Court Opinion

ID: 9384427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-03 19:06:51.526797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:53.384564
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Wilson, 2023-Ohio-1111.]

                                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                            TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                             BUTLER COUNTY

 STATE OF OHIO,                                    :

        Appellee,                                  :         CASE NO. CA2021-12-152

                                                   :              OPINION
     - vs -                                                        4/3/2023
                                                   :

 CAMERON TREITAY KIDD WILSON,                      :

        Appellant.                                 :

       CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                          Case No. CR2020-12-1581

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and John C. Heinkel, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Law Office of John H. Forg, and John H. Forg, III, for appellant.

        BYRNE, J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Cameron Treitay Kidd Wilson, appeals from his conviction of two

counts of murder and two counts of felonious assault related to the fatal shooting of Darrien

Shamel. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm Wilson's convictions.
                                                                                Butler CA2021-12-152

                              I. Procedural and Factual Background

        {¶2}    In the early morning hours of June 2, 2020, Darrien Shamel was shot and

killed in the doorway of his apartment with a 9 mm handgun. His mother called the police

around 12:36 a.m. and officers arrived on the scene within minutes. In December of 2020,

a Butler County grand jury indicted Wilson on two counts of murder and two counts of

felonious assault.

        {¶3}    During a five-day trial, the state presented testimony from Daija Smith,

Shamel's girlfriend, who testified that she was inside Shamel's apartment in view of the front

door when Shamel answered the door. She stated that when Shamel opened the door, a

tall white male, Blake Michels, gave Shamel a "dap hug."1 At that same time, a lighter-

skinned black male standing behind Michels, wearing all black clothing and a black beanie,

shot Shamel twice—once in the head and once in the neck.

        {¶4}    The state also presented testimony from Officer Sean Figley who arrived at

the scene just minutes after the shooting. Smith informed Officer Figley that a lighter-

skinned black male shot Shamel. Testimony from Detective Robert Horton confirmed that

investigators recovered two 9 mm shell casings at the scene of the shooting.

        {¶5}    The state presented the testimony of Blake Michels, who alleged that the

following events occurred: Wilson picked up Michels and a friend, Camden Timenfeld2,

from Michels' home in Delhi. The three then traveled together in Wilson's car to several

different locations before going to Hamilton so that Michels could purchase acid from

Shamel. At some point during the evening, Wilson put on a black hoodie. He was also

wearing a toboggan. When they arrived at Shamel's apartment, Michels and Wilson got

1. A "dap hug" is described by the witness to be a type of handshake where the individuals pull one another
toward each other.

2. The record contains different spellings of this name.

                                                     -2-
                                                                     Butler CA2021-12-152

out of the car and went to the front door. Timenfeld remained in the car. When Shamel

opened the door, Michels gave him a "dap hug," and at that point Wilson, who was standing

behind Michels, shot Shamel twice. Wilson told Michels to run. They returned to Wilson's

car and Wilson drove back to his home in Harrison. When they arrived, Michels and

Timenfeld remained in the car, and as Wilson exited the car, Michels saw an all-black

firearm. Wilson remained inside his home for roughly five minutes before returning to the

car to drive Michels and Timenfeld back to Michels' home in Delhi. In addition to this

testimony, Michels also admitted that he was not truthful with the police during his initial

interviews.

       {¶6}   Wilson testified in his own defense and denied that he was present at the

scene of the shooting. He stated that he picked up Michels and Timenfeld from Michels'

home earlier in the evening of June 1, but that he dropped them both off in Hamilton around

11:30 p.m. before returning to his home. He claims to have returned home around 12:15

a.m., where he spoke with his younger brother for a few minutes before driving to his

girlfriend's house.

       {¶7}   On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Wilson if he had access to any

firearms and if he ever wore a black toboggan. Wilson responded that he owned a shotgun

and two handgun cases, one of which was found empty during a search of Wilson's room.

He also testified that he normally does not wear a black toboggan. Wilson was then asked

about a video on his cell phone that showed him wearing a black beanie and waiving a 9

mm handgun. Wilson did not deny the existence of the video or dispute its contents.

       {¶8}   The defense also presented the testimony of two alibi witnesses. Wilson's

mother, Pet Davis, testified that she saw Wilson at home, lying in bed, at 12:09 a.m. on the

morning of the shooting. Wilson's younger brother, Cory Kidd, testified that Wilson was at

home until 12:15 a.m., when Wilson left to go hang out with his girlfriend. He stated that

                                           -3-
                                                                     Butler CA2021-12-152

Wilson returned home around 12:45 a.m. and went to bed around 1:30 a.m.

        {¶9}   The state presented rebuttal evidence from Lance Kepple, a special agent

with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Cellular Analysis Survey Team (CAST). Special

Agent Kepple presented his report on the historical cellular analysis for Wilson's and

Michels' phone numbers, based on data obtained from their cellular service providers. The

report showed the general locations of both cell phones on the evening of June 1, 2020,

and into the morning hours of June 2, 2020. The data did not provide pinpoint locations

and instead identified the general area in which the phones were located at times. But in

general, the data suggested that the cell phones of Wilson and Michels were traveling

together from the hours of 8:00 p.m. on June 1, 2020, until roughly 2:00 a.m. on June 2,

2020.

        {¶10} According to the report, Wilson's phone was in Hamilton near Shamel's home

at 12:17 a.m. and 12:32 a.m. on the morning of June 2. Michels' phone was in roughly the

same location at 12:34 a.m. The report gave no indication that Wilson's phone was near

his home at 12:15 a.m. or near his girlfriend's house shortly thereafter. Instead, the report

indicated that at 12:56 a.m., both phones were south of Hamilton, but north of Wilson's

home; at 1:24 a.m., both phones were south of Wilson's home but north of Michels' home;

and at 1:58 a.m., both phones were near Michels' home.

        {¶11} The jury convicted Wilson on all four counts. The trial court merged allied

offenses and sentenced Wilson to 15 years to life in prison. Wilson now appeals, raising a

single assignment of error for review.

                                   II. Law and Analysis

        {¶12} Wilson's Assignment of Error No. 1 states:

        {¶13} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING WILSON OF MURDER

AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

                                            -4-
                                                                                    Butler CA2021-12-152

        {¶14} In his assignment of error, Wilson contends that his conviction was against

the manifest weight of the evidence. Wilson disputes the state's reliance on circumstantial

evidence, specifically the state's CAST report, which he alleges "cannot provide Wilson's

exact location" at the time of the shooting. He also takes issue with the testimony of Smith

and Michels.        He argues that the descriptions of the shooter given by Smith were

inconsistent and questionable. He also argues that Michels' testimony is the "only evidence

that places Wilson at the scene of the crime," and that his testimony was not credible.

                                         A. Standard of Review

        {¶15} We first note that in his appellate brief, Wilson identifies an incorrect standard

for making a manifest weight determination.3 Wilson cites to a sufficiency of the evidence

standard, but "[t]he legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence

are both quantitatively and qualitatively different." State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380,

386 (1997). Sufficiency is essentially a test of adequacy, asking whether the evidence is

legally sufficient to sustain a verdict. Id.

        {¶16} A manifest weight of the evidence challenge 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." State v. Barnett, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-09-177, 2012-Ohio-2372, ¶

14. 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. State

3. In that same vein, Wilson also ties this incorrect standard to an improper standard for reasonable doubt,
stating that reasonable doubt means "without any degree of uncertainty." It is well established that the
definition of reasonable doubt, as set forth in R.C. 2901.05, is not "mere possible doubt," but instead is "proof
of such character that an ordinary person would be willing to rely and act upon it in the most important of his
own affairs." State v. Van Gundy, 64 Ohio St.3d 230, 232 (1992).

                                                     -5-
                                                                      Butler CA2021-12-152

v. Graham, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2008-07-095, 2009-Ohio-2814, ¶ 66.

       {¶17} In reviewing the evidence, an appellate court must be mindful that the original

trier of fact was in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses and determine the

weight to be given to the evidence. State v. Blankenburg, 197 Ohio App.3d 201, 2012-

Ohio-1289, ¶ 114 (12th Dist.). An appellate court will overturn a conviction due to the

manifest weight of the evidence only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs

heavily against the conviction. State v. Zitney, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2020-06-007, 2021-

Ohio-466, ¶ 15.

                     B. Analysis of the Evidence Presented at Trial

       {¶18} Wilson alleges that the testimony of Daija Smith was inconsistent with a

previous statement. Smith witnessed the shooting and testified that she saw a lighter-

skinned black male shoot Shamel. Wilson argues that Smith's testimony is inconsistent

with a 9-1-1 phone call, where "she identified the shooter as a white male." However, Smith

did not call the police—Shamel's mother did. Although Shamel's mother was present at the

scene, she did not witness the shooting.

       {¶19} Wilson further argues that the state's reliance on Smith's description of the

shooter is inconsistent with other evidence. Smith testified that the shooter was wearing all

black clothing and a black beanie. A Snapchat video of Wilson taken on the evening of

June 1 shows him wearing a white t-shirt and a blue pair of jeans. Wilson asserts that the

Snapchat video shows that he was not wearing the clothing that Smith identified. However,

Wilson admitted that there was a video of him on his own phone showing him wearing a

black beanie and waiving a 9 mm handgun. Further, Michels testified that he saw Wilson

put on a black hoodie and that he was wearing a toboggan at some point during the evening

of June 1, 2020. It is thus reasonable to conclude that Wilson changed his clothes, or added

another layer of clothing, at some point during the evening before arriving at Shamel's

                                            -6-
                                                                       Butler CA2021-12-152

apartment in Hamilton.

       {¶20} Wilson also argues that his conviction is against the manifest weight of the

evidence because the state's case "rests solely on the testimony of witness Blake Michels."

Wilson asserts that Michels' testimony is unreliable because he lied to police during his

initial interviews, and that his testimony is "inconsistent and suspect" because it leaves an

"unexplained time gap" for what happened between the hours of 11:00 p.m. on June 1,

2020, and 12:17 a.m. on June 2, 2020. Wilson argues that his own testimony accounts for

this period of time: he claims to have been at home.

       {¶21} Though Wilson argues that Michels' testimony lacked credibility, a conviction

is not against the manifest weight of the evidence simply because the jury believed the

prosecution testimony. State v. Lovelace, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2022-05-032, 2023-

Ohio-339, ¶ 39, citing State v. Lunsford, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2010-10-021, 2011-Ohio-

6529, ¶ 17. The trier of fact is in the best position to judge the credibility of the witnesses

and the weight to be given to the evidence. State v. Johnson, 12th Dist. Warren Nos.

CA2019-07-076 and CA2019-08-080, 2020-Ohio-3501, ¶ 24. It is "entirely appropriate for

the trier of fact to believe the testimony of some witnesses while disregarding the testimony

of other witnesses." State v. Lloyd, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2007-04-052 and CA2007-

04-053, 2008-Ohio-3383, ¶ 51. Here, the jury, as the finder of fact, apparently determined

that Michels was credible, and Wilson was not.

       {¶22} Wilson also argues that the CAST report prepared by Special Agent Kepple

"cannot pinpoint the exact location of a person making a call, only the general range in

which the call was received." While the CAST report operates as circumstantial evidence

as to Wilson's whereabouts on the night of Shamel's murder, "a defendant's convictions

may be based on circumstantial evidence alone." State v. Haines, 12th Dist. Clermont No.

CA2021-07-040, 2022-Ohio-1145, ¶ 37. "[A] conviction based on purely circumstantial

                                             -7-
                                                                      Butler CA2021-12-152

evidence is no less sound than one based on direct evidence." State v. Babyak, 12th Dist.

Madison Nos. CA2009-10-023 and CA2010-03-006, 2010-Ohio-3820, ¶ 18.

       {¶23} The CAST report showed that the cell phones of Michels and Wilson were

near the scene of the shooting between 12:17 a.m. and 12:34 a.m. on the morning of June

2, 2020. The report gave no indication that Wilson's phone was at his home or near his

girlfriend's house, which is where he claims to have been during that time. Wilson gave no

explanation for why his phone was detected in Hamilton during that time—he simply argues

that the report cannot provide his exact location at the time of the shooting. But while the

report did not provide a precise location, it did identify the general area in which the phone

was located at various times, and it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that those

locations and times were consistent with the state's theory of the case.

       {¶24} After reviewing the record, we find that Wilson's convictions were not against

the manifest weight of the evidence. Although the state's case was partially based on

circumstantial evidence, the state presented convincing evidence indicating that Wilson

committed the murder of Darrien Shamel. "Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence

have the same probative value, and in some instances, certain facts can only be established

by circumstantial evidence." State v. Mobus, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2005-01-004, 2005-

Ohio-6164, ¶ 51.

       {¶25} The jury chose to credit the witnesses presented by the state and believe the

prosecution's version of events. The jury weighed the evidence and concluded that Wilson

was the individual who shot Darrien Shamel. It is within the purview of the jury to believe

some, all, or none of witness testimony, as the jury is in the best position to hear the

witnesses speak and examine their demeanor. Johnson, 2020-Ohio-3501 at ¶ 24; Lloyd,

2008-Ohio-3383 at ¶ 51. We find no merit to Wilson's argument that the jury lost its way in

weighing the evidence and finding him guilty.

                                            -8-
                                                           Butler CA2021-12-152

                             III. Conclusion

{¶26} For the reasons stated above we overrule Wilson's sole assignment of error.

{¶27} Judgment affirmed.

M. POWELL, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.

                                   -9-