Opinion ID: 7089211
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Old Carolina Barbecue Robbery

Text: {¶ 141} Before trial, the state gave notice that it intended to use other-acts evidence, evidence concerning including the Old Carolina Barbecue robbery, against Tench. See Evid.R. 404(B) (proponent of other-acts evidence must provide reasonable notice). The trial court ruled that evidence involving the Old Carolina Barbecue robbery was admissible. At trial, the defense renewed its objection to admission of the robbery evidence. The defense further objected to proof of the details of the robbery and specifically the fact that it also involved a kidnapping. {¶ 142} At trial, the state called Strongsville police detective Steve Borowske, who investigated the Old Carolina Barbecue robbery. His testimony was the principal means by which the robbery was made known to the jury. During his investigation, Borowske learned that a person wearing a skull mask and hooded sweatshirt had robbed the restaurant at gunpoint. Two employees ran and hid; two others were forced by the robber into a walk-in cooler. Borowske testified that the victims were scared to death by the incident. He testified that the restaurant's exterior security cameras captured Tench in the parking lot at the time of the robbery. After reviewing the tape with Borowske, an Old Carolina Barbecue manager told him that the suspect looked exactly like Tench.  {¶ 143} On November 13, 2013, Borowske testified, he participated in the execution of a search warrant at the Tench house and in Tench's bedroom, he found a black hooded sweatshirt resembling the one worn by the robber. Later that day, and again on November 15, he interrogated Tench at the Strongsville police station. Tench admitted that he was in the parking lot at the time of the robbery, but he denied having committed the robbery. {¶ 144} In March 2014, Borowske testified, he spoke to Tench again. By then, Tench had been convicted of and sentenced for the robbery. This time, Tench admitted his guilt. He said he had done it because he needed money to put into his mother's checking account, because she was forgetful and was overdrawing her account. He told Borowske that he had used a toy gun that he had spray-painted  black. Borowske testified that police never found the gun used in the robbery. {¶ 145} The state also raised the subject of the robbery during testimony by other witnesses. Christina Kyker testified that Tench mentioned the robbery to her the day after it happened. With an air of amusement, he told her that the robbers had picked a day when the restaurant had not been busy and as a result, had gotten only $300. He did not tell her he was the one who had done it. {¶ 146} Jonathan Casey testified that Tench called him the night of the robbery and asked whether he had heard that the restaurant had been robbed. In a later conversation, Tench asked Casey whether Casey thought he (Tench) had had anything to do with it. Casey testified that Tench also said,  'Imagine them getting robbed by a girl.'  (According to Casey, the perpetrator had worn a wig.) {¶ 147} Finally, Detective Weinhardt testified that he learned about Mary's disappearance on the morning of November 12. At that time, another officer informed him that Tench was a person of interest in a recent Strongsville robbery. Weinhardt testified that this information had had an effect on his thinking in the case of Mary's disappearance. And Detective Schmitt testified that at the time he learned of Mary's disappearance, he knew that Strongsville police suspected Tench of the Old Carolina Barbecue robbery and this heightened his awareness of the possible seriousness of the situation. {¶ 148} Evid.R. 401 defines relevant evidence as 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. {¶ 149} The existence of a motive for Tench to kill his mother is certainly a fact of consequence to the determination of the action. Thus, the question is: Does evidence that Tench robbed the Old Carolina Barbecue on October 28 have a tendency to make the existence of a motive more probable    than it would be without the evidence? This question has a clear answer: The Old Carolina  Barbecue robbery has no tendency whatever to show that Tench had a motive to kill his mother. {¶ 150} The state argued in the pretrial proceedings and argues before us that the Old Carolina Barbecue robbery is probative of Tench's motive to kill. The state contends that Tench's use of the robbery's proceeds to replace funds he had stolen from his mother's bank account proves he wanted to conceal his thefts from his mother. {¶ 151} At trial, however, the state asserted that Tench killed his mother because he believed she intended to complain to the police about his stealing from her. If that was his motive, he must have formed it after he realized his mother knew he was stealing from her, because she could hardly complain about thefts she was unaware of. Yet the state contends that Tench committed the Old Carolina Barbecue robbery to prevent his mother from finding out about his thefts from her. In other words, the robbery took place before Tench knew that his mother had discovered his thefts. There is no connection between Tench's desire to conceal the thefts from his mother and his asserted motive to kill his mother. {¶ 152} At trial, the state offered a second motive argument. When the defense objected to showing the details of the robbery, especially the fact that restaurant employees had been forced into the cooler, the state claimed it needed to show that the robbery involved a kidnapping, because  that fact strengthened Tench's motive for murder. {¶ 153} The state argued that Tench knew he was facing a ton of prison time if convicted of robbery and kidnapping. The state theorized that Tench believed that the police would focus on him in their investigation of the robbery if his mother reported his thefts to the police. On this theory, Tench's desire to avoid punishment for the Old Carolina Barbecue robbery and kidnapping was part of his reason for killing his mother-and the more serious the penalty he faced, the stronger his motive to kill. {¶ 154} In terms of relevance, this theory fares no better than the first. It rests on a chain of speculation about Tench's thought processes that is not supported by any evidence in this case. There is nothing in the record to suggest that Tench believed that an investigation of the thefts from his mother would make it more likely that police would connect him to the robbery. {¶ 155} Finally, the state argues in its brief that the robbery evidence was relevant because Tench's being suspected of the robbery was essential to understanding the detectives'    early focus on Tench as a suspect in his mother's disappearance. Detectives Weinhardt and Schmitt knew that Tench was suspected of the robbery, and this knowledge affected Weinhardt's thinking in  the case of Mary's disappearance and heightened Schmitt's awareness of the possible seriousness of her disappearance. {¶ 156} Explaining police actions can be a valid basis for introducing other-acts evidence. See State v. Crawley , 633 N.W.2d 802 , 806 (Iowa 2001). And in this case, the prosecution had reason to explain why the detectives focused on Tench. Defense counsel had said in opening statement that it was easy for the    police to focus on Tench and counsel accused the police of having had tunnel vision. {¶ 157} But if the robbery was introduced to explain why the police focused on Tench as a suspect in the murder case, the state was using it for precisely the purpose forbidden by Evid.R. 404(B) : as propensity evidence. Why would Tench's being suspected of armed robbery make him the prime suspect in his mother's disappearance, unless the robbery shows that he has a propensity either for violent crime or for crime in general? Weinhardt and Schmitt, in their trial testimony, never suggested any noncharacter reason why Tench's suspected role in the robbery caused them to believe he was involved in Mary's disappearance. Nor does the state's brief offer any such explanation. Hence, the early focus on Tench explanation fails the second part of the Williams test-the evidence was presented to prove Tench's character and that he acted in conformity with that character-and is not an acceptable basis for admitting the robbery evidence. {¶ 158} Furthermore, the early focus on Tench explanation does not account for the evidence the state used at trial. Borowske's testimony about the robbery included a number of events that occurred after the Brunswick police began to focus on Tench as a suspect in his mother's murder. Borowske testified that he participated in the search of Tench's home on November 13, 2013-the day after Brunswick detectives questioned Tench and took him into custody-and found a hooded sweatshirt similar to that worn by the Old Carolina Barbecue robber. He further testified that he interviewed Tench on November 13 and 15, that Tench denied committing the robbery in those interviews, and that he interviewed Tench again in March 2014, at which time, Tench confessed  to the robbery. None of this testimony has any bearing on why, on the morning of November 12, the Brunswick police focused on Tench as a suspect in his mother's disappearance. Similarly, Tench's statements to Kyker and Casey do not explain the police focus on Tench; there is no evidence that the police even knew about those statements before they started to investigate Tench. {¶ 159} We conclude that admitting the Old-Carolina-Barbecue-robbery evidence constituted an abuse of the trial court's discretion.