Court Opinion

ID: 9405382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 13:14:20.717012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:21.675586
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re M.T., 2023-Ohio-2140.]

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                           HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

         IN RE: M.T.                        :     APPEAL NO. C-220466
                                                  TRIAL NO. 21-0931X
                                            :

                                            :

                                            :           O P I N I O N.

Appeal From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Case Remanded

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: June 28, 2023

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald W. Springman,
Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellant,

Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Victoria Ferry, Assistant Public Defender,
for Defendant-Appellee.
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

BOCK, Judge.

       {¶1}   The state charged 14-year-old defendant-appellee M.T. with multiple

charges, including aggravated murder, murder, attempted murder, and felonious

assault in connection with a February 2021 shooting near an apartment building on

Westwood Northern Boulevard in Hamilton County, Ohio. Deontray Otis died at the

scene. Two other people, Aaron Whitfield and Maliaya Freeman, were shot and

injured.

       {¶2}   The state moved for the juvenile court to relinquish its jurisdiction over

the case, which would move the case to adult court. The juvenile court determined that

there was probable cause to believe M.T. committed all the offenses, with their

specifications, except the aggravated-murder count. It found that the state had failed

to provide credible evidence of prior calculation and design.

       {¶3}   The state appealed, arguing that the juvenile court erred by finding that

there was no probable cause to believe that appellee M.T. committed the aggravated

murder of Otis in violation of R.C. 2903.01. We agree with the state and reverse the

juvenile court’s judgment.

                             I.   Facts and Procedure

       {¶4}   In February 2021, police received a report of a shooting on Westwood

Northern Boulevard in Hamilton County, Ohio. The investigation showed that Otis

had been driving a Saturn SUV with Freeman in the passenger seat and Whitfield in

the rear passenger-side seat. Witnesses at the scene “described hearing multiple gun

shots,” and “seeing three male[] subjects wearing black masks running up the hill,”

and some witnesses “saw [the three males] get into a car that was waiting for them,

                                          2
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

described as a gray or dark green possibly Chevy SUV.” When the shooting began, Otis

apparently tried to drive away, but crashed into a parked car.

       {¶5}   Investigators found 21 bullet strikes on the car that Otis was driving,

plus 19 shell casings around the Saturn and behind a brick wall near the driveway

where the shooting occurred. The ballistics report showed that three different guns

were involved in the shootings. Investigators recovered guns from codefendants Jason

Gray and Mario Gordon, but the third weapon was never retrieved. The ballistics

report showed that multiple bullets had been fired from the third gun.

       {¶6}   One of the witnesses obtained the license plate number for the Chevy

SUV. Cincinnati Police Homicide Detective Kelly Best, the lead investigator on the

case, found that the license plate matched a Chevy SUV owned by Con Eric Inabinitt.

Officers responded to Inabinitt’s home.

     Bootleg cab driver told police that he provided the shooters’ transportation

       {¶7}   During a recorded police interview, Inabinitt stated that he used the

SUV as a “bootleg cab.” On the night of the murder, Inabinitt received a call from a

woman to whom he had previously provided a ride. Inabinitt followed the woman’s

instructions to pick up Gordon and Gray from different locations. He then went to

another location where he saw Carl Godfrey. Inabinitt did not pick up Godfrey;

instead, M.T. got into the car. Gordon sat in the front seat, Gray sat in the back seat on

the driver’s side, and M.T. sat in the back seat on the passenger side. Inabinitt told

police that all three passengers had a gun, and M.T. had a silver pistol with an extended

magazine.

       {¶8}   Inabinitt said that he overheard Gray’s conversation as he spoke to

Godfrey over the phone. Godfrey and Gray instructed Inabinitt “to drive to various

                                            3
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

locations around the city, trying to meet up with Sheisty,” who is Aaron Whitfield.

Inabinitt drove to 2691 Westwood Northern Boulevard and “stayed there for a minute”

before driving to another location. Gray received another call and instructed Inabinitt

to return to Westwood Northern Boulevard. Inabinitt told Best that he parked and

waited, heard gunshots, and then drove to pick up his three passengers.

       {¶9}    Inabinitt said he heard M.T. say that his gun had jammed. Inabinitt

dropped his passengers off at three locations. Inabinitt was paid for his driving

services. The state subsequently charged Inabinitt with the murder of Otis and

shootings of Whitfield and Freeman.

                         Best investigated additional suspects

                                Best interrogated Gray

       {¶10} Based on Inabinitt’s information, Best identified Godfrey and Gray as

suspects. She retrieved messages between Godfrey and Gray. In those messages, Gray

and Godfrey discussed where to carry out the murder. According to Best, they picked

the location for the murder “because there’s no cameras there.”

       {¶11} Best retrieved Facebook communications between Godfrey and Gray

from less than one hour after the shootings. Gray asked Godfrey whether he would

receive payment. Godfrey responded, “The job ain’t done.” Gray stated, “Tell bra cuz

got clapped. Give us half at least.” Godfrey “kind of chastis[ed]” Gray for being “rusty.”

The next day, Gray messaged Godfrey, “[Y]ou were supposed to be going to knock off

little cuz anyway yesterday,” in reference to the killing of Otis.

       {¶12} In March 2021, Best conducted a recorded interview with Gray. After

she showed Gray the communications she had retrieved about the murder, Gray

admitted to his involvement.

                                            4
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶13} Best showed Gray photographs from which Gray identified Gordon,

Godfrey, and M.T. Gray reported that when Inabinitt picked him up, Gordon was

already in the car. They drove to a high-rise building, where M.T. and Godfrey were

waiting, and retrieved firearms.

       {¶14} Gray explained that when they arrived at the apartment building on

Westwood Northern Boulevard, they walked past Whitfield, who was standing beside

the Saturn. Whitfield asked if one of them was “Two Four.” Gray’s nickname was Two

Four. Gray responded “no” and, along with Gordon and M.T., “walk[ed] behind the

brick wall where all the shell casings were [later] found,” waited until they received the

“go ahead” from Godfrey, and ran out from behind the wall shooting at the vehicle.

       {¶15} Gray told Best that M.T. shot at the vehicle: “I believe he [said] it

jammed, but then he cleared it and continued firing.” Further, according to Gray’s

statement to Best, M.T. instructed Inabinitt to pick them up when he heard gunshots.

Gray told Best that he was supposed to be paid about $10,000 for the murder, but

Godfrey called it a failed mission because they had not murdered Whitfield.

       {¶16} After police arrested Gray, he wrote a letter while being held at the

Hamilton County Justice Center. Gray stated that M.T. had nothing to do with Otis’s

murder. Best did not question Gray about the letter and did not know whether any jail

calls occurred where Gray was prompted to “take the heat” for the shooting.

                               Best interrogated Gordon

       {¶17} Best testified that, during her interrogation of Gordon, Gordon stated

that M.T. had his own gun, which had jammed, but M.T. cleared it and unloaded it.

Gordon, however, was not able to identify M.T. from a photograph, telling the

                                            5
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

investigators that “I met [this] dude for an hour out of my whole life” and that Gordon

“didn’t really pay much attention to what they looked like.”

       {¶18} Gordon told Best a story similar to Gray’s—that the three walked past

“Sheisty,” heard him ask about “Two Four,” walked around the brick wall, got the go

ahead over the phone, and ran out from behind the brick wall shooting. Gordon told

Best that he thought they were supposed to commit a robbery, not a murder.

       {¶19} Godfrey did not provide a statement to police. But in a phone call

between M.T. and Godfrey sometime between March 21, 2021, and March 25, 2021,

the two discussed “who was snitching on who.” Godfrey told M.T. “that he had the

opportunity to take out Jason Gray.”

           Investigators gathered information about M.T.’s involvement

       {¶20} Best retrieved messages from Godfrey’s cellular phone, which listed

M.T.’s phone number as “Mini Twin Blood Thirsty.” Best created a document

reflecting communications between M.T. and Godfrey.

 2/14/21, 8:10 pm         Godfrey to M.T.       “Who this”

 2/14/21, 8:10 p.m.       M.T. to Godfrey       “[M.T.]”

 2/14/21, 8:32 p.m.       Godfrey to M.T.       “Hell yeah it’s on this week cuz … big
                                                money”
 2/16/21, 9:39 p.m.       M.T. to Godfrey       “…when the pay hitting for that?”

 2/16/21, 9:42 p.m.       Godfrey to M.T.       “Mission failed”

 2/16/21, 9:42 p.m.       Godfrey to M.T.       “On bra what’s next”

       {¶21} The messages then say there is a “move” where the money was

guaranteed, as Godfrey states, “Just like this one was.”

                                            6
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶22} Best collected M.T.’s DNA, which was not found on the swabs or the

marijuana cigarette that were collected from inside the SUV, or from a Glock firearm

or another firearm confiscated from Gordon’s home. The crime lab report showed that

three guns had been used during the shootings.

       {¶23} Detective Takia Tyus interrogated M.T. He told her that he had met

Godfrey and Godfrey’s girlfriend on the day of the shootings, and they dropped him

off “to some apartment on Westwood where he met up with a white male,” who Tyus

concluded was Inabinitt. Inabinitt took M.T., Gray, and “a guy with tattoos on his face

[Gordon]” to an apartment building in Westwood. M.T. told Tyus that he got an all-

black MP 9 mm gun from Godfrey, who “is kind of like a big cousin to him.”

       {¶24} M.T. told Tyus that Inabinitt took them to the apartment on Westwood

Northern Boulevard to meet up with Whitfield. M.T. said that he did not respond when

Whitfield passed and asked, “Is that Two Four?” because neither Gordon nor Gray

responded. M.T. told Tyus that he heard gunshots when Whitfield got into his vehicle,

so he pulled his gun and tried to fire but he could not do so because he had a “double

feed” that was jammed. M.T. told Tyus that after he almost shot himself and was not

able to unjam the gun, he ran back to Inabinitt’s vehicle.

       {¶25} At a bindover hearing, the court announced that it found probable cause

for all charges that M.T. was facing, except for the aggravated murder (premeditated

murder) of Otis. It dismissed the aggravated-murder charge. The juvenile court’s entry

stated that “no credible evidence of prior calculation and design was presented as

required under R.C. 2903.01(A).”

                                           7
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

                              II.    Law and Analysis

       {¶26} R.C. 2152.12(B) governs discretionary bindovers. It allows the juvenile

court to transfer a case alleging that a juvenile has committed an act that would be a

felony if committed by an adult to the common pleas court if the juvenile court finds

that (1) the child was 14 or older at the time of the charged offense, (2) probable cause

exists that the juvenile committed the charged offense, and (3) the juvenile is not

amenable to care or rehabilitation in the juvenile system. R.C. 2152.12(B); State v.

Reese, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-180126 and C-180412, 2019-Ohio-3680, ¶ 14.

       {¶27} The state’s burden in a bindover hearing is to provide credible evidence

of every element of an offense to support a finding that probable cause exists to believe

that the juvenile committed the charged offense. In re T.S., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-

200267, 2021-Ohio-1889, ¶ 12. “In meeting this standard the state must produce

evidence that raises more than a mere suspicion of guilt, but need not provide evidence

proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re A.J.S., 120 Ohio St.3d 185, 2008-Ohio-

5307, 897 N.E.2d 629, ¶ 42, quoting State v. Iacona, 93 Ohio St.3d 83, 93, 752 N.E.2d

937 (2001).

       {¶28} In determining the existence of probable cause, the juvenile court must

evaluate the quality of the evidence presented by the state in support of probable cause

as well as any evidence presented by the respondent that attacks probable cause. State

v. Dell, 5th Dist. Licking No. 2021 CA 00079, 2022-Ohio-2483, ¶ 62. Because a

juvenile court’s probable-cause determination involves questions of both fact and law,

an appellate court defers to the juvenile court’s determinations regarding witness

credibility but reviews de novo its legal conclusion as to whether the state presented

sufficient evidence to demonstrate probable cause to believe that the juvenile

                                           8
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

committed the acts charged. In re T.S. at ¶ 12; State v. Washington, 1st Dist. Hamilton

No. C-130213, 2014-Ohio-4178, ¶ 13.

    A.       Aggravated murder requires evidence of prior calculation and design.

         {¶29} Aggravated murder is purposeful killing with prior calculation and

design: forethought, planning, choice of weapon, choice of means, and the execution

of the plan. State v. Walker, 150 Ohio St.3d 409, 2016-Ohio-8295, 82 N.E.3d 1124, ¶

28. To establish probable cause that M.T. committed aggravated murder, the state had

the burden to provide credible evidence that M.T. “purposely, and with prior

calculation and design,” engaged in conduct that caused the death of Otis. R.C.

2903.01(A).

         {¶30} The phrase “prior calculation and design” suggests advance reasoning

to formulate the purpose to kill. Walker at ¶ 18. Sufficient evidence of prior calculation

and design exists in cases where a murder was not instantaneous “but instead w[as]

carried out over a period of time.” State v. Hundley, 162 Ohio St.3d 509, 2020-Ohio-

3775, 166 N.E.3d 1066, ¶ 76, quoting State v. Franklin, 97 Ohio St.3d 1, 2002-Ohio-

5304, 776 N.E.2d 26, ¶ 74.

         {¶31} Courts generally look to three factors to determine prior calculation and

design: “(1) Did the accused and victim know each other, and if so, was that

relationship strained? (2) Did the accused give thought or preparation to choosing the

murder weapon or murder site? (3) Was the act drawn out or ‘an almost instantaneous

eruption of events?’ ” Id. at ¶ 61. But there is no bright-line test to determine prior

calculation or design. Id.

         {¶32} Courts have considered additional factors to determine prior calculation

and design, such as whether (1) the defendant expressed an intent to kill; (2) there was

                                            9
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

a break in the encounter, giving time for reflection; (3) the defendant displayed a

weapon from the outset and the number of shots fired; (4) there was evidence showing

that the defendant had planned to kill regardless of how events unfolded; (5) there was

circumstantial evidence showing that the defendant had a plan to kill, such as

execution-style killing; and (6) any “evidence of a preconceived plan leading up to the

murder.” See State v. Jefferson, 5th Dist. Richland No. 2021 CA 0081, 2022-Ohio-

3448, ¶ 67-75; State v. Hicks, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102206, 2015-Ohio-4978, ¶ 40.

  B.      There was probable cause to believe that M.T. planned to commit murder

       {¶33} The juvenile court found probable cause that M.T. committed the three

felonious assaults, attempted murders, and murder, all with the firearm specifications.

Thus, the only issue before this court is whether M.T. acted with prior calculation and

design.

       {¶34} As an initial matter, Gray’s jailhouse letter taking full responsibility for

the murder and attempted murders is irrelevant to this court’s review. It said that M.T.

had nothing to do with the murders. The trial court already discounted that assertion

when it found probable cause for the remainder of the charges.

       {¶35} The juvenile court determined that no credible evidence showed prior

calculation and design. But even if we ignored Best’s testimony about her interviews

with Inabinitt, Gordon, and Gray, the totality of the evidence showed that M.T. knew

about the plan to murder Whitfield, expected pay for it, and participated in the plan.

       {¶36} It appears that M.T. did not know any of the victims before the murder.

Godfrey chose the murder site and, according to M.T.’s interview, Godfrey gave M.T.

his gun. But most of the additional factors weigh in favor of finding probable cause of

prior calculation and design.

                                           10
                       OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

           {¶37} The murder was not an “almost instantaneous eruption of events.” M.T.

told police that Godfrey took him to an apartment where they met up with Inabinitt,

Gray, and Gordon. M.T. admitted to securing a gun before getting into Inabinitt’s car.

M.T. said that Inabinitt drove him, Gray, and Gordon to an apartment to meet up with

Sheisty (Whitfield). M.T. admitted to hiding behind the wall with his gun before

coming out from behind it with Gordan and Gray. And M.T.’s gun jammed before he

cleared it and shot it multiple times.

           {¶38} There were multiple breaks in the action in which M.T. could have

paused and reflected on whether he wished to commit murder. But M.T. chose to pull

the trigger multiple times, killing Otis and harming the other two victims.

           {¶39} But the most telling factors were M.T.’s expression of his intent to

engage in these acts, regardless of how events unfolded, and M.T.’s conversations with

Godfrey showing that he had a part in planning the murders. While M.T. said that he

only attempted to shoot when he heard shots as Whitfield got into the car and did not

shoot because his gun jammed, the ballistics report, the circumstances, and M.T.’s own

words in his texts to Godfrey undercut these assertions and demonstrate his prior plan

to kill.

           {¶40} First, none of the three victims had a weapon. Because the three victims

were unarmed, it is unlikely that M.T. attempted to shoot only because someone was

shooting at him.

           {¶41} Second, M.T. secured a gun well before the shootings. This shows that

M.T. intended to use the gun in some manner.

           {¶42} Third, the ballistics report showed 19 shell casings and 21 bullet strikes

on the car—a significant number of bullets—from three different guns. M.T.

                                              11
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

participated in the shootings.

        {¶43} Fourth, M.T. voluntarily got into a car to pursue Whitfield. Moreover,

Otis’s car crashed into other cars, indicating that he tried to drive away when the

shooting started. Yet, they shot at him, Whitfield, and Freeman anyway. M.T. pursued

the victims.

        {¶44} Fifth, and most telling, M.T.’s own words show prior calculation and

design. Two days before the murder, Godfrey told M.T. that “it’s on this week * * * big

money.” Just after the murder, M.T. asked Godfrey when he was getting paid; Godfrey

told him that the mission had failed. M.T. responded, “[W]hat’s next.” Godfrey told

him about a “move,” which was worth “10,” that was guaranteed money “just like this

one.”

        {¶45} The content and timing of these messages, combined with M.T.’s

securing a gun, M.T.’s interview with Tyus, and the information contained in the

ballistics report, show probable cause that M.T. planned at least two days earlier to kill

Whitfield. M.T. knew about the plan, participated in the planning, and carried out the

plan to commit murder. Probable cause existed that the murder was premeditated.

Thus, we sustain the state’s assignment of error.

                                  III.   Conclusion

        {¶46} The evidence shows that M.T. was aware that he would be involved in a

killing at least two days before he murdered Otis. The trial court erred by finding no

probable cause on M.T.’s aggravated-murder charge. We therefore sustain the state’s

assignment of error and reverse the juvenile court’s judgment.

                                                Judgment reversed and case remanded.

ZAYAS, P.J., and WINKLER, J., concur.
                                           12
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Please note:

       The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.

                                          13