Court Opinion

ID: 9918440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 22:06:32.402374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:14.332039
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Wright, 2024-Ohio-78.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                    GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO                                :       JUDGES:
                                             :       Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
        Plaintiff-Appellee                   :       Hon. John W. Wise, J.
                                             :       Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
-vs-                                         :
                                             :
TERRELL Q. WRIGHT                            :       Case No. 23CA000009
                                             :
        Defendant-Appellant                  :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                             Appeal from the Court of Common
                                                     Pleas, Case No. 22 CR 96

JUDGMENT:                                            Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                    January 10, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                               For Defendant-Appellant

GUERNSEY COUNTY PROSECUTOR                           RICHARD HIXSON
409 Wheeling Avenue                                  3808 James Court
Cambridge, OH 43725                                  Suite 2
                                                     Zanesville, OH 43701
Guernsey County, Case No. 23CA000009                                                      2

King, J.

       {¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Terrell Q. Wright appeals the March 30, 2023

judgment of conviction and sentence of the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas.

Plaintiff-Appellee is the state of Ohio.

                          FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       {¶ 2} On April 15, 2022, State Highway Patrol Sergeant Christopher Wood was

on duty, working the 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. shift. At 9:18 a.m. Wood received a report that

the Tuscarawas County Sheriff's Department was in pursuit of a black male, later

identified as Wright, driving a black Jeep Compass with Michigan tags and traveling

southbound on interstate 77. The report indicated the sheriff's department would

terminate their pursuit at the Guernsey County line.

       {¶ 3} Wood made his way to a crossover on interstate 77 at mile marker 54 and

sat stationary watching southbound traffic. At 9:28 a.m. he received word that the sheriff's

department had terminated their pursuit. One minute later, Wood observed Wright as he

illegally passed traffic on the berm at a high rate of speed. Wood activated his cruiser's

overhead lights and siren and attempted to stop Wright.

       {¶ 4} Instead of stopping, Wright lead Wood and other troopers on a lengthy

pursuit at speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour and up to 130 miles per hour on

Interstate 77, US 40, Route 265, and a pedestrian bike and hike trail. While on Interstate

77, Wright crossed the highway median several times, driving the wrong way on Interstate

77 into oncoming traffic, around blind turns and hillcrests. He narrowly missed causing

numerous accidents. He also drove the wrong way on U.S. 40, again nearly causing

several collisions.
Guernsey County, Case No. 23CA000009                                                    3

       {¶ 5} The pursuit ended when Wright again entered Interstate 77 with three State

Highway Patrol troopers in pursuit. Wright traveled for approximately one-and-a-half miles

before cutting across the median at a high rate of speed causing the Jeep to vault over

an embankment and roll down a hill. The Jeep came to rest on its roof. Wright was

arrested and initially refused to give his name. He later identified himself to paramedics

who arrived on the scene. Wright cried and apologized to the Troopers. $10,876 was

found in the Jeep.

       {¶ 6} As a result of these events, on May 22, 2022, the Guernsey County Grand

Jury returned an indictment charging Wright with one count of failure to comply with the

order or signal of a police officer, a felony of the third degree.

       {¶ 7} Wright elected to proceed to a jury trial which took place on March 28, and

29, 2023. The state presented testimony from Sergeant Wood and Trooper Seth Jones.

The jury viewed Wood's dash camera footage of the pursuit and Jones's body camera

footage of Wright's arrest.

       {¶ 8} Partway through the testimony of Sergeant Wood, Wright made a motion to

disqualify the all-Caucasian jury based on the fact that he is African-American and there

were no African-Americans on the jury. The motion was denied.

       {¶ 9} Wright rested without presenting any evidence.

       {¶ 10} After hearing the evidence and deliberating, the jury convicted Wright as

charged. He was subsequently sentenced to 36 months incarceration and a $5000 fine

which the trial court ordered be deducted from the cash seized at the scene.

       {¶ 11} Wright filed an appeal and the matter is now before this court for

consideration. He raises two assignments of error as follow:
Guernsey County, Case No. 23CA000009                                                       4

                                                I

       {¶ 12} "THE TRIAL COURT PREJUDICIALLY ERRED IN FAILING TO

DISQUALIFY THE ALL-WHITE JURY, IN VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT/APPELLANT'S

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY OF HIS PEERS."

                                                II

       {¶ 13} "DEFENDANT/APPELLANT'S                 CONVICTION          UNDER          R.C.

2921.331(C)(5)(A)(ii) WAS BASED ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND AGAINST THE

MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE."

                                                I

       {¶ 14} In his first assignment of error Wright argues the trial court erred by failing

to disqualify an all-white jury. We disagree.

       {¶ 15} "[T]he selection of a petit jury from a representative cross section of the

community is an essential component of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial." Taylor

v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 528, 95 S.Ct. 692, 697, 42 L.Ed.2d 690, 697 (1975). There is

no requirement, however, that a petit jury mirror the community, nor is a defendant entitled

to a jury of a particular composition. Id. at 538.

       {¶ 16} In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section

requirement, Wright was required to demonstrate "(1) that the group alleged to be

excluded is a 'distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group

in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the

number of such persons in the community; and (3) that the underrepresentation is due to

systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process." State v. Fulton, 57 Ohio
Guernsey County, Case No. 23CA000009                                                       5

St.3d 120, 566 N.E.2d 1195, (1991) paragraph two of the syllabus citing Duren v.

Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979).

       {¶ 17} Wright did not object to the composition of the jury when it was seated.

Transcript of trial (T.) 163-164. During a recess of the presentation of the state's case-in-

chief, however, counsel for Wright made a motion:

              [Counsel for Wright]: Yes, Your Honor, this is a - - a motion that I

              should have raised earlier, probably at the time when the jury was

              being selected.

              My motion is I'm asking the Court to disqualify this jury based on the

              fact that there are no blacks on the jury. And my client and I have

              discussed this briefly, and what we are saying is that this is not

              symbolic of a jury of his peers, Your Honor, and, therefore, we're

              asking that the jury be disqualified.

       {¶ 18} T. 243.

       {¶ 19} The trial court overruled Wright's motion noting the "the jurors for Guernsey

County are submitted from the rolls of the electorate" T. 244

       {¶ 20} While Wright satisfies the first prong of the Duren analysis by noting the jury

contained no African-American members and he himself is African-American, he fails to

satisfy the remaining prongs. Neither during trial, nor in his brief has Wright alleged or or

produced any evidence to show that African-Americans are unfairly represented in jury

pools in relation to their numbers in Guernsey County, nor that the underrepresentation
Guernsey County, Case No. 23CA000009                                                        6

was due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process. The trial court

noted that jurors in Guernsey County are submitted via voter registration rolls. "The use

of voter registration rolls as exclusive sources for jury selection is constitutional and does

not systematically, [or] intentionally, exclude any [economic, social, religious, racial,

political and geographical group of the community]." State v. Moore, 81 Ohio St.3d 22,

28, 1998-Ohio-441, 689 N.E.2d 1, citing State v. Johnson, 31 Ohio St.2d 106, 114, 60

O.O.2d 85, N.E.2d 751 (1972); State v. Spirko, 59 Ohio St.3d 1, 35-36, 570 N.E.2d 229

(1991).

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

                                              II

       {¶ 22} In his second assignment of error Wright argues his conviction for failure to

comply with the order or signal of a police officer is against the manifest weight and

sufficiency of the evidence. We disagree.

       {¶ 23} On review for sufficiency, a reviewing court is to examine the evidence at

trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would support a conviction. State v.

Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991). "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."

Jenks at paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99

S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). On review for manifest weight, a reviewing court is to

examine the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider

the credibility of witnesses and determine "whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence,

the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the
Guernsey County, Case No. 23CA000009                                                           7

conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered." State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d

172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). See also, State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d

380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). The granting of a new trial "should be exercised only in the

exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction." Martin at

175.

       {¶ 24} Wright was charged with failure to comply with the order or signal of a police

officer pursuant to R.C. 2921.331(B)-(5)(A)(ii). That section provides:

              (B) No person shall operate a motor vehicle so as willfully to elude or

              flee a police officer after receiving a visible or audible signal from a

              police officer to bring the person's motor vehicle to a stop.

              ***

              (5)(a) A violation of division (B) of this section is a felony of the third

              degree if the jury or judge as trier of fact finds any of the following by

              proof beyond a reasonable doubt:

              ***

              (ii) The operation of the motor vehicle by the offender caused a

              substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons or property.

       {¶ 25} Sergeant Wood and Trooper Jones both testified that Wright fled the officers

after they activated their cruiser's lights and sirens in an attempt to effectuate a traffic stop

of Wright. T. 237-238, 279. Instead of stopping, Wright fled, passing traffic on the berm,

driving the wrong way on Interstate 77 and US 40 at speeds of up to 130 miles per hour,
Guernsey County, Case No. 23CA000009                                                      8

driving on a pedestrian trail, and nearly causing many crashes along the way. T.224, 225-

227, 230,232-236, 250-253, 279-283, 289, State's exhibits A and B. There was video

evidence of Wright's flight from troopers and jurors viewed that video.

       {¶ 26} Upon review of the entire record, we find the state produced overwhelming

evidence of Wright's guilt. Troopers clearly signaled for Wright to stop his vehicle, and

Wright's flight clearly endangered other motorists causing a substantial risk of serious

physical harm. We additionally find the jury's verdict is not against the manifest weight of

the evidence. Accordingly, we overrule Wright's second assignment of error.

       {¶ 27} The judgment of the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

By King J.,

Hoffman, P.J. and

Wise, J. concur.