opinions on the credibility of Campbell

, (3)

the detective's hearsay testimony that sought to establish essential elements of the

offenses, (4) the detective's expert testimony in violation of Crim.R. 16(K), (5) improper

testimony, comments, and arguments regarding appellant's post

- arrest, post

- Miranda

silence

, and ( 6 ) his appearing at trial wearing jail garb

. He has therefore waived all but plain

error as to those issues

.

{¶ 16} Crim.R. 52(B) provides that "[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial

rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court." On

appeal, the accused bears the burden of proving plain error in the record. State v. Thomas

,

1 52 Ohio St.3d 15, 201 7

- Ohio

- 8011

, ¶ 32. In addition to establishing an obvious defect in

the trial proceedings

, the accused must show that the error prejudiced him, that is, that

there was a reasonable probability that but for the error, the results of the proceeding would

have been different. Id. at ¶ 32

- 33

. Even "[ i ] f the accused shows that the trial court

committed plain error affecting the outcome of the proceedings, an appellate court is not

required to correct it[.]" Id. at ¶ 34. 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.

{¶ 17} Assignment of Error No. 10:

{¶ 18} THE COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED APPELLANT'S MOTION TOButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 7

- SUPPRESS HIS STATEMENTS MIRANDA v. ARIZONA

, AS HIS WAIVER WAS NOT

KNOWING, INTELLIGENT, AND VOLUNTARY. IT THUS DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF

DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND VIOLATED HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH AND

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND

COMPARABLE PROVISIONS OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

{¶ 19} Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to su ppress

the statements he made to police because the waiver of his Miranda rights was not

knowingly and intelligently made. Appellant raises two issues for review.

{¶ 20} Appellant was interviewed three times: once on October 13, 2019 (the "first

interview"), the morning after the murder, and twice on October 14, 2019. During the first

interview, Detective Winters informed appellant that several of his accomplices had given

written statements, obtained identifying information from appellant, and then began advising

appellant of his Miranda rights. Appellant requested an attorney. The detective immediately

stopped the interview, and then informed appellant he was going to take him back to jail

and book him for aggravated murder. The detective further informed appellant that if he

changed his mind, he could call the detective or send him a kite. Within one hour, appellant

told a corrections officer that he wished to speak with Detective Winters. The corrections

officer notified Detective Winters of this by email

.

{¶ 21} The next day, on October 14, 2019, Detectives Winters and Hughes twice

interviewed appellant. At the outset of the morning interview (the "second interview"),

appellant confirmed he did ask to speak with Detective Winters, signed the corrections

officer's email to confirm the same, and executed a written Miranda waiver. He then fully

confessed his crimes, speaking virtually uninterrupted for more than ten minutes. The

detectives initiated a lunch break after one hour and ten minutes. After lunch, a secondButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 8

- Miranda waiver was executed and the interview continued for an additional 3 0 minutes (the

"third interview").

{¶ 22} Following a suppression hearing during which the Miranda

- related portion of

the three interviews was played, the trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress,

concluding that under "the totality of the circumstances," appellant "knowingly, intelligently,

and voluntarily" waived his Miranda rights. The trial court found that "there certainly is no

guideline that someone in that range of having an IQ in the 60s is not able to do the things

that we're looking for here. To understand, to enter into a conversation, or an interview,

knowing what's going on, and being intelligent to the extent that the person understands

and is entering into it voluntarily."

{¶ 23} Appellate review of a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress presents a

mixed question of law and fact. State v. White

, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019

- 07

- 118, 2020

-

Ohio

- 3313, ¶ 11. When considering a motion to suppress, the trial court, as the trier of fact,

is in the best position to resolve factual questions and evaluate witness credibility. Id.

Therefore, when reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, a reviewing court is bound

to accept the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible

evidence. Id. An appellate court, however, independently reviews the trial court's legal

conclusions based on those facts and determines, without deference to the trial court's

decision, whether as a matter of law, the facts satisfy the appropriate legal standard. Id.

{¶ 24} "When a suspect is questioned in a custodial setting, the Fifth Amendment

requires that he receive Miranda warnings to protect against compelled self

- incrimination."

State v. Wesson

, 137 Ohio St.3d 309, 2013

- Ohio

- 4575, ¶ 34; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.

436, 478

- 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966). A suspect may effectively waive his or her Miranda

rights only if the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. State v. Dailey

, 53Butler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 9

- Ohio St.3d 88, 91 (1990). Whether there is a valid waiver of Miranda rights involves a dual

inquiry. State v. Green

, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2021

- 03

- 009, 2022

- Ohio

- 101, ¶ 9.

{¶ 25} First, the waiver of the Miranda rights must have been a voluntary exercise of

will rather than the product of intimidation, coercion, or deception. Moran v. Burbine

, 475

U.S. 412, 421, 106 S.Ct. 1135 (1986); Green at ¶ 10. A suspect's waiver of his or her

Miranda rights "is not involuntary unless there is evidence of police coercion, such as

physical abuse, threats, or deprivation of food, medical treatment, or sleep." (Emphasis

sic.). Wesson at ¶ 35. Appellant does not claim there was any coercive police conduct and

Detective Winters' testimony and the recorded interviews of appellant presented at the

suppression hearing plainly show that appellant's waiver of his Miranda rights was

voluntary.

{¶ 26} Second, the waiver must have been made with a full awareness of both the

nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it

.

Burbine at 421; Green

, 2022

- Ohio

- 101 at ¶ 11. Whether a waiver was knowing and

intelligent is a factual issue that must be determined based upon the totality of the

circumstances surrounding the interrogation. State v. Goodwin

, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

99254, 2013

- Ohio

- 4591, ¶ 37. This includes evaluation of "the age, mentality, and prior

criminal experience of the accused; the length, intensity, and frequency of interrogation; the

existence of physical deprivation or mistreatment; and the existence of threat or

inducement." Green at ¶ 11. A suspect's low in tellect does not necessarily render him or

her incapable of waiving Miranda rights. Goodwin at ¶ 38. Rather, a suspect's low intellect

is but one of many factors under the totality of circumstances that a court must consider in

assessing the voluntariness of a Miranda waiver or confession. Id.

{¶ 27} In his first issue for review, appellant challenges the trial court's denial of hisButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 10

- motion to suppress, arguing the court gave "little or no consideration to whether the

[ Miranda ] waiver was knowing and intelligent," instead focusing on voluntariness. Appellant

asserts that the trial court "improperly discounted the importance of [his] intellectual

deficiencies" in view of his I.Q. of 66, which was documented in a competency report.

{¶ 28} Regarding appellant's I.Q. of 66, which the state does not dispute, we note

that appellant was examined by two separate psychologists: (1) in the summer of 2019 by

Dr. Joy McGhee in the case of the burning of the teddy bear, and (2) in December 2019 by

Dr. Bobbie Hopes in the murder case. Dr. McGhee's report, which presumably found that

appellant had "an IQ in the extremely low range of functioning," was never introduced or

admitted into evidence. Dr. Hopes' report was admitted as a court exhibit during a

competency hearing on January 7, 2020. It makes no mention of appellant's I.Q. Neither

psychologist nor an expert testified at the suppression hearing. Defense counsel asked the

trial court to take notice of the two competency reports. After the trial court observed

defense counsel's failure to introduce the reports, the state informed the court that the

parties had stipulated to a competency report on January 7, 2020. Such report would be

that of Dr. Hopes.

{¶ 29} We find that appellant's waiver of his Miranda rights was knowingly and

intelligently made. The requisite level of comprehension needed to waive one's Miranda

rights "does not require that a criminal suspect know and understand every possible

consequence of a waiver of [one's] Fifth Amendment privilege." Colorado v. Springs

, 479

U.S. 564, 574, 107 S.Ct. 851 (1987); Dailey

, 53 Ohio St.3d at 92. Appellant's behavior

during the three interviews belies his claim that his Miranda waiver was not knowingly and

intelligently made. As Detective Winters began advising appellant of his Miranda rights

during the first interview, appellant quickly invoked his right to counsel. Within an hour ofButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 11

- the first interview, appellant initiated the second interview. T he detective readvised

appellant of his Miranda rights prior to commencing the second and third interviews

. As the

detective read the Miranda warnings

, appellant followed along with a written Miranda form

.

Appellant indicated he understood those rights, and executed a written waiver. An

accused's signed waiver form is strong proof of the validity of the waiver. State v. Sapp

,

105 Ohio St.3d 104, 2004

- Ohio

- 7008, ¶ 89. The recorded interviews do not suggest that

appellant was confused or did not understand the rights involved and the consequences of

waiving those rights.

{¶ 30} Likewise, the totality of the circumstances does not support appellant's claim

that his "intellectual deficiencies" hindered or prevented him from knowingly and intelligently

waiving his Miranda rights. Contrary to appellant's assertion, the trial court expressly

considered but rejected the argument that appellant's low I.Q. prevented him from making

a knowing and intelligent Miranda waiver. Moreover, whether appellant has an I.Q. of 66,

a suspect's low intellect does not necessarily render him or her incapable of waiving

Miranda rights. State v. Lynn

, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 11 BE 18, 2011

- Ohio

- 6404, ¶ 14. Ohio

courts have found valid Miranda waivers where the suspects had comparable I.Q.s to

appellant's and low reading levels. See, e.g., Dailey, 53 Ohio St.3d at 92 (finding that a

suspect with an I.Q. of 71, a word identification below the second grade level, and a reading

comprehension below the third grade level knowingly and intelligently entered a Miranda

waiver); State v. Jenkins

, 15 Ohio St.3d 164, 233 (1984) (finding valid waiver where the

suspect had a low I.Q.); State v. Edwards

, 49 Ohio St.2d 31, 39 (1976) (finding that the

suspect's waiver was intelligent even though the suspect had a low I.Q. and a second

- grade

reading level); In re N.J.M

., 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2010

- 03

- 026, 2010

- Ohio

- 5526, ¶ 30

(finding no Miranda violation where the suspect with an I.Q. of 67 confessed to his crime).Butler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 12

- {¶ 31} Here, appellant responded appropriately to police questioning during the

interviews and his demeanor was reflective of a normal 18

- year

- old man as opposed to a

feebleminded person with intellectual deficiencies. Appellant told the detectives that he

was about to graduate from high school, could read and write, and that he wrote rap songs,

and demonstrated his savvy by suggesting a controlled call to incriminate the individuals

who had implicated him. Dr. Hopes' report provides that appellant demonstrated adequate

reading and comprehension during his December 2019 evaluation, that he read an eighth

grade

- level statement without error and demonstrated adequate comprehension, and that

his vocabulary, sentence structure, grammar, and use of abstract verbal concepts were

above average for his age. Appellant's invocation of his right to counsel during the first

interview is also strong evidence that he understood his Miranda rights.

{¶ 32} In light of the foregoing, the trial court did not err in finding that appellant's

waiver of his Miranda rights was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered.

{¶ 33} In his second issue for review, appellant argues that his statements to police

should have been suppressed because Detective Winters improperly continued questioning

him after he asserted his right to counsel during his first interview. Appellant asserts that

the detective initiated the second interview because his conduct and statements to

appellant after the latter invoked his right to counsel was a police "tactic designed to instill

fear and provide a lifeline for relief. And it worked. [Appellant] took the bait and requested

the second interview in less than two hours."

{¶ 34} After appellant invoked his right to counsel during the first interview, Detective

Winters immediately stopped the interview and then informed appellant,

Well, here is the situation. I will let you finish your cigarette, then

I'm charging you with aggravated murder, and I'm going to lock

you up, because I have enough information now[.]Butler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 13

- So, go ahead and take another puff. Stand up, let's put

— put

the cuffs back on you. Okay. Go ahead and have a seat there.

So here is what we're going to do, I'm going to have someone

come in and get you, and then we will just take you on back to

the jail and book you for aggravated murder. And if you want to

talk to me

— you said you wanted your lawyer, that's fine. If you

want to talk to me later, just give me a call or write me a kite or

something like that.

{¶ 35} It is well established that "an accused * * * having expressed his desire to deal

with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities

until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further

communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police." Edwards v. Arizona

, 451

U.S. 477, 484

- 485, 101 S.Ct. 1880 (1981). In other words, suspects who invoke their

Miranda rights remain free to change their minds. A suspect may initiate or reinitiate his or

her own interrogation through a third party. See State v. Van Hook

, 39 Ohio St.3d 256

(1988). Moreover, after a suspect invokes his right to counsel, the police remain free to

converse with the suspect about routine incidents of the custodial relationship. State v.

Tench

, 156 Ohio St.3d 85, 2018

- Ohio

- 5205, ¶ 92, citing Bachynski v. Stewart

, 813 F.3d

241, 246 (6th Circ.2015).

{¶ 36} Such is the case here. Once appellant invoked his right to counsel in the first

interview, Detective Winters stopped the interview and briefly conversed with appellant

about routine incidents of the custodial relationship, to wit, that appellant would be charged

with aggravated murder and taken back to the jail, and that he could contact the detective

if he wished to speak with him. The record plainly shows that appellant himself initiated

"further communication, exchanges, or conversations" with the detective through a third

party, a corrections officer, on October 13, 2019, after some time for reflection. The second

interview did not take place until the next morning, providing appellant ample time toButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 14

- reconsider his decision to speak with the detective. At the outset of that interview, appellant

confirmed he did ask to speak with Detective Winters, signed the corrections officer's email

to confirm the same, and executed a written Miranda waiver. We find no merit to appellant's

argument under his second issue for review.

{¶ 37} In light of the foregoing, we find the trial court did not err in denying appellant's

motion to suppress his statements to police. Appellant's tenth assignment of error is

overruled.

{¶ 38} Assignment of Error No. 5:

{¶ 39} THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR BY ADMITTING

TESTIMONY OF APPELLANT'S POST

- ARREST, POST

- MIRANDA SILENCE, IN

VIOLATION OF APPELLANT'S RIGHTS AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND

COMPARABLE PROVISIONS OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

{¶ 40} Appellant argues the trial court committed plain error by permitting the

prosecution to present evidence of appellant's invocation of his right to speak to an attorney.

{¶ 41} As stated above, appellant had three interviews with the police, one on

October 13, 2019, and two on October 14, 2019. At trial, the prosecutor briefly elicited from

Detective Hughes that appellant "invoked his rights to speak with a lawyer" during the first

interview but later asked to speak with the detectives and confessed the following day.

Then, during the state's rebuttal to appellant's closing arguments, the prosecutor stated,

On October 13th when he was first arrested, [appellant] invoked

his rights, and they terminated the interview. * * * Camron

Pawlowski didn't invoke his rights. Joseph Boggs didn't invoke

his rights. Gamareon Campbell didn't invoke his rights. None

of those guys apparently were smart enough to figure out how

to terminate the interview. The only person who figured out how

to terminate the interview was this guy [appellant], the dumb

guy, the patsy, the fall guy.Butler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 15

- {¶ 42} The state's use at trial of a defendant's post

- arrest, post

- Miranda silence as

substantive evidence of guilt or for impeachment purposes violates the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution. Doyle v. Ohio

, 426 U.S. 610, 618

- 619, 96

S.Ct. 2240 (1976) (the accused testified); Wainwright v. Greenfield

, 474 U.S. 284, 291, 106

S.Ct. 634 (1986) (the accused did not testify); State v. Leach

, 102 Ohio St.3d 135, 2004

-

Ohio

- 2147, ¶ 15

- 18. "However, Doyle also expressly recognizes that a prosecutor's

reference to a defendant's post

- Miranda silence may properly be made where it is not 'used

to impeach' the defendant's 'exculpatory story,' or as substantive evidence of guilt, but

rather to respond to some contention of the defendant concerning his post

- arrest behavior."

(Emphasis sic.) United States v. Martinez

- Larraga

, 517 F.3d 258, 268 (5th Cir.2008), citing

Doyle at 2245, fn. 11 (noting that a defendant's post

- arrest silence could be used by the

prosecution to contradict a defendant who testifies to an exculpatory version of events and

challenge the defendant's testimony as to his behavior following arrest).

{¶ 43} We find no plain error. Given appellant's confession in his second interview

and the overwhelming evidence of his guilt, Detective Hughes' brief reference to appellant's

silence during his first interview did not prejudice appellant. Appellant has not shown that

but for the reference to his invocation of his right to counsel, the outcome of his jury trial

would have been different.

{¶ 44} We further find that the prosecutor's brief reference to appellant's invocation

of his right to remain silent does not violate Doyle

, Greenfield

, or Leach

. At trial, defense

counsel's strategy was to portray appellant as someone having intellectual deficiencies and

who was used by Pawlowski, Boggs, and Campbell as a "dumb" "patsy" and their "fall guy"

for Stewart's murder. Defense counsel again referred to "the perfect patsy" during closing

arguments. On rebuttal, the prosecutor pointed out that of the four individuals involved inButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 16

- Stewart's murder, onl y appellant was smart enough to invoke his right to remain silent and

terminate his first interview. That is, the prosecutor's argument was to rebut the defense

claim that appellant was an unwitting patsy unable to think for himself. The rebuttal

argument was not an assertion or suggestion that the jury should infer appellant's guilt

directly from his post

- arrest, post

- Miranda silence as a basis of conviction. See Martinez

Larraga

, 517 F.3d at 268

- 269. Moreover, in light of all the evidence presented at trial, we

cannot conclude that the outcome of the trial clearly would have been different but for the

pr osecutor's rebuttal remark concerning appellant's invocation of his right to counsel.

{¶ 45} In light of the foregoing, the trial court's admission of Detective Hughes'

testimony and the prosecutor's rebuttal statement regarding appellant's post

- arrest, post

Miranda silence was not plain error. Appellant's fifth assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 46} Assignment of Error No. 7:

{¶ 47} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED (PLAIN OR OTHERWISE) BY ALLOWING

APPELLANT TO APPEAR IN TRIAL WEARING A JAIL UNIFORM AND THUS DEPRIVED

HIM OF HIS PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, AND

EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND

COMPARABLE PROVISIONS OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

{¶ 48} Appellant argues he was compelled to appear in jail clothing at trial in violation

of Estelle v. Williams

, 425 U.S. 501, 96 S.Ct. 1691 (1976). The record shows that on the

first day of his five

- day jury trial, appellant was wearing the jail

- provided "court uniform," a

generic two

- piece sweatsuit, because the jail had misplaced the civilian clothes he intended

to wear at trial. The sweatsuit worn by appellant was not the bright orange or yellow Butler

County jail uniform and did not bear any markings identifying it as jail clothing. TheButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 17

- prosecutor brought the issue to the trial court's attention after voir dire and outside the jury's

presence. The trial court asked defense counsel whether arrangements could be made for

appellant's family to provide civilian clothing. Counsel replied he had not had an opportunity

to speak with appellant's family. Subsequently, appellant's mother appeared before the trial

court and informed the court she would provide civilian clothes. The colloquy indicates she

would do so at the end of the day. Thereafter, without objections from appellant, the trial

proceeded with appellant dressed in the sweatsuit. On the second day and for the

remainder of the trial, appellant wore his own clothes.

{¶ 49} The United States Supreme Court held in Estelle that a defendant's right to

due process may be violated if the defendant is compelled to stand trial before a jury while

wearing identifiable jail clothing. Estelle at 504. "[T]he constant reminder of the accused's

condition implicit in such distinctive, identifiable attire may affect a juror's judgment." Id. at

504

- 505. However, the Supreme Court refused to establish an across

- the

- board rule that

a conviction must be overturned, under any circumstances, when the accused w ears jail

clothing at trial. Id. at 506

- 508. The Court further held that "the failure to make an objection

to the court as to being tried in such clothes, for whatever reason, is sufficient to negate the

presence of compulsion necessary to establish a constitutional violation." Id. at 512

- 513.

{¶ 50} In a similar case, we recently held that a defendant was not compelled to

appear in identifiable jail clothing at trial where

the record belies Jarmon's claim that he was wearing

identifiable jail clothing. Based on the trial transcript, it appears

that Jarmon was wearing gray sweat clothes, as this is what

several witnesses described him as wearing. Even if the gray

sweat clothes could be said to suggest jail clothing, Jarmon

failed to demonstrate that this is what he was compelled to wear.

At one point, the trial court asked defense counsel if Jarmon was

going to have "different clothing," and counsel replied that he

was unsure, saying that he did not know "where things stood."

Neither this nor anything else in the record suggests thatButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 18

- Jarmon was forced to wear the clothing that he did. And Jarmon

never objected to wearing the clothing in front of the jury.

State v. Jarmon

, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2021

- 08

- 091, 2022

- Ohio

- 2327, ¶ 41.

{¶ 51} Such is the case here. Appellant wore a generic plain sweatsuit without any

markings identifying it as jail clothing on the first day of trial and civilian clothing for the

remainder of the trial. Appellant fail s to show he was compelled to wear the sweatsuit.

Appellant did not object to proceeding with the trial and did not seek a continuance.

Defense counsel's only remark concerning proceeding with the trial with appellant wearing

the sweatsuit on the first day of trial was to state, "The suit is no longer available to him, so

this is what we're stuck with." The evidence of appellant's guilt was overwhelming, and

appellant has not demonstrated that the outcome of his trial would have been different had

he started the trial in civilian clothes. Accordingly, the trial court did not commit error, let

alone plain error, by allowing appellant to appear in the jail

- provided generic sweatsuit on

the first day of his jury trial. Estelle

, 425 U.S. 501; Jarmon at ¶ 41

- 42; State v. Flowers

, 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91864, 2009

- Ohio

- 4876.

{¶ 52} Appellant's seventh assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 53} Assignment of Error No. 3:

{¶ 54} THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR BY FAILING TO

INSTRUCT THE JURY ON ACCOMPLICE TESTIMONY AS MANDATED BY R.C.

2923.03(D) AND BY FAILING TO INTERVENE AND CORRECT THE PROSECUTOR'S

IMPROPER STATEMENTS AND ARGUMENTS TO THE JURY. THE COURT THEREBY

DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED

BY THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES

CONSTITUTION, AND COMPARABLE PROVISIONS OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

{¶ 55} Appellant argues the trial court committed plain error when it failed to instructButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 19

- the jury on the accomplice testimony of Campbell as required by R.C. 2923.03(D).

{¶ 56} R.C. 2923.03(D) provides that when an accomplice of a defendant testifies

against the defendant, the trial court, "when it charges the jury, shall state substantially the

following":

The testimony of an accomplice does not become inadmissible

because of his complicity, moral turpitude, or self

- interest, but

the admitted or claimed complicity of a witness may affect his

credibility and make his testimony subject to grave suspicion,

and require that it be weighed with great caution.

It is for you, as jurors, in the light of all the facts presented to

you from the witness stand, to evaluate such testimony and to

determine its quality and worth or its lack of quality and worth.

{¶ 57} In determining whether a trial court committed plain error by failing to give the

jury an accomplice instruction under R.C. 2923.03, an appellate court examines several

factors. Specifically, the appellate court looks to the record to determine whether the

defense was permitted wide latitude in cross

- examining the accomplice, whether the details

of the accomplice's plea agreement were presented to the jury, whether the trial court's

general instructions informed the jury how to weigh the credibility of the witnesses and

included much of the substance of the R.C. 2923.03(D) accomplice testimony instruction,

and whether the accomplice's testimony was favorable to the defendant, justifying defense

counsel's failure to request the required instruction as a tactical decision, or whether

overwhelming evidence established the defen dant's guilt. State v. Yarbrough

, 104 Ohio

St.3d 1, 2004

- Ohio

- 6087, ¶ 83; State v. Davis

, 9th Dist. Summit No. 22395, 2005

- Ohio

4083, ¶ 16; State v. Riley

, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2012

- 0022, 2013

- Ohio

- 1332, ¶ 24.

{¶ 58} Applying the Yarbrough factors, we find no plain error. The jury heard that in

exchange for Campbell testifying against appellant at trial, he was not charged with

aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary and was only charged with murder to whichButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 20

- he pled guilty, he was not bound over as an adult to the common pleas court, and he was

committed to the Ohio Department of Youth Services for a maximum period of his 21st

birthday (Campbell was then 17 years old). Defense counsel was permitted wide latitude

in cross

- examining Campbell, including regarding his credibility and the favorable terms of

his plea agreement. The trial court provided the standard jury instruction regarding the

credibility of witnesses. While Campbell's testimony was unfavorable to appellant,

overwhelming evidence established appellant's guilt. Appellant confessed to fatally

shooting Stewart and taking cash and marijuana from him. Appellant's statements to police

were consistent with Campbell's testimony, and appellant's confession and Campbell's

testimony were both consistent with the physical evidence collected during the investigation

of Stewart's murder. It is unlikely that giving the accomplice

- testimony jury instruction would

have altered the outcome of the trial. Therefore, the trial court's failure to give the jury

instruction was not plain error. See Riley ; State v. Brownlee

, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

105116, 2018

- Ohio

- 739.

{¶ 59} Appellant also argues that the prosecutor compounded the trial court's failure

to provide the jury instruction by inaccurately stating during voir dire that the same tests of

credibility apply to accomplice testimony and by minimizing Campbell's status as an

accomplice during closing argument.

{¶ 60} However, the prosecutor prefaced his voir dire comment about accomplice

credibility by stating that jurors "should be initially somewhat skeptical of an accomplice or

somebody who assisted the defendant in committing a crime" but that "you're still supposed

to apply the same test[s]" to evaluate an accomplice's credibility that are used to evaluate

any witnesses' credibility. The prosecutor's comment was a fair statement of the law.

Moreover, during closing arguments, the prosecutor rebutted appellant's attack onButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 21

- Campbell's credibility by noting that Campbell's testimony was consistent with the other

evidence, including appellant's confession.

{¶ 61} In light of the foregoing, the trial court's failure to give the accomplice

testimony jury instruction was not plain error. Appellant's third assignment of error is

overruled.

{¶ 62} Assignment of Error No. 4:

{¶ 63} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ADMITTING IMPROPER EXPERT AND

LAW ENFORCEMENT OPINIONS ON CREDIBILITY IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF

EVIDENCE AND APPELLANT'S RIGHTS OF CONFRONTATION AND DUE PROCESS

OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS

TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND COMPARABLE PROVISIONS OF THE

OHIO CONSTITUTION.

{¶ 64} Campbell was interviewed by Detectives Winter s and Hughes the day after

Stewart's murder

. On cross

- examination, Campbell admitted that he lied to the detectives

during his interview; defense counsel contended that Campbell's plea agreement with the

state gave him a motive to lie during his testimony. To rehabilitate Campbell, the state

elicited testimony from Detective Hughes that, in her experience as a gang specialist, it is

not unusual for gang members to lie during police interviews, and that a subsequent

statement Campbell made to the detective was consistent wit h his trial testimony. Appellant

argues that Detective Hughes' reference to Campbell's subsequent statement was

inadmissible hearsay under Evid.R. 801 and improper vouching, and therefore, the trial

court committed plain error by allowing Detective Hughes to vouch for and opine on the

credibility of Campbell.

{¶ 65} "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant whileButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 22

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

in the statement. Evid.R. 801(C). Detective Hughes did not delve into the contents of

Campbell's subsequent statement but only generally referred to it as being consistent with

Campbell's trial testimony. Detective Hughes, therefore, did not testify to any out

- of

- court

statement made by Campbell.

{¶ 66} Furthermore, Evid.R. 801(D)(1)(b) provides that a prior consistent statement

is not hearsay if "[t]he declarant testifies at trial or hearing and is subject to examination

concerning the statement," and the statement is "offered to rebut an express or implied

charge against declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive." "Prior

consistent statements that an offering party seeks to introduce to rehabilitate its witness

must have been made before the alleged influence or motive to fabricate arose to be

admissible under this rule." (Emphasis sic.) State v. Lang

, 129 Ohio St.3d 512, 2011

- Ohio

4215, ¶ 107.

{¶ 67} The record indicates, and appellant does not dispute, that Campbell made his

subsequent statement to Detective Hughes prior to his plea agreement with the state.

During his cross

- examination of Campbell, defense counsel contended and sought to

demonstrate that Campbell had a motive to lie at trial because of the favorable terms of his

pretrial plea agreement. "This was an allegation of recent fabrication or improper influence

that allowed the state to introduce [Campbell's] prior consistent statement to rehabilitate his

testimony." Lang at ¶ 110. The trial court, therefore, did not commit plain error by admitting

Detective Hughes' testimony that Campbell's subsequent statement was consistent with his

trial testimony.

{¶ 68} We note that appellant summarily argues that Detective Hughes' testimony

about Campbell's subsequent statement "undermined trial counsel's cross

- examination" ofButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 23

- Campbell, "thus impacting [appellant's] Sixth Amendment Right of Confrontation." The

Confrontation Clause bars "testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial

unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for

cross

- examination." Crawford v. Washington

, 541 U.S. 36, 53

- 54, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (2004).

However, "'[w]hen the declarant appears for cross

- examination at trial, the Confrontation

Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements. * * * The

Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant is present at trial to

defend or explain it.'" Lang

, 2011

- Ohio

- 4215 at ¶ 113, quoting Crawford at 59, fn. 9.

{¶ 69} Campbell testified at trial and was subject to cross

- examination. T he record

shows that appellant did not question Campbell concerning his subsequent statement on

either cross

- examination or by recalling Campbell to testify following Detective Hughes'

testimony. Nothing in the record suggests appellant's cross

- examination of Campbell or

ability to recall him in order to question him regarding his statement was limited by the trial

court. We therefore find the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not implicated

here. See State v. Bryant

, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2007

- 02

- 024, 2008

- Ohio

- 3078, ¶ 52.

{¶ 70} We further find that Detective Hughes was not vouching for Campbell's

credibility. The detective simply asserted that Campbell's trial testimony was consistent

with his subsequent statement to the detective. Her testimony did not assert or suggest

that Campbell's trial testimony or subsequent statement was truthful or otherwise

believable. Nor did the detective vouch for Campbell's credibility when she testified it is not

unusual for gang members to lie during police interviews, including regarding their gang

membership. We therefore find no plain error.

{¶ 71} In light of the foregoing, appellant's fourth assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 72} Assignment of Error No. 6:Butler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 24

- {¶ 73} THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR BY ADMITTING

IMPROPER HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND

APPELLANT'S RIGHTS OF CONFRONTATION AND TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS

GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND COMPARABLE PROVISIONS OF THE OHIO

CONSTITUTION.

{¶ 74} Appellant argues the trial court c ommitted plain error when it allowed

Detective Hughes to provide hearsay testimony identifying members of the Crips, their role

in the gang, and their prior convictions related to their gang activity, including White's

conviction for murder and accompanying gang specification

. 1 Appellant asserts that the

detective's testimony was solely based upon "what others told her, what she read in a

document, and/or what she heard in open court."

{¶ 75} Detective Hughes testified

, based upon on

- the

- job training, her gang

- related

investigations over the years, and completion of various course work within the National

Gang Crime Research Center, that she became and is a gang specialist within the

Middletown Police Department. She testified that she is qualified as a gang expert in the

Butler County c ourts, and the trial court took judicial notice of this court upholding Detective

Hughes' qualification as a gang expert in State v. White

, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019

- 07

-

118, 2020

- Ohio

- 3313 (upholding White's murder conviction for fatally shooting Davis).

Detective Hughes testified that she spends at least 30 hours per week investigating gangs

in Middletown, Ohio, including by monitoring the various social media sites used by gang

1

. We note that although the heading of this assignment of error refers to the Confrontation Clause, appellant's

argument does not address the Clause. Pursuant to App.R. 12(A)(2) and 16(A)(7), we decline to consider

whether Detective Hughes' testimony viola ted the Confrontation Clause. See State v. Patel , 9th Dist. Summit

No. 24024, 2008

- Ohio

- 4692.Butler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 25

- members to promote their gang. She first identified the Crips' presence in Middletown in

2002. She testified that she personally filed charges for gang

- related felony offenses

against White, Cyon Spicer, and Damion Burton, which resulted in convictions for all three

men. 2

{¶ 76} We find no plain error. In 2006, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected a similar

hearsay argument in State v. Drummond

, 111 Ohio St.3d 14, 2006

- Ohio

- 5084. The

supreme court held that a detective's expert testimony concerning the gang activities of a

Crip gang and the identification of the defendant and other individuals as members of that

gang was neither hearsay nor plain error:

Detective Lambert properly provided expert testimony on gang

activities of the Lincoln Knolls Crips. His identification of the

individuals was based upon his personal knowledge and

experience in investigating and dealing with the gang and its

members. Lambert's testimony was not based upon mere

hearsay and speculation. Thus, we hold that Lambert's

testimony did not result in plain error.

Id. at ¶ 186, citing State v. Jones

, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 99AP

- 704, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS

2496, *16

- 17 (June 13, 2000). See also State v. Keith

, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104034,

2017

- Ohio

- 1545 (detective's identification of gang members not hearsay testimony where

based on detective's personal knowledge, investigation, and interviews of the gang

members).

{¶ 77} Likewise, Detective Hughes' testimony was based upon her personal

knowledge and experience in extensively investigating and dealing with the Crips and its

two sub

- gangs

, the Roadrunners and the 8

- ball mafia. Her testimony was not based upon

mere hearsay or speculation and did not result in plain error. Drummond at ¶ 186.

2 . In our discussion of the first and second assignments of error, we will address in greater detai l appellant's

claims that Detective Hughes' testimony conc erning these prior convictions was inadmissible hearsay and

otherwise required proof in the form of certified judgment entries of conviction.Butler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 26

- {¶ 78} Appellant's sixth assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 79} Assignment of Error No. 8:

{¶ 80} THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR BY PERMITTING

TESTIMONY FROM A STATE EXPERT IN VIOLATION OF OHIO CRIMINAL RULE 16(K),

THEREBY DEPRIVING APPELLANT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY

THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES

CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

{¶ 81} Appellant argues the trial court committed plain error by allowing Detective

Hughes' expert testimony on matters that went beyond the scope of her written report.

{¶ 82} Crim.R. 16(K) requires that expert witnesses generate written reports

summarizing their testimony, findings, analysis, conclusions, or opinion and that those

reports be disclosed to the opposing party no later than 21 days before trial. "Failure to

disclose the written report to opposing counsel shall preclude the expert's testimony at trial."

Id. The Ohio Supreme Court recently held it was error to admit a coroner's expert testimony

on the victim's time of death and a glove

- buckle comparison because those topics were not

set forth in the coroner's written autopsy report in violation of Crim.R. 16(K). State v.

Boaston

, 160 Ohio St.3d 46, 2020

- Ohio

- 1061, ¶ 58

- 59 (but ultimately finding harmless error

in the trial court's admission of the coroner's testimony that went beyond the scope of her

autopsy report because the remaining evidence adduced by the state established the

defendant's guilt beyond any reasonable doubt).

{¶ 83} The state presented Detective Hughes as an expert witness on gang activity

in Middletown, Ohio. Her report was provided to defense counsel as required under Crim.R.

16(K). The report, however, was not filed with the trial court, was not an exhibit at trial, and

was not otherwise presented to the trial court for consideration. In June 2022, we deniedButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 27

- appellant's motion to supplement the record on appeal with Detective Hughes' report

because the report was never before the trial court. State v. Kyles

, 12th Dist. Butler No.

CA2021

- 11

- 141 (June 2, 2022) (Entry Denying Motion to Supplement the Record on

Appeal). We subsequently granted the state's motion to strike Detective Hughes' report as

appended to appellant's brief, as follows: "Because Detective Hughes' report is not properly

part of the record on appeal, the report as appended to appellant's brief is hereby

STRICKEN and will not be considered by the court when deciding this appeal." State v.

Kyles

, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2021

- 11

- 141 (June 28, 2022) (Entry Granting Motion to

Strike Expert Report Appended to Appellant's Brief and Portions of Appellant's Brief Relying

on the Report).

{¶ 84} In light of the foregoing entries and because "appellate review is strictly limited

to the record, and this court cannot consider matters outside of the record that were not part

of the trial court's proceedings," and because the report was never part of the record below

and there was no objec tion to Detective Hughes' testimony, we find no plain error and

therefore presume the regularity of the proceedings

. State v. Thomas

, 12th Dist. Butler No.

CA2012

- 11

- 223, 2013

- Ohio

- 4327, ¶ 33; State v. Ishmail

, 54 Ohio St.2d 402 (1978),

paragraph one of the syllabus.

{¶ 85} Appellant's eighth assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 86} Assignment of Error No. 9:

{¶ 87} TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BY FAILING TO OBJECT TO

IMPROPER VOIR DIRE; BY FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE JURY CHARGE AND

REQUEST AN ACCOMPLICE INSTRUCTION, UNDER R.C. 2923.03(D); BY FAILING TO

OBJECT TO IMPROPER EXPERT TESTIMONY AND OPINIONS ON CREDIBILITY; BY

FAILING TO OBJECT TO IMPROPER TESTIMONY AND COMMENT [ON] APPELLANT'SButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 28

- POST

- ARREST, POST

- MIRANDA SILENCE; BY FAILING TO OBJECT TO

INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY; AND BY PERMITTING APPELLANT TO APPEAR IN JAIL

GARB. THESE DEFICIENCIES DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE

OF COUNSEL AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH, SIXTH,

AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND

COMPARABLE PROVISIONS OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

{¶ 88} Appellant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because, as referenced

in his third through eighth assignments of error, "trial counsel failed to object and/or correct

the following substantive errors at trial: improper jury instructions omitting the accomplice

instruction under RC. 2923.03(D); Hughes's improper expert and law enforcement opinions

on the credibility of Campbell; improper testimony, comments, and arguments on

[appellant's] post

- arrest, post

- Miranda silence; improper hearsay testimony that sought to

establish essential elements of the offenses; [appellant's] appearance at trial wearing jail

garb; and Hughes's expert testimony in violation of Crim.R. 16(K)."

{¶ 89} To establish ineffective assistance, appellant must show (1) deficient

performance by counsel, i.e., performance falling below an objective standard of reasonable

representation, and (2) prejudice, i.e., a reasonable probability that but for counsel's errors,

the proceeding's result would have been different. State v. Mundt

, 115 Ohio St.3d 22, 2007

-

Ohio

- 4836, ¶ 62. The failure to make an adequate showing on either prong is fatal to

appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. In re T.D.

, 12th Dist. Brown No.

CA2021

- 07

- 009, 2022

- Ohio

- 562, ¶ 19.

{¶ 90} Even if we were to assume deficient performance, appellant cannot show any

resulting prejudice from trial counsel's failure to object to and correct the foregoing

"substantive errors at trial," given our resolution in appellant's third through eighthButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 29

- assignments of error that no plain error was committed. See State v. Davis

, 12th Dist.

Warren No. CA2017

- 11

- 156, 2018

- Ohio

- 2672; State v. Toudle

, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

98609, 2013

- Ohio

- 1548.

{¶ 91} Appellant's ninth assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 92} Assignment of Error No. 1:

{¶ 93} THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED APPELLANT'S RULE 29

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND THEREBY DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF

DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH

AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND COMPARABLE

PROVISIONS OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

{¶ 94} Assignment of Error No. 2:

{¶ 95} APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT

OF THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY

THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES

CONSTITUTION AND COMPARABLE PROVISIONS OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

{¶ 96} In his first and second assignments of error, appellant challenges his

convictions for participating in a criminal gang and the gang specification accompanying the

aggravated murder, murder, aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary charges

, arguing

that the trial court erred by denying his Crim.R. 29(A) motion for acquittal based on

insufficient evidence and that his convictions a re against the manifest weight of the

evidence. Appellant raises two issues for review.

{¶ 97} The review of a trial court's denial of a Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal is

governed by the same standard as that used for determining whether a verdict is supported

by sufficient evidence. State v. Harner

, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA201 9

- 10

- 012, 20 2 0

- Ohio

-Butler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 30

- 3071, ¶ 1 1. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence underlying a criminal conviction,

an appellate court examines the evidence in order to determine whether such evidence, if

believed, would support a conviction. State v. Peyton

, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015

- 06

-

112, 2017

- Ohio

- 243, ¶ 4 1

. 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." Id. In other words,

the test for sufficiency requires a determination as to whether the state has met its burden

of production at trial. Id.

{¶ 98} A manifest weight of the evidence challenge, on the other hand, examines the

"inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered at a trial, to support one side

of the issue rather than the other." Id. at ¶ 42

. To determine whether a conviction is against

the manifest weight of the evidence, the reviewing court must look at the entire record,

weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses,

and determine whether in resolving the conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost

its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be

reversed and a new trial ordered. Id. An appellate court will overturn a conviction due to

the manifest weight of the evidence only in extraordinary circumstances when the evidence

presented at trial weighs heavily in favor of acquittal. Id.

{¶ 99} Appellant was convicted of participati ng in a criminal gang in violation of R.C.

2923.42(A), which provides

No person who actively participates in a criminal gang, with

knowledge that the criminal gang engages in or has engaged in

a pattern of criminal gang activity, shall purposely promote,

further, or assist any criminal conduct, as defined in division (C)

of section 2923.41 of the Revised Code, or shall purposely

commit or engage in any act that constitutes criminal conduct,

as defined in division (C) of section 2923.41 of the Revised

Code.Butler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 31

- {¶ 100} Criminal conduct, as defined in R.C. 2923.41(C), includes criminal

damaging. Thus, the state was required to prove that appellant was in a criminal gang that

was engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity when he committed criminal damaging

by burning the teddy bear of another without the other person ' s consent.

{¶ 101} Pursuant to R.C. 2941.142, a ppellant was also convicted of the gang

specifications attached to the aggravated murder, murder, aggravated robbery, and

aggravated burglary charges. That statute allows a trial court to impose a mandatory prison

term of one to three years upon an " offender who committed a felony that is an offense of

violence while participating in a criminal gang ." Aggravated murder, murder, aggravated

robbery, and aggravated burglary are offenses of violence under R.C. 2901.01(A)(9). The

state was therefore required to prove that appellant committed th ose offenses while

participating in a criminal gang.

{¶ 102} In his first issue for review, a ppellant argues that the state failed to prove he

was in a " criminal gang " that was engaged i n a " pattern of criminal gang activity

. "

{¶ 103} R.C. 2923.41(A) defines "c riminal gang " as

a n ongoing formal or informal organization, association, or

group of three or more persons to which all of the following

apply:

(1) It has as one of its primary activities the commission of one

or more of the offenses listed in division (B) of this section.

(2) It has a common name or one or more common, identifying

signs, symbols, or colors.

(3) The persons in the organization, association, or group

individually or collectively engage in or have engaged in a

pattern of criminal gang activity.

{¶ 104} P ursuant to R.C. 2923.41(B)(1), " pattern of criminal gang activity " means

thatButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 32

- persons in the criminal gang have committed, attempted to

commit, conspired to commit, been complicitors in the

commission of, or solicited, coerced, or intimidated another to

commit, attempt to commit, conspire to commit, or be in

complicity in the commission of two or more of any of the

following offenses:

(a) A felony or an act committed by a juvenile that would be a

felony if committed by an adult;

(b) An offense of violence or an act committed by a juvenile that

would be an offense of violence if committed by an adult;

(c) A violation of section 2907.04, 2909.06, 2911.211, 2917.04,

2919.23, or 2919.24 of the Revised Code, section 2921.04 or

2923.16 of the Revised Code, section 2925.03 of the Revised

Code if the offense is trafficking in marihuana, or section

2927.12 of the Revised Code.

{¶ 105} R.C. 2923.41(B)(2) further qualifies what is necessary for a " pattern of

criminal gang activity " by providing that

There is a " pattern of criminal gang activity " if all of the following

apply with respect to the offenses that are listed in division

(B)(1)(a), (b), or (c) of this section and that persons in the

criminal gang committed, attempted to commit, conspired to

commit, were in complicity in committing, or solicited, coerced,

or intimidated another to commit, attempt to commit, conspire to

commit, or be in complicity in committing:

(a) At least one of the two or more offenses is a felony.

(b) At least one of those two or more offenses occurs on or after

January 1, 1999.

(c) The last of those two or more offenses occurs within five

years after at least one of those offenses.

(d) The two or more offenses are committed on separate

occasions or by two or more persons.

{¶ 106} Thus, the elements of a " pattern of criminal gang activity " are: ( 1 )

c ommission of two or more of any of the offenses listed in R.C. 2923. 41(B) ; ( 2 ) a t least one

of the offenses is a felony ; ( 3 ) a t least one of the offenses was committed on or after JanuaryButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 33

- 1, 1999; ( 4 ) t he most recent offense occurred within five years of one of the other offenses;

and ( 5 ) t wo or more of the offenses were committed on separate occasions or by separate

persons.

{¶ 107} Appellant asserts that the state failed to establish the Roadrunners ' "primary

activity" under R.C. 2923.41(A) and what R.C. 2923.41(A) predicate offenses were

committed b y the various Roadrunners identified by Detective Hughes. Appellant fu rther

argues that proof of R.C. 2923.41(B)(1) predicate offenses require d certified copies of

judgment of convictions for those offenses.

{¶ 108} We summarily reject appellant's assertion that proof of the commission of

the gang

- related predicate offenses required certified copies of judgment of convictions.

R.C. 2923.41(B) does not require that there be a conviction of any of the R.C. 2923.41(B)(1)

predicate offenses to support a finding of a "pattern of criminal gang activity." Rather, the

plain language of the statute simply requires proof that gang members "committed" or

"attempted to commit" the predicate offenses. Had the legislature wanted to impose a duty

on the state to prove a conviction for the predicate offenses, it could have done so. It did

not. See State v. Hairston

, 101 Ohio St.3d 308, 2004

- Ohio

- 969

.

{¶ 109} Detective Hughes

, a gang expert on Middletown, Ohio gangs, testified that

the Crip s are a criminal gang with two sub

- gangs

, the Roadrunners and the 8

- ball mafia ;

that commission of a violent crime is a rite of initiation into the gang; and that unlike its rival

the Blood s

, a criminal gang whose primary activity is drug deal ing

, the Crip s co mmit

homicides, robberies, and burglaries

. Robberies and burglaries are listed in R.C.

2923.41(B)(1) and are felony offenses. The detective identified the Crip colors as black and

blue

, and described hand signs used by Cr i p gang members

, including "C" for Crip and

middle finger to thumb for "Blood k iller." A photograph taken on the day of the murderButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 34

- shows appellant, Pawlowski, Campbell, and Boggs; both appellant and Pawlowski are

displaying the Crip "B loo d k iller " sign. Appellant was likewise flashing the Crip "Blood killer"

hand sign during his Facebook live stream in May 2019. A blue bandanna and blue

cellphone were recovered as property of appellant. The detective also testified that gang

members commonly wear Nike Air Force shoes, the same type of shoes retrieved from

Pawlowski's home and worn by Stewart's killer as seen on the surveillance video

.

{¶ 110} D etective Hughes testified

, and evidence at trial showed, that (1) appellant

,

Pawlowski, Boggs

, Campbell, and White were Crip gang members ; (2) in 2019, appellant

was a Roadrunner who was trying to join the 8

- ball mafia and consequently robbed and

killed Stewart

, a Blood gang member, for that purpose; (3) other Roadrunners included

White, Boggs, Spicer, and Campbell; (4) in 2019, Pawlowski was the leader/ shot caller for

the 8

- ball mafia

, and Spicer was the shot caller for the Roadrunners; and ( 5 ) the detective

personally filed gang

- activity

- related felony charges against three Crip gang members that

resulted in felony convictions in 2017 and 2018: Spicer for participating in a criminal gang,

Burton for participating in a criminal gang, and White for the murder of a Blood gang

member, with a gang specification. Murder is an offense of violence under R.C.

2901.01(A)(9), and participating in a criminal gang is a felony offens e under R.C.

2923.42(B).

{¶ 111} Appellant confessed that he had been a Crip Roadrunner for about four

years

, that Pawlowski, Campbell, and Boggs were Crip gang members, that he was

"brothers" with White, and that he killed Stewart to "earn his stripes" in the 8

- ball mafia sub

gang because the Crips "want to have a body on everybody's record." Appellant admitted

in his statements to police that the Middletown Crips had recently committed several

robberies and home invasions.Butler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 35

- {¶ 112} Detective Hughes' testimony concerning the convictions of Spicer, Burton,

and White was not hearsay as appellant co ntends in his sixth assignment of error. As noted

above

, proof of a "pattern of criminal gang activity" requires that the state establish that

certain offenses were "committed," not that convictions for those offenses were obtained.

The concepts of "commission" of an offense and "conviction" of the offense are distinct.

The former refers to the conduct constituting the offense while the latter refers to a judicial

determination of guilt. We reiterate that Evid.R. 801(C) defines "hearsay" as 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 in the statement. Detective Hughes'

testimony that other Crip gang members had been convicted of certain gang

- related

offenses was not offered to prove th at they had been "convicted" of those offenses (i.e.,

judicially determined to be guilty )

. Detective Hughes' testimony was offered to prove that

they had committed the offenses (i.e., engaged in a conduct constituting the offenses). In

this sense, Detective Hughes' testimony that other Crip gang members had been

" convicted " of certain predicate offenses to prove that they had "committed" those offenses

does not offend the hearsay rule. Pursuant to Drummond

, Detective Hughes' testimony

"was based upon h [ er ] personal knowledge and experience in investigating and dealing with

the [Middletown Crips] and its members" and was neither hearsay nor speculation.

Drummond

, 2006

- Ohio

- 5084 at ¶ 186.

{¶ 113} In light of the foregoing, we find that the state presented sufficient evidence

that appellant was an active member of a criminal gang

, the Crips

, that he had knowledge

the Crips were engage d in a pattern of criminal gang activity

, and that he purposely engaged

in an act that constitutes criminal conduct unde r R.C. 2923.41(B) by burning the teddy bear

he had removed from a memorial for a rival gang member, an act plainly motivated by orButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 36

- related to appellant being a Crip gang member. We further find that the state presented

sufficient evidence that Crip gang members committed several offenses enumerated in R.C.

2923.41(B)(1) and that any such crimes met the additional criteria set forth in R.C.

2923.41(B)(2). Thus, the state presented sufficient evidence to establish that appellant was

in a "criminal gang" that was engaged in a "pattern of criminal gang activity."

{¶ 114} In his second issue for review, a ppellant argues the state failed to prove he

committed criminal damaging in violation of R.C. 2909.06 when he remov ed the teddy bear

from Davis' memorial and subsequently live stream ed his burn ing it in his house

.

Specifically, appellant asserts the state failed to prove (1) that the teddy bear was the

property of another and not abandoned, (2) that appellant burned the teddy bear without

the other person's consent

, and (3) that Davis' memorial on "Woodland" and appellant's

home on "Lewis" were located in Butler County.

{¶ 115} The state did not present direct evidence of who owned the teddy bear or

whether appellant lacked the owner's consent to burn the bear. However, lack of consent

to damage may be proved by circumstantial evidence. State v. Baldwin

, 9th Dist. Medina

No. 10CA00 78

- M, 2011

- Ohio

- 4988, ¶ 15. Construing the evidence in a light most favorable

to the prosecution, the circumstances under which appellant obtained and burned the teddy

bear support the predicate offense of criminal damaging

. It is undisputed the teddy bear

was not a ppellant's property. The re was circumstantial evidence that the teddy bear was

placed at White ' s memorial to serve as an expression of grief and loss for White ' s demise

.

Evidence showed that the teddy bear was in good condition and that it had been deliberately

affixed to the memorial among other mementos

, thus indicating the owner's intent for it to

remain at the memorial. The t eddy bear was no more abandoned than flowers left at a

loved one's gravesite. The circumstances further suggest that the person who placed theButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 37

- teddy bear did not give consent to a Crip gang member such as appellant, a ny other rival

gang member

, or a friend of White to burn the memento in a display of disrespectful live

broadcast. We therefore conclude that the jury could reasonably find that appellant caused

harm to the property of another without the other person's consent.

{¶ 116} Appellant failed to object to venue at trial and thus has waived all but plain

error. State v. Jackson

, 141 Ohio St.3d 171, 2014

- Ohio

- 3707, ¶ 142. Venue is not a

material element of any offense charged. Id. at ¶ 14 3. The elements of the offense charged

and the venue of the matter are separate and distinct. Id. Nevertheless, venue is a fact

that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt unless it is waived by the defendant. Id.

Trial courts have broad discretion to determine the facts that would establish venue. Id. at

¶ 144. Venue need not be proven in express terms; it may be established either directly or

indirectly by all the facts and circumstances of the case. Id.

{¶ 117} E vidence was presented that appellant took the teddy bear from the

memorial on Woodlawn and brought it to his home on " Lewis " where he burned it, that the

memorial was on Woodlawn Avenue where White killed Davis

, and that White was

prosecuted in Butler County, Ohio for that murder. During police interviews, appellant

confirmed he lived at " 6 18 Louis Place " and his GPS ankle monitor placed him at "618 Louis

Place

, Middletown, Ohio " on the morning of October 12, 2019. We therefore find that venue

was properly established in Butler County, Ohio

, and no plain error occurred

.

{¶ 118} In light of all of the foregoing, we find that appellant's convictions for

participating in a criminal gang and for the gang specification accompanying the aggravated

murder, murder, aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary charges are supported by

sufficient evidence and the trial court did not err in denying appellant's Crim.R. 29(A) motion

for acquittal. We further find that appellant's convictions are not against the manifest weightButler CA20 21

- 11

- 141

CA2021

- 11

- 142

- 38

- of the evidence. Given the evidence presented at trial, the jury did not lose its way and

create such a manifest miscarriage of justice that appellant's convictions must be reversed

and a new trial ordered. Appellant's first and second assignments of error are accordingly

overruled

.

{¶ 119} Judgment affirmed.

S. POWELL and PIPER

, J J

. , concur.