Opinion ID: 3149633
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: issues

Text: {¶ 56} Dean presents 15 propositions of law, including arguments regarding the application of the doctrine of transferred intent to the attempted-murder charges, the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the drive-by shooting at 609 Dibert Avenue, the failure to merge the offense of discharging a firearm into a habitation with the attempted-murder offenses, and the appropriateness and proportionality of the death sentence. {¶ 57} We will address all the issues in the approximate order that they arose during the trial.
1. Motion for separate trials (Proposition of Law XI) {¶ 58} Dean argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a defense motion to order separate trials for the Mini Mart shooting (Counts One through Four), the drive-by shootings (Counts Five through Eleven), the murder of Arnold (Counts Twelve through Fifteen), and a weapons charge related to his arrest (Count Sixteen). {¶ 59} Under Crim.R. 8(A), two or more offenses may be charged together if the offenses “are of the same or similar character,    or are based on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, or are part of a course of criminal conduct.” In fact, “[t]he law favors joining multiple offenses in a single trial under Crim.R. 8(A) if the offenses charged ‘are of the same or similar character.’ ” State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 163, 555 N.E.2d 293 (1990), quoting Crim.R. 8. {¶ 60} Nonetheless, “[i]f it appears that a defendant    is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses,” a trial court may grant a severance. Crim.R. 14. “The defendant, however, bears the burden of proving prejudice and of proving that the trial court abused its discretion in denying severance.” State v. Brinkley, 105 Ohio 14 January Term, 2015 St.3d 231, 2005-Ohio-1507, 824 N.E.2d 959, ¶ 29, citing State v. Torres, 66 Ohio St.2d 340, 421 N.E.2d 1288 (1981), at the syllabus. {¶ 61} The state may rebut a defendant’s claim of prejudicial joinder in two ways. First, if in separate trials the state could introduce evidence of the joined offenses as “other acts” under Evid.R. 404(B), a defendant cannot claim prejudice from the joinder. Lott at 163. Second, the state can refute prejudice by showing that “evidence of each crime joined at trial is simple and direct.” Id. {¶ 62} The different offenses were charged together because they were part of a common scheme or plan and occurred over a short period of time. Kaboos provided key testimony as to each of the offenses, and other witnesses testified regarding more than one offense. Thus, the facts indicate that joinder was proper because the offenses were part of a continuing course of criminal conduct. See State v. Hamblin, 37 Ohio St.3d 153, 158, 524 N.E.2d 476 (1988). {¶ 63} Dean argues that he was unfairly prejudiced by the joinder of multiple counts because many witnesses and fact scenarios, as well as offenses that occurred at different times and involved different victims, created confusion and led to an attempt to convict him based on numerous bad acts. This argument lacks merit. Counts Twelve and Thirteen of the indictment—the aggravated-murder counts—contained a specification under R.C. 2929.04(A)(5) alleging that Dean had purposefully killed or attempted to kill two or more persons as part of a course of conduct. Thus, even if these two counts had been tried separately from the other counts, the state would have had to present evidence of other acts—the attemptedmurder offenses—in order to prove the specification. See State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181, 2002-Ohio-2128, 767 N.E.2d 166, ¶ 51. {¶ 64} In addition, the evidence of each crime was simple and direct. The state’s first witnesses testified about the attempted murders and the robbery at the Mini Mart. The next series of witnesses testified about the drive-by shooting on Dibert Avenue. The rest of the testimony focused on Arnold’s murder. It is highly 15 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO unlikely that the jury would have confused the murder evidence with the other offenses. See State v. Johnson, 88 Ohio St.3d 95, 110, 723 N.E.2d 1054 (2000). {¶ 65} Finally, Dean argues that the joinder of offenses took away his right to testify in his own behalf. Even though he did not testify, Dean argues that he might have chosen to testify about the Dibert Avenue shootings but not the Mini Mart. Dean also claims that he was prejudiced because he was unable to testify regarding Wade’s actions during the drive-by shooting and Wade’s shooting of Arnold. {¶ 66} In State v. Roberts, 62 Ohio St.2d 170, 405 N.E.2d 247 (1980), we addressed a defendant’s complaint that he was prejudiced by the joinder of charges because he wanted to testify on some charges but not others. Roberts held: To prevail upon this issue, defendant must make a convincing showing that he has important testimony to give concerning one cause, and a strong need to refrain from testifying in the other. Defendant must produce sufficient information regarding the nature of the testimony he wishes to give in the one case, and his reasons for not wishing to testify in the other, so as to satisfy the court that his claim of prejudice is genuine. Id. at 176. Federal cases have also indicated that a defendant’s mere desire to testify to only one count is an insufficient reason to require severance. See, e.g., Alvarez v. Wainwright, 607 F.2d 683, 686 (5th Cir.1979); United States v. Jardan, 552 F.2d 216, 220 (8th Cir.1977). {¶ 67} Dean has failed to present convincing reasons for his argument that he might have chosen to testify in one case but not in the other. Thus, he has not shown that he was prejudiced, as required by Crim.R. 14, or that he satisfies the standard laid out in Roberts. 16 January Term, 2015 {¶ 68} Based on the foregoing, we reject Proposition of Law XI. 2. Jury selection (Proposition of Law V) {¶ 69} Dean contends that jurors Nos. 342, 357, and 449 should have been removed from the jury because their answers on their jury questionnaires or during voir dire indicated that they could not be fair and impartial jurors.
{¶ 70} On the death-penalty questionnaire, juror No. 357 circled an answer stating that the death penalty was the “proper punishment in some cases, but not the proper punishment in some other cases.” He explained that “[e]ach case is individual & some circumstances are different” and that his main concern was that “too much time [was] spent on so many appeals.” During voir dire, juror No. 357 stated that his concern about the length and cost of appeals would not affect the way he looked at the evidence or weighed the aggravating circumstances against the mitigating factors. {¶ 71} We have held that a “defendant in a criminal case cannot complain of error in the overruling of a challenge for cause if such ruling does not force him to exhaust his peremptory challenges.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Eaton, 19 Ohio St.2d 145, 249 N.E.2d 897 (1969), paragraph one of the syllabus, vacated in part, 408 U.S. 935, 92 S.Ct. 2857, 33 L.Ed.2d 750 (1972). Thus, “ ‘[i]f the trial court erroneously overrules a challenge for cause, the error is prejudicial only if the accused eliminates the challenged venireman with a peremptory challenge and exhausts his peremptory challenges before the full jury is seated.’ ” (Emphasis added.) State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118, 2008-Ohio-3426, 892 N.E.2d 864, ¶ 87, quoting State v. Tyler, 50 Ohio St.3d 24, 30-31, 553 N.E.2d 576 (1990). {¶ 72} Dean argues that seated juror No. 357 should have been excused because his feelings about the death penalty were biased. But Dean waived any objection to his service. First, he failed to challenge this juror for cause. Second, he failed to excuse juror No. 357 with a peremptory challenge and failed to exercise 17 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO four of his six peremptory challenges. Thus, this claim is reviewed on the basis of plain error. See State v. Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467, 2014-Ohio-1942, 13 N.E.3d 1051, ¶ 79. {¶ 73} Juror No. 357’s answers on his death-penalty questionnaire showed that he took a moderate view of the death penalty. His main concern about the death penalty concerned the lengthy appeals process. Moreover, during voir dire, juror No. 357 assured the court that he could follow the court’s instructions. Based on these answers, we hold that the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to excuse juror No. 357. {¶ 74} Dean also argues that his counsel were ineffective by failing to challenge juror No. 357. Reversal of a conviction for ineffective assistance of counsel requires that the defendant show first that counsel’s performance was deficient and second that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Accord State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 75} Defense counsel were not deficient because juror No. 357’s comments on his death-penalty questionnaire and his comments during voir dire did not disclose information that would have supported a challenge for cause. Dean also failed to establish that his counsel were ineffective by failing to peremptorily challenge juror No. 357. Juror No. 357 exhibited neither bias nor prejudice. Therefore, counsel’s failure to challenge this juror was not deficient. See State v. Lindsey, 87 Ohio St.3d 479, 490, 721 N.E.2d 995 (2000).
{¶ 76} On his death-penalty questionnaire, juror No. 342 stated that the death penalty was “the proper punishment in all cases where someone is convicted of aggravated murder.” During voir dire, juror No. 342 made similar comments. Juror No. 342 acknowledged that he was “opinionated” and stated that “[p]eople 18 January Term, 2015 do not want to be around a person who is as opinionated as me on a jury. I will do my best to convince people around me to believe in my opinions, not their own.” Despite these strongly held views, juror No. 342 stated that if Dean was convicted of aggravated murder, he would follow the court’s instructions and listen objectively to the mitigating factors and other matters that the defense would present in argument against the death penalty. Later, juror No. 342 reiterated that he would “absolutely” weigh the aggravating circumstances against the mitigating factors before deciding the sentence. {¶ 77} Defense counsel challenged juror No. 342 for cause because of his strong views in favor of the death penalty. However, the trial court denied the challenge, stating, “[H]e held strong opinions about the death penalty; but nonetheless, he could put those aside and fairly consider the Court’s instructions.” Defense counsel later peremptorily challenged juror No. 342. {¶ 78} Dean argues that the trial court erred by failing to remove juror No. 342 for cause because he could not be a fair and impartial juror. But Dean waived his challenge to juror No. 342 because he failed to exhaust his allotted number of peremptory challenges. Here, the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to excuse juror No. 342. Juror No. 342 told the court more than once that he would follow the court’s instructions and also stated that he could fairly consider the mitigating factors in determining punishment. Thus, the record does not show that juror No. 342 could not be a fair and impartial juror, and this claim is rejected.
{¶ 79} On his questionnaire, juror No. 449 stated, “I feel [that the death penalty] is the proper punishment for aggravated murder. In all convicted cases.” (Underlining sic.) Juror No. 449 tempered his views during voir dire. He stated that in spite of his strong feelings about the death penalty, he would have “an open mind” about the mitigation evidence, would follow the judge’s instructions about the weighing process, and would fairly engage in that process. During further 19 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO questioning, juror No. 449 assured the court that he could follow the court’s instructions in reaching his decision. Juror No. 449 added, “I think you have to listen to the mitigating factors because    each case is gonna be different.” The trial court overruled a defense challenge for cause against juror No. 449. Defense counsel later exercised a peremptory challenge against juror No. 449 after he was selected as an alternate juror. {¶ 80} Dean argues that juror No. 449 should have been excused for cause because he had stated that the death penalty was the proper punishment for aggravated murder. Dean waived this argument because he failed to exhaust his allotted number of peremptory challenges. He used a peremptory challenge to eliminate juror No. 449, and this action cured any error. “ ‘So long as the jury that sits is impartial, the fact that the defendant had to use a peremptory challenge to achieve that result does not mean the Sixth Amendment was violated.’ ” Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118, 2008-Ohio-3426, 892 N.E.2d 864, at ¶ 86, quoting Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 88, 108 S.Ct. 2273, 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988). Moreover, none of the alternate jurors participated in the verdict. Thus, this claim is also rejected. {¶ 81} Based on the foregoing, we overrule Proposition of Law V. 3. Evidentiary rulings (Proposition of Law X) {¶ 82} Dean argues that the trial court made several erroneous evidentiary rulings that denied him a fair trial. a. Testimony of Kaboos {¶ 83} Dean argues that the trial court erred by allowing Kaboos to testify about Dean’s intentions to rob her and his plans to rob people at local bars. Kaboos testified that Dean told her that he had planned to rob her and her friend when he first saw them. Following a defense objection, the prosecutor claimed that Kaboos would testify that Dean decided not to rob her after he learned that she did not have any money. The prosecutor also claimed that Dean told Kaboos that he went to 20 January Term, 2015 bars at night to rob people. Defense counsel argued that Kaboos’s testimony that Dean planned to rob Kaboos and her friend and that he went to bars to rob people was not relevant and was improper under Evid.R. 404(B) as other-acts testimony. The trial court overruled the objections, finding that the testimony was “probative of motive.” {¶ 84} Afterward, Kaboos testified that Dean told her that “he was planning on robbing me and my friend Becky out of whatever money we had, but we didn’t have no money.” She then stated that he changed his mind but that she didn’t know why he changed his mind. Kaboos also testified that Dean often went out at night with Wade, leaving her at home. Kaboos testified that Dean told her that they were “gonna go to the local bars and lure people out and rob them of their money.” {¶ 85} Dean argues that Kaboos’s testimony should not have been admitted to prove motive. Under Evid.R. 404(B), “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove” a defendant’s character as to criminal propensity. “It may, however, be admissible    [to prove] motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” Id. {¶ 86} Dean was charged with aggravated robbery and murder while committing or attempting to commit robbery for Arnold’s death. The testimony that Dean planned to rob Kaboos and her friend and that he and Wade were going to bars to lure customers outside and rob them showed that Dean was intending to rob people around the time that Arnold was murdered and robbed. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Kaboos’s testimony as evidence of motive. See State v. Woodard, 68 Ohio St.3d 70, 73, 623 N.E.2d 75 (1993) (where defendant was charged with murder in a carjacking incident, evidence that defendant previously had attempted to carjack someone was evidence of motive). {¶ 87} As a final matter, Dean argues that the trial court erred in concluding that Kaboos’s testimony met one of the purposes of Evid.R. 404(B) without explicitly analyzing whether the prejudicial impact outweighed its probative value. 21 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Under Evid.R. 403(A), relevant evidence must be excluded if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues, or of misleading the jury.” “Even if the other-acts evidence is offered to prove a material element, the decision to admit this evidence is subject to Rule 403.” See 1 Giannelli, Evidence, Section 404.14, at 252 (3d Ed.2010). “The admission or exclusion of relevant evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173, 510 N.E.2d 343 (1987), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 88} We have held that “Evid.R. 403(A) establishes a standard but does not require a trial court to explicitly state in its judgment entry that the probative value of the ‘other acts’ evidence outweighs its prejudicial impact.” State v. Bey, 85 Ohio St.3d 487, 489, 709 N.E.2d 484 (1999). The probative value of Kaboos’s testimony outweighed the damage of any unfair prejudice to Dean. Thus, the trial court’s failure to explicitly state its findings on the weighing process was not reversible error. b. Handgun and ammunition not used in crimes {¶ 89} Dean argues that the trial court erred by admitting a .380-caliber handgun and other evidence that was seized during a search of Wade’s home.4 The state introduced six rounds of .380-caliber ammunition that were in pants found during the police search of Dean’s bedroom. The state also sought to introduce the .380-caliber handgun that was found during the search of Wade’s house. {¶ 90} Defense counsel objected to the introduction of the handgun as irrelevant, because no gun of this caliber was used in any of the offenses. The state argued, “We’re attempting to show that the firearm, the .40 caliber that was issued here, is the property of Jason Dean and that Josh Wade has his own separate firearm.” The trial court overruled the defense objection, stating, “I think what it 4 Dean made no Fourth Amendment claims in challenging the admissibility of the .380-caliber handgun. 22 January Term, 2015 tends to show is the firearms were interchangeable.” The state was allowed to introduce the .380-caliber handgun. {¶ 91} The admission of the .380-caliber firearm and ammunition rested upon a question of relevancy. Evid.R. 401 provides: “ ‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” “The admission or exclusion of relevant evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173, 510 N.E.2d 343, at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 92} In State v. Neyland, 139 Ohio St.3d 353, 2014-Ohio-1914, 12 N.E.3d 1112, the state presented evidence about several firearms and ammunition found in Neyland’s motel room and storage unit. The firearms were not connected to the aggravated-murder charges against Neyland. Id. at ¶ 157. The state argued that the evidence was relevant to prove Neyland’s prior calculation and design, which was an element of the aggravated-murder charges. Id. at ¶ 153. We rejected that argument because the murder weapon had been identified and admitted into evidence. Thus, the other weapons and ammunition were not relevant to proving Neyland’s prior calculation and design and should not have been admitted. Id. at ¶ 157. See also State v. Trimble, 122 Ohio St.3d 297, 2009-Ohio-2961, 911 N.E.2d 242, ¶ 105-106 (weapons found in the defendant’s basement that were not used in the murder were not relevant to prove prior calculation and design). {¶ 93} Unlike in Neyland and Trimble, the state did not introduce multiple weapons to prove prior calculation and design. Rather, the .380-caliber handgun found in Wade’s bedroom and the .380-caliber ammunition found in the pants in Dean’s bedroom were relevant for the limited purpose of showing that Dean and Wade acted together in committing the offenses. {¶ 94} Moreover, the prosecutor later relied on this evidence to rebut defense claims that Wade acted alone in committing the offenses. During final 23 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO arguments, defense counsel asserted that Wade was acting alone: “That ain’t no little boy being scared by the sound of the big old gun he’s holding in his hand. That’s a young thug fully capable of committing this crime without guidance from anybody.” In rebuttal, the prosecutor argued: Facts that show that they’re a team?    They were together all day every day for 21 days. He provided the guns; he used the .25; Josh used the .40.    No one’s talked about this yet. When they got rid of the .25, they replaced it with that .380. They had the .380 that was found down at Josh’s house. How about this? The .380 rounds when they did the search warrant, the .380 rounds are found in the Defendant’s pants in his house, and the .380’s found down the street at Josh’s. That doesn’t show you that they’re working as a team?    Again, that’s showing you how tightly they worked together as a team. {¶ 95} The state’s argument explains why the .380-caliber handgun and ammunition were relevant. That evidence—the weapon in Wade’s house and the ammunition in Dean’s house—tended to show that Dean and Wade acted together in committing the charged offenses. Thus, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the .380-caliber handgun and ammunition. c. Letters and telephone calls {¶ 96} Dean argues that the trial court erred by admitting the letters that he wrote to Manns and Sions and the telephone calls that Dean made while he was in pretrial confinement.
{¶ 97} Detective Estep testified that the police obtained a search warrant and seized numerous letters that Dean had sent to Manns, an inmate at the Lebanon 24 January Term, 2015 Correctional Institute. Estep also learned that Sions had received numerous letters from Dean. Estep talked to Sions about the letters, and the police later collected them from Sions’s house. {¶ 98} During its case-in-chief, the state introduced redacted excerpts from letters that Dean had mailed to Manns and Sions before his trial, but the letters themselves were not admitted. Dean raises various objections to the contents of the excerpts and argues that they should not have been admitted. {¶ 99} First, Dean argues that several excerpts from his letters should not have been admitted, because they did nothing more than show his lack of remorse for Arnold’s death. Dean complains about the following excerpt in a letter to Manns: “They act like I killed the president.” Dean also complains about the comments in another letter: “Remember they said they found a .40 Caliber pistol in my house? Well that’s the type of pistol dude got killed with, but there are no prints at all on the gun.” Dean’s statements in these letters were probative of his consciousness of guilt. Thus, this evidence was relevant to a noncharacter issue and admissible under Evid.R. 404(B). {¶ 100} Dean argues that the following excerpt from a letter to Sions should not have been admitted, because it also showed his lack of remorse: “Anyway this dude walks up to me and says, ‘that dude you and your boy killed was my cousin’. I looked at him and said, ‘I don’t give a fuck!’ ” However, Dean’s response to the accusation was admissible as an implied admission of guilt. {¶ 101} Dean also complains that an excerpt in a letter to Sions was improperly presented to the jury: I get so angry sometimes, and I lose control.    It’s the reason a man I have never laid eyes on before is in his grave and his children are wondering where their daddy is and his mother has to cry herself to sleep at night because her son was shot down like an 25 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO animal for no reason other than he was at the wrong place at the wrong time. What’s so sad and it scares me when I think about it is the fact that I don’t care. {¶ 102} These comments were also an implied admission of guilt and not barred by Evid.R. 404(B). See State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412, 2006-Ohio2815, 848 N.E.2d 810, ¶ 66. {¶ 103} Second, Dean claims that excerpts from two of his letters should not have been admitted because they showed his lack of remorse and vulgarity and that he was a dangerous individual. Initially, he complains about the admissibility of a letter he wrote to Manns: “I made my choices and I knew the consequences of my actions. I have lived my life the way I wanted, I have always done what I wanted to do when I wanted to do it and fuck what anybody had to say about it.” These were probative of Dean’s consciousness of guilt. {¶ 104} In a letter to Sions, Dean wrote, “If I could just get my hands on that motherfucker I would crush him. If I could get my hands on him, there would be another mother mourning the loss of her child.” Once again, Dean’s comments demonstrated his consciousness of guilt and were admissible. {¶ 105} Third, Dean argues that excerpts from other letters should not have been admitted, because they showed he was a dangerous individual with an unabashed disregard for the law. In a letter to Manns, Dean wrote: “Life’s a motherfucker ain’t it bro? This is what happens when you live life in the streets and make your own rules and laws. You lose everything every time. I will carry my burden with my head held high.” Similarly, Dean wrote Sions: “But I got caught up living the fast life, doing what comes natural to a beast like me, doing what I wanted, when I wanted, and how I wanted.” In a similar vein, Dean wrote: “Because at that point if I wanted something, I took it and damn the consequences. 26 January Term, 2015 But that kind of thinking has led me to where I am right now, locked in a concrete and steel cage.” {¶ 106} These excerpts all demonstrated Dean’s disregard for the consequences of his actions and were relevant to prove his involvement in the offenses. But Dean’s statements: “I will take some money, some jewelry, some dope. I will take your car and everything you own, but I would never take no pussy” were irrelevant and not admissible under Evid.R. 404(B). Nevertheless, the impact of these comments was minimal, considering the other compelling evidence of Dean’s guilt. {¶ 107} During the trial, Dean argued that there were no eyewitnesses identifying him at the scene of Arnold’s murder and insisted that Wade was solely responsible as the killer. Yet Dean’s letters contain bits of information that show his involvement in Arnold’s murder and convey his consciousness of guilt for Arnold’s murder and the other offenses. See State v. Hanna, 95 Ohio St.3d 285, 2002-Ohio-2221, 767 N.E.2d 678, ¶ 86. {¶ 108} The record shows that the state was careful in limiting the information that was contained in the excerpts that went to the jury. The evidence of other acts was not offered for the purpose of proving Dean’s bad character. Moreover, information that cast Dean’s character in a negative light was kept to a minimum. Thus, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the excerpts of Dean’s letters to Sions and Manns.
{¶ 109} The state played a recording of a phone call that Dean made from jail and presented the transcript of another phone conversation that Dean made, both of which were made to an unidentified individual. {¶ 110} During the recording, Dean stated, “They’re not offering no deal    He’s going for the death penalty, period.” Dean added that the reason no deal 27 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO was being offered was “ ‘[c]ause we killed a moon cricket.” Dean also discussed Wade’s involvement in the murder and the strength of the state’s case: Man, this chick seen everything. She seen it happen. They don’t got me at the scene or nothing at that murder. She done pointed the dude out at the corner (inaudible) and everything. I mean, ain’t nothing I can do to help him. I tried to help him in the long run when we first went down. I accepted — (inaudible) I was rolling with it. I was carrying the weight, but then (inaudible) witness came forward and ain’t nothing I can do to help him now. I mean, of course, they gonna ask me, do you know anything about this. How did you get the murder weapon in your house and, you know, all this shit. I bought the gun off the street. {¶ 111} Dean argues that the trial court erred by allowing this audio recording to be played because it conveyed that Dean was a racist. But Dean’s comment that they killed a “moon cricket” was an admission by Dean of his involvement in Arnold’s murder. Thus, we reject Dean’s claim that that the probative value of this evidence was “minimal at best.” {¶ 112} Other comments in the phone conversations were also relevant to the charges. Dean discusses the strong evidence linking Dean and Wade with Arnold’s murder. Moreover, Dean tells the caller that he bought the murder weapon off the street. This was also highly probative evidence linking Dean to the murder. {¶ 113} Dean cites Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159, 112 S.Ct. 1093, 117 L.Ed.2d 309 (1992), for the proposition that this recording should not have been presented to the jury because it portrayed him as a racist. Dawson held that the First Amendment precludes a state “from employing evidence of a defendant’s 28 January Term, 2015 abstract beliefs at a sentencing hearing when those beliefs have no bearing on the issue being tried.” Id. at 168. In Dawson, the jury was told that the defendant belonged to the Aryan Brotherhood, which was described as a white racist gang. Id. at 166. Nothing of the sort happened in this case. Dean’s comment was not a mere statement of abstract beliefs but was evidence of his involvement in Arnold’s murder. {¶ 114} The transcript of a second phone call between Dean and an unidentified male was also presented to the jurors. In this phone call, Dean complained about Wade’s statements to the police and Kaboos that incriminated Dean in the murder. Dean stated that Wade “said all kinds of shit” and “told that girl everything man,” and “[t]hat’s how that bitch knows everything ‘cause he told her.” This conversation showed Dean’s consciousness of guilt and was therefore admissible. {¶ 115} Dean also objects that the transcript of this phone call, which had been used as an exhibit in his first trial, included the name of the case and the fact that it was from the “Guilt Phase.” It is unclear why this information was not redacted before the exhibit went to the jury. However, the trial court informed the jury that this case had been tried before and told them that they “may not consider that fact    for any purpose whatsoever.” Thus, there is little likelihood that the reference to the prior trial was prejudicial. {¶ 116} Finally, Dean argues that the transcript and the recording showed that Dean was callous, vulgar, and remorseless. He argues that this evidence was particularly prejudicial because the evidence that he was involved in the drive-by shootings and Arnold’s murder was not overwhelming. However, Dean’s argument overlooks Kaboos’s testimony, which established his involvement in the Dibert Avenue shootings and his involvement in Arnold’s murder. Thus, Dean’s claim that the jury’s review of his letters and telephone conversations deprived him of a fair trial is rejected. 29 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 117} Based on the foregoing, we overrule Proposition of Law X. 4. Playing 9-1-1 calls (Proposition of Law IX) {¶ 118} Dean argues that he was denied a fair trial when the prosecution played two emotionally charged 9-1-1 tapes for the jury. a. Haile’s 9-1-1 call {¶ 119} Over defense objection, the state played a tape of the 9-1-1 call that Amrosetta Haile made following Arnold’s shooting: Speaker One [Haile]: There was two of them. They shot this other boy in the head. He’s dead. I know he’s dead. He wasn’t moving. There was blood everyplace. Speaker Two [9-1-1 operator]: You were passing by? Speaker One: I was coming off of Light Street onto High. And these people were running from the shelter house across to this kid in the road right by the Night Owl intersection on High Street. They just shot him in the fuckin’ head with a gun.