Court Opinion

ID: 9367347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-31 16:09:33.627991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:59.439385
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Bell, 2023-Ohio-277.]

STATE OF OHIO                      )                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                                   )ss:               NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF MEDINA                   )

STATE OF OHIO                                         C.A. No.       21CA0052-M

        Appellee

        v.                                            APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
                                                      ENTERED IN THE
GARY BELL                                             COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                      COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO
        Appellant                                     CASE No.   20CR0829

                                  DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: January 31, 2023

        CARR, Judge.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Gary Bell, appeals the judgment of the Medina County Court of

Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

                                                 I.

        {¶2}     On the evening of November 6, 2020, Bell’s wife (“Wife”) called 9-1-1 after Bell

fired a gun in the family’s house in Seville. The incident occurred after Bell and Wife had an

argument.

        {¶3}     The Medina County Grand Jury indicted Bell on two counts of felonious assault in

violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2)/(D)(1)(a).        Both counts contained firearm and forfeiture

specifications. Bell pleaded not guilty to the charges at arraignment.

        {¶4}     The matter was ultimately tried to the bench. The trial court found Bell guilty of

both counts of felonious assault as well as the attendant specifications and imposed a total prison

sentence of five years. Bell was ordered to forfeit the handgun used during the incident.
                                                 2

       {¶5}    On appeal, Bell raises three assignments of error. This Court consolidates certain

assignments of error to facilitate review.

                                                II.

                                  ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

       THE TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT OF GUILTY IS NOT SUPPORTED BY
       SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

                                 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

       THE TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT OF GUILTY IS AGAINST THE
       MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

       {¶6}    In his first assignment of error, Bell contends that his convictions were not

supported by sufficient evidence.      In his second assignment of error, Bell argues that his

convictions were against the weight of the evidence.

       {¶7}    Bell was convicted of two counts of felonious assault in violation of R.C.

2903.11(A)(2), which states, “[n]o person shall knowingly * * * [c]ause or attempt to cause

physical harm to another * * * by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance.” R.C.

2903.11(D)(1)(a) provides that a violation of this section is a felony of the second degree.

       {¶8}    R.C. 2901.22(B) defines “knowingly” as follows:

       A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person is aware that the
       person’s conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain
       nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when the person is aware that
       such circumstances probably exist. When knowledge of the existence of a
       particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person
       subjectively believes that there is a high probability of its existence and fails to
       make inquiry or acts with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the fact.

                                        Sufficiency

       {¶9}    In support of his sufficiency challenge, Bell contends that the State failed to

demonstrate that he knowingly attempted to cause physical harm to Wife. Bell argues that there

was no evidence that he ever pointed or aimed the gun at Wife or that Wife was in the path of
                                                  3

either bullet fired by Bell. Bell further points to the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v.

Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (1992), in support of the proposition that a conviction for felonious assault

cannot be sustained when the State fails to demonstrate that the alleged victim was in the line of

fire.

        {¶10} When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must review the

evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether the evidence before the

trial court was sufficient to sustain a conviction. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 279 (1991).

        An appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to
        support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to
        determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of
        the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 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.

Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.

        {¶11} On November 6, 2020, at approximately 8:30 p.m., Sgt. Brett Harrison of the

Montville Police Department was on patrol when he was informed that Wife called 9-1-1 after

Bell fired a gun in their house. Sgt. Harrison and several other officers responded to the scene.

Wife remained on the line with dispatch after reporting the incident and was instructed to walk to

the end of the driveway where the officers were located. Wife, who appeared upset and scared,

explained that she had a heated argument with Bell after he came home late from work. Sgt.

Harrison testified that, “[Wife] said during the argument she got tired of listening to him, so she

went into the [master] bedroom and closed the door. She said then [Bell] went into the spare

bedroom.” Separating into the bedrooms in this manner was common practice for the couple

during arguments. Wife could hear Bell yelling in the spare bedroom. Wife told Sgt. Harrison

that she was standing near her bed when she heard a gunshot. Wife further told Sgt. Harrison that
                                                4

she locked the bedroom door and entered the bathroom, where she hid in the bathtub and heard a

second gunshot. Wife then called 9-1-1.

       {¶12} The couple’s adult son (“Son”) remained in the house during Wife’s conversation

with Sgt. Harrison. Soon thereafter, Wife called Son and he proceeded to exit the house as well.

Son indicated that Bell was in bed in the spare bedroom.

       {¶13} At that point four officers approached the house. One of the officers was a neighbor

who had Bell’s cell phone number. Bell was eventually persuaded to come out of the house. After

being taken into custody and receiving Miranda warnings, Bell indicated that the gun was inside

the dresser located in the spare bedroom. The officers entered the house and conducted a search

after obtaining consent from Wife. The officers were able to recover the gun. Bell was taken to

the police station where he consented to be interviewed. Bell stated that he had fired the gun by

accident. During the couple’s argument, Wife accused Bell of marital infidelity. Bell indicated

that he went into the spare bedroom before Wife entered the master bedroom. At one point during

the interview, Bell stated that he “kn[e]w [Wife] just wanted to go into her bedroom and be alone”

and that was when he pulled out his gun and “made a mistake[.]” Bell later suggested that he was

not certain that Wife was in the bedroom but he “would assume” so because she “always” enters

the bedroom when she is upset. Bell indicated that he did not know he fired two shots until he

looked at the wall. Bell acknowledged that the gunshots travelled through the wall in the direction

of Wife’s bedroom. After the shots were fired, Bell immediately went to the master bedroom door

and called out to Wife to check on her.
                                                  5

        {¶14} Sgt. Cory Searle conducted an interview with Wife that was recorded on his body

camera.1 Wife told Sgt. Searle that the couple’s argument focused on the number of hours that

Bell was working. Wife said that when she grew tired of the argument, she went into her bedroom

hoping Bell would calm himself down. Wife indicated that Bell knew she was in the bedroom.

After the couple dispersed into separate bedrooms, Wife heard the first gunshot. Wife indicated

that there was a delay between the shots. Though Bell had made comments about suicide in the

past, Wife did not think Bell had shot himself. Sgt. Searle sought a deeper understanding of Wife’s

thoughts as the incident unfolded. In recalling Wife’s description of the situation, Sgt. Searle

testified as follows:

        I thought at the time that a reasonable person would assume that somebody had
        committed suicide with a single gunshot. She said that was not her initial thought,
        and quite to the contrary, she sought cover in the en-suite master bathroom in the
        bathtub before she heard the second shot.

        {¶15} During the investigation, the officers took a large number of photographs that were

admitted as exhibits at trial. The State also admitted a diagram of the floorplan of the house, a

one-story ranch. The photos demonstrated that two shots were fired from the spare bedroom. One

shot travelled on a downward trajectory through the wall of the spare bedroom and then through

the master bathroom where it lodged in a wall near the toilet paper holder. This bullet was located

in the interior wall separating the master bathroom and master bedroom approximately nine inches

above the floor. The second bullet was fired at a slightly upward trajectory through the wall where

it then passed through the master bathroom and into the master

1
  The interview was played at trial during the cross-examination of Sgt. Searle. It appears from
the transcript that while the audio recording of the interview was working, the video froze at certain
points.
                                                     6

bedroom where it shattered a sliding-glass door.             The bullet struck the sliding-glass door

approximately 72 inches above the floor.

        {¶16} Under these circumstances, Bell’s sufficiency challenge is without merit. The State

presented evidence that Bell grew angry after an intense argument where Wife accused him of

marital infidelity. Wife stated at the scene that she walked away from the conversation and into

the master bedroom. Wife further indicated that Bell knew she was in the master bedroom. Bell

walked into a spare bedroom where there was a gun. Bell fired two gunshots in the direction of

the master bedroom room where Wife was located. Bell stated in his interview with police that he

knew Wife wanted to go into her bedroom and be alone. Though Bell later stated that he was not

certain of Wife’s location, he indicated that he assumed that Wife was in the bedroom. The

evidence further showed that Wife took cover in the bathtub after hearing a gunshot. Wife

indicated that the second shot was not fired until she was in the bathroom. This evidence, when

construed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to demonstrate that Bell knowingly

attempted to cause physical harm to wife.

        {¶17} Furthermore, Bell’s reliance on the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Mills is not

well taken. Mills involved a bank robbery where the defendant was convicted of a number of

serious crimes, including three counts of felonious assault involving three separate victims who

worked as tellers at the bank. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357-360, 369. Mills entered the bank and fired

a gunshot that struck the counter in front of two tellers. Id. at 357. The Supreme Court concluded

that there was sufficient evidence to sustain felonious assault convictions in regard to two of the

three tellers, noting that “[Mills] actually fired a shot at the outset, hit [the first teller] over the head

with a gun, and held a gun to [the second teller’s] head.” Id. at 369. In determining that there was

not sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction with respect to the third teller, the Supreme Court
                                                  7

observed that “[w]hen the initial shot was fired, [the third teller] was standing near a desk located

behind the teller counter and off to one side. She was not in the line of fire when the gunman

entered and hid underneath her desk during the remainder of the robbery.” Id.

        {¶18} Unlike the bank robbery scenario in Mills where there were multiple alleged

victims, the instant case concerns a domestic dispute involving only Bell and Wife. The State

demonstrated that Bell fired two gunshots in the direction of the room where Wife was located.

While the third teller in Mills was out of the way of the gunshot and thus “not in the line of fire[,]”

the same cannot be said in this case. Id. Here, the State presented evidence demonstrating that

Bell fired the shots either knowing Wife was located in the master bedroom or, at a minimum,

while operating under the assumption that Wife was in that bedroom. Accordingly, the evidence

does not support Bell’s assertion that his convictions must be reversed under the authority of Mills.

        {¶19} Bell’s first assignment of error is overruled.

                                 Manifest Weight of the Evidence

        {¶20} Bell’s manifest weight argument largely mirrors his sufficiency challenge. Bell

maintains that the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that he did not know Wife was

in the master bathroom at the time the shots were fired, and that Wife was never in the path of

either bullet.

        {¶21} A conviction that is supported by sufficient evidence may still be found to be

against the manifest weight of the evidence. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997);

Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 12.

        In determining whether a criminal conviction is against the manifest weight of the
        evidence, an appellate court must review 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 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.
                                                     8

State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.1986).

        {¶22} At trial, Bell testified that he and Wife had been married for 29 years and had two

children together. Around the time of the incident, Bell was working between 65 and 80 hours per

week and he was under a tremendous amount of stress. Bell had recently turned down an

opportunity to purchase the business and his relationship with new ownership was strained. Bell

further indicated that he suffers from restless leg syndrome, and, at the time of the incident, he had

recently stopped using kratom, a drug he took to calm himself at night.

        {¶23} After a long day at work on November 6, 2020, Bell decided to take a different

route home. Bell had driven his Mustang that day, so he decided to take the highway. As he

neared his house, Bell noticed Wife driving the other direction. Wife circled back and confronted

Bell in the driveway. Wife had tracked Bell’s location on her phone. Wife accused Bell of marital

infidelity with a colleague. Bell testified that Wife was upset and slurring her words.

        {¶24} Bell walked into the house and entered the spare bedroom. Bell testified that he

entered the spare bedroom prior to Wife entering the master bedroom. Bell acknowledged that he

was “ranting and raving” in the spare bedroom in light of the accusation of infidelity. Bell

indicated at trial that he was “full of anxiety, full of guilt, and full of hate for myself.” Bell testified

that he pulled a gun out of the drawer with the intent of committing suicide. Bell further testified

that when he put the gun to his head, he could not pull the trigger because he was a “coward.”

According to Bell, he then “turned and [] fired through the wall.” Bell testified that he did not

intend to fire a second shot, but the two shots went off in rapid succession. On cross-examination,

Bell faced a line of questioning regarding his understanding of Wife’s location at the time the shots

were fired. Bell insisted that he entered the spare bedroom first and that he did not see Wife enter

the master bedroom. Although Bell acknowledged that Wife “goes in the bedroom all the time[]”
                                                    9

and that it was normal for her to enter the bedroom after arguments, he “did not know for sure”

that she was in the bedroom at the time the shots were fired.

       {¶25} After hearing gunshots, Son entered the room to see what had happened. Bell and

Son went to the door of the master bedroom to check on Wife. Wife responded that she had called

9-1-1.2 Bell testified that he returned to the spare bedroom and took kratom. Bell then got in bed

and pulled the covers over his head. Bell admitted at trial that he lied during his initial interview

with police when he said the shots went off by accident. Bell suggested that he was under the

influence of kratom at the time of the interview.

       {¶26} Ray Barnwell testified as a forensic expert on behalf of Bell at trial. Barnwell

testified that he was operating on the assumption that the two shots were fired in rapid succession

based on Bell’s interview with police. Barnwell did not conduct an independent interview with

Bell. Barnwell used laser technology to track the trajectory of the bullets. Barnwell testified that

the first shot traveled downward at an angle of 58 degrees while the second shot was fired upward

at an angle of 93 degrees. Barnwell explained that if the shots were fired in rapid succession, then

the downward shot necessarily would have been fired first. Barnwell testified that the fact that the

second shot was upward and slightly to the right was consistent with the notion that the shots were

fired in rapid succession. Barnwell explained that an inadvertent “double tap” second shot was a

possibility given the particular handgun at issue. On cross-examination, Barnwell was asked if he

had any reason to dispute Wife’s initial statement that the first shot was fired while she was in the

master bedroom and the second shot was not fired until she had made her way into the master

2
 The 9-1-1 call was played at trial. A review of the call does not support Bell’s testimony that
Wife told Bell and Son that she had called 9-1-1. Wife was incredibly distraught during the course
of the call. Wife told the dispatcher that she thought Bell fired the shots on purpose and that she
did not want to exit the room until police had arrived.
                                                 10

bathroom. Barnwell responded in the negative and said that issue was beyond his area of expertise.

However, Barnwell noted his belief that the angle of the second shot was not natural for an

intentional shot, which supported his opinion that the second shot was fired inadvertently.

       {¶27} Significant portions of Wife’s testimony varied from her statements to police at the

scene. Although Wife initially indicated that she was upset because Bell came home late from

work, she testified that she was using an application on her phone to track Bell’s location and

noticed that Bell was in the vicinity of a hotel. Wife testified that she had consumed two margaritas

and her mind went “haywire.” Wife decided to get in her car and find Bell but she passed him on

the road just a short distance from their house. Soon thereafter, Wife confronted Bell in the

driveway and accused him of infidelity.

       {¶28} Wife and Bell engaged in an argument where both sides were very angry. Wife

testified that she “basically said I had enough. And [Bell] did the same.” Bell entered the spare

bedroom and Wife entered the master bedroom. At trial, Wife stated, “I went back into my

bedroom, but it was actually the master bathroom because I kind of think of that as just one unit.

My go-to place when I get upset is to sit on the garden tub in the master bathroom.” While Wife

initially told police that she heard the first shot while standing near the bed in the master bedroom,

and then a second shot moments later after she had entered the bathroom, she offered a different

version of events at trial. Wife testified that, when she heard gunshots, she was thinking about

opening the sliding-glass door in the bedroom, but she was actually still in the bathroom. Wife

also testified that she heard a “[b]ang, bang[,]” meaning there was not a delay between the shots.

Wife acknowledged that her testimony differed from her statements to police. Wife indicated that

she was traumatized at the time of the incident and that she was acting out of self-preservation. At
                                                  11

the time, Wife feared Bell had snapped. Son similarly testified that he ran into the spare bedroom

to check on Bell after hearing a “bang.”

       {¶29} On the date of the incident Wife told Sgt. Harrison that Bell had never threatened

her during the course of their marriage. Wife reiterated this statement at trial and testified that she

did not believe that Bell was shooting at her. Wife testified that Bell had been a loving Husband

for 29 years and that he was simply under a great deal of stress. Wife read her written police

statement into the record during her testimony. In her statement, Wife indicated that she walked

away from the argument with Bell and into her bedroom. Wife’s description of the sequence of

events in her statements suggested there was a delay between the gunshots. On cross-examination,

Wife reiterated that she made misstatements at the scene because she had been drinking and she

had experienced a traumatic event.

       {¶30} A thorough review of the record does not support Bell’s contention that this is the

exceptional case where the trier of fact clearly lost its way. Many of the critical factual issues in

this appeal turn on credibility determinations. From the date of the incident to trial, Wife changed

her story in a number of significant ways, including with respect to her location when the shots

were fired and whether there was a delay between the shots. Bell also changed his story, perhaps

most notably with respect to whether the shots were fired intentionally. We are mindful that “the

trier of fact was in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, and this Court will not

overturn the trial court’s verdict on a manifest weight of the evidence challenge simply because

the trial court chose to believe certain witnesses’ testimony over the testimony of others.” State v.

Thomas, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26893, 2014-Ohio-2920, ¶ 20, quoting State v. Ross, 9th Dist.

Wayne No. 12CA0007, 2013-Ohio-522, ¶ 16. Accordingly, Bell has not demonstrated on appeal

that his convictions resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.
                                                 12

       {¶31} Bell’s second assignment of error is overruled.

                                 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III

       THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
       COUNSEL AND DENIED HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL WHEN TRIAL
       COUNSEL FAILED TO PROPERLY DIRECT EXAMINE AN EXPERT
       WITNESS WHOSE TESTIMONY WOULD HAVE CORROBORATED
       APPELLANT’S DEFENSE AND FAILED TO MAKE AN EFFECTIVE
       CLOSING ARGUMENT[.]

       {¶32} In his third assignment of error, Bell argues that trial counsel rendered ineffective

assistance. This Court disagrees.

       {¶33} In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Bell must show

that “counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that prejudice

arose from counsel’s performance.” State v. Reynolds, 80 Ohio St.3d 670, 674 (1998), citing

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). “The benchmark for judging any claim of

ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the

adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Strickland

at 686. Thus, a two-prong test is necessary to examine such claims. First, Bell must show that

counsel’s performance was objectively deficient by producing evidence that counsel acted

unreasonably. State v. Keith, 79 Ohio St.3d 514, 534 (1997), citing Strickland at 687. Second,

Bell must demonstrate that but for counsel’s errors, there is a reasonable probability that the result

of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland at 694. This Court need not address both

prongs of the Strickland test if the appellant fails to satisfy either prong. State v. Ray, 9th Dist.

Summit No. 22459, 2005-Ohio-4941, ¶ 10.

       {¶34} Bell contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not engaging in

a more rigorous examination of defense expert Ray Barnwell. Bell suggests that trial counsel

should have questioned Barnwell regarding whether Wife was in the path of either bullet. Bell
                                                 13

further contends that trial counsel’s closing argument was deficient because he neither mentioned

Wife’s testimony that Bell had never threatened her during their marriage, nor did he mention

Bell’s testimony that his only intent on the evening of the incident was to harm himself. Bell

further contends that defense counsel should have focused more on the trajectory of the bullets as

well as Barnwell’s testimony that the second shot was not fired intentionally.

       {¶35} Bell’s argument regarding trial counsel’s examination of Barnwell falls within the

purview of trial strategy. “[T]here exists a strong presumption of the adequacy of counsel’s

performance, and that counsel’s actions were sound trial tactics.” State v. Hoehn, 9th Dist. Medina

No. 03CA0076-M, 2004-Ohio-1419, ¶ 45. “[D]ebatable trial tactics do not give rise to a claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel.” Id. During his testimony, Barnwell expressed his view that

while the first shot was fired intentionally, the second shot was fired inadvertently. Taking into

account Bell’s statement to police that the shots were fired in rapid succession, Barnwell opined

that the first shot was fired in a downward direction while the second shot was fired in a slightly

upward direction. As Wife’s exact location at the time the shots were fired was a disputed issue

at trial, and because Wife told police in her initial statement that there was a delay between the

shots, it is plausible that trial counsel declined to elicit testimony regarding whether Wife was in

the line of fire because he did not want to draw further attention to unfavorable evidence.

       {¶36} Furthermore, Bell’s claim with respect to trial counsel’s closing argument is

without merit. Tactical decisions regarding closing argument, including the length of closing

argument, also fall within the realm of trial strategy. State v. Smith, 9th Dist. Summit No. 23542,

2007-Ohio-5119, ¶ 18. While trial counsel’s closing argument in this case was brief, it emphasized

the core defense theory that the State failed to demonstrate that Bell had the requisite intent to be

convicted of felonious assault. “Counsel chose a strategy that proved ineffective, but the fact that
                                                14

there was another and better strategy available does not amount to a breach of an essential duty to

his client.” State v. Clayton, 62 Ohio St.2d 45, 49 (1980). Under these circumstances, we cannot

say that Bell has demonstrated that trial counsel’s performance was objectively deficient.

       {¶37} The third assignment of error is overruled.

                                                III.

       {¶38} Bell’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Medina County

Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

                                                                               Judgment affirmed.

       There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

       We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common

Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of

this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

       Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

       Costs taxed to Appellant.

                                                       DONNA J. CARR
                                                       FOR THE COURT
                                         15

TEODOSIO, P. J.
HENSAL, J.
CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

DAVID C. SHELDON, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

S. FORREST THOMPSON, Prosecuting Attorney, and VINCENT V. VIGLUICCI, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.