State v. Doby , 2014 Ohio 2471 ( 2014 )

[Cite as State v. Doby, 2014-Ohio-2471.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
CASE NO. CA2013-05-084
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
OPINION
: 6/9/2014
- vs -
:
MYRON LAMAR DOBY, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CR2013-01-0001
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Michael A. Oster, Jr., Government
Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee
Repper, Pagan, Cook, Ltd., Christopher J. Pagan, 1501 First Avenue, Middletown, Ohio
45044, for defendant-appellant
M. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Myron Doby, appeals his convictions in the Butler County
Court of Common Pleas for two counts of murder and two counts of having weapons while
under disability. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
{¶ 2} In the early morning hours of December 28, 2012, Doby shot and killed Donnell
Holland in the parking lot of the Grub Pub, a bar located in Hamilton, Ohio. Earlier that night,
Doby and Holland had fought at Elks Pure Gold Lounge (Elks). Holland was working as
Butler CA2013-05-084
security at Elks and intervened and fought Doby when Doby pushed a customer to the floor.
Several hours after the fight at Elks, both men were at the Grub Pub. A second altercation
ensued between the men in the Grub Pub's parking lot. Ultimately, Doby obtained a gun and
shot Holland several times. Holland died as a result of the gunshot injuries.
{¶ 3} On January 8, 2013, Doby was indicted for one count of murder in violation of
R.C. 2903.02(A) as well as one count of felony murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B). Both
charges had gun specifications pursuant to R.C. 2941.145. Doby was also indicted for two
counts of having weapons while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) and (A)(3).
Doby pled guilty to the two counts of having weapons while under disability. On April 22,
2013, a jury trial was held regarding the two remaining murder counts.
{¶ 4} At trial, Charlene Smiley testified that she was present for both fights between
Doby and Holland. She explained that at Elks, Holland fought Doby after Doby pushed a
female patron to the floor. Eventually, the fight was broken up and Doby left the bar. Smiley
stayed at Elks until it closed and then left the bar with Holland and Guy Watson. The trio
decided to go to the Grub Pub because Smiley wanted a "Jagerbomb." Holland drove Smiley
and Watson to the Grub Pub. During the drive to the bar, there was no discussion about
Holland's fight with Doby.
{¶ 5} Doby was present at the Grub Pub when Holland and his companions arrived.
Holland parked his car next to Doby's vehicle. Inside the bar, Smiley ordered a drink and
eventually Holland came up to her and told her that they should leave because Doby is "on
some other stuff." Smiley left the bar with Holland and Watson and began to walk to
Holland's car to leave. Upon exiting the bar into its parking lot, Holland encountered Doby.
She explained that Doby approached Holland with a sledgehammer in his hand. The two
began to fight. Smiley was unsure if Holland took the sledgehammer from Doby during the
fight. The fight was eventually broken up by people nearby. After the fight ended, Doby
-2-
Butler CA2013-05-084
obtained a gun and fired it at Holland. She stated that Holland was "running on the side of –
like toward his car" and then Doby shot Holland.
{¶ 6} Watson was also at both bars during the fights between Doby and Holland.
Watson explained that he knew Holland and Doby well; he worked with Holland at Elks and
that Doby is "like my dad." Watson explained that at Elks, Holland tried to separate Doby
from the female customer after Doby pushed her to the floor. Doby and Holland then
engaged in a fight and Holland "got the better of the fight." Eventually, the fight was broken
up and the police were called. Watson stayed at Elks until it closed and rode in Holland's
vehicle to the Grub Pub. During the car ride, there was no discussion about Doby or that
Doby's vehicle was in the Grub Pub parking lot.
{¶ 7} The trio arrived at the Grub Pub and stayed for a short time. While at the bar,
Watson saw Doby and talked with him. Thereafter, Watson, Holland, and Smiley left the bar.
As they were leaving, Holland and Doby began to fight in the parking lot. Watson testified
that Doby had something in his hands and swung it at Holland, though Watson was unable to
identify the object. The pair ended up on the ground and Holland got the item from Doby.
While Watson did not identify the item at trial, he acknowledged that in a police report he
stated the object was a sledgehammer. Watson explained that Holland was on top of Doby,
"kicking the crap out of him." Watson and others broke up the fight and a truck pulled into
the parking lot. The next thing Watson saw was Doby with a gun walking towards Holland.
Holland backed away from Doby, put his hands in the air, and pled with Doby not to shoot
him. Doby shot Holland, causing him to fall to the ground. Doby then walked up to Holland
and fired off more shots.
{¶ 8} Other witnesses also testified at trial. Wyman Carr, Doby's cousin, explained
that he spoke to Doby after the first altercation at Elks. He stated Doby was upset about the
fight and had a "busted mouth, mouth swollen, a couple teeth missing." Doby twice told Carr
-3-
Butler CA2013-05-084
that "he was going to kill" Holland. Carr responded by telling him not to kill him. After
speaking with Doby, Carr went to Holland and warned him about what Doby said and told him
to go home and give Doby "time to cool off." The morning after the incident, Carr learned
that Holland had been killed. Carr texted Doby, "I told you not to do that."
{¶ 9} City of Hamilton Police Officer Chris Gibson testified that he responded to the
fight at Elks between Doby and Holland. Officer Gibson spoke with Doby who denied that he
was in a fight. Gibson then went into Elks and assisted Holland in escorting an intoxicated
woman outside of the bar. During this, Holland asked for a protection order because he did
not want Doby to come back and shoot him.
{¶ 10} City of Hamilton Detective Patrick Erb testified that in his investigation of the
case he obtained a video which shows the CVS parking lot near the Grub Pub at the time of
the incident. The video shows a man with "a long object in his hand that has a larger end of
it, but it's a – looks very similar to a sledgehammer." Neither the sledgehammer nor the
firearm used in the shooting were recovered by police.
{¶ 11} Lastly, Dr. James Swinehart, a forensic pathologist and a deputy coroner in
Butler County explained that he performed the autopsy of Holland. He stated that Holland
was 6'2" and weighed 359 pounds. In examining Holland's body, Dr. Swinehart found seven
gunshot wounds. Six wounds were to the lower extremities and one was to the face. Dr.
Swinehart testified that the wound to the face went up to down and right to left and was
"immediately lethal." There were also four wounds to the lower left leg and two to the right
leg. The leg wounds were in a left to right, down to up trajectory. Additionally, the wounds to
the right leg were in Holland's right thigh and could have come from the bullets that exited the
left leg. The doctor testified that all the wounds were from bullets fired at long range,
meaning more than two to three feet away. He stated that the wounds in his leg would have
knocked Holland down, rendering him unable to walk.
-4-
Butler CA2013-05-084
{¶ 12} During trial, the court denied Doby's request to instruct the jury regarding
voluntary manslaughter. The court reasoned that the evidence did not establish that Doby
was provoked by Holland and therefore a voluntary manslaughter jury instruction was
inappropriate. Additionally, during closing argument the court overruled Doby's objection to
the prosecutor's statement to the jury to "not let Doby walk out that door." However, later the
court instructed the jury to disregard this comment.
{¶ 13} At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Doby guilty of two counts of murder.
Doby was sentenced to an aggregate term of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole
after 21 years. Doby now appeals, asserting three assignments of error.
{¶ 14} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 15} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON
VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER AS AN INFERIOR OFFENSE.
{¶ 16} Doby argues that the court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on voluntary
manslaughter as an inferior offense to murder. Specifically, Doby challenges the court's
focus on the identity of the aggressor of the fight and Doby's "opportunity to avoid the affray"
in reasoning that a voluntary manslaughter instruction was inappropriate. Instead, the court
should have considered the other circumstances of the fights, such as that Holland is twice
Doby's size, Holland severely beat up Doby, the trajectory of the shots suggest that Doby
was on the ground when he fired the gun, and the fights were humiliating as they occurred in
a public place.
{¶ 17} Jury instructions are matters left to the sound discretion of the trial court. State
v. Harry, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2008-01-013, 2008-Ohio-6380, ¶ 35, citing State v. Guster,
66 Ohio St.2d 266, 271 (1981). This court, therefore, reviews the trial court's decision
refusing to provide the jury with a requested jury instruction for an abuse of discretion. State
v. Gray, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2010-03-064, 2011-Ohio-666, ¶ 23, citing State v. Wolons,
-5-
Butler CA2013-05-084
44 Ohio St.3d 64, 68 (1989). An abuse of discretion implies that the court's decision was
unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable, and not merely an error of law or judgment.
State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57, 2006-Ohio-160, ¶ 130.
{¶ 18} Doby requested that the jury be instructed on voluntary manslaughter in
violation of R.C. 2903.03(A). That statute provides that "[n]o person, while under the
influence of sudden passion or in a sudden fit of rage, either of which is brought on by
serious provocation occasioned by the victim that is reasonably sufficient to incite the person
into using deadly force, shall knowingly cause the death of another * * *." R.C. 2903.03(A).
{¶ 19} Voluntary manslaughter is an inferior degree of murder, for "its elements are * *
* contained within the indicted offense, except for one or more additional mitigation elements
* * *." State v. Rice, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2003-01-015, 2004-Ohio-697, ¶ 31, quoting
State v. Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d 630, 632 (1992). Even though voluntary manslaughter is not a
lesser included offense of murder, the test for whether a judge should instruct a jury on
voluntary manslaughter when a defendant is charged with murder is the same test to be
applied when an instruction on a lesser included offense is sought. Rice at ¶ 31. A trial court
should give a lesser included offense instruction "only where the evidence presented at trial
would reasonably support both an acquittal on the crime charged and a conviction upon the
lesser included offense." Id. at ¶ 32, quoting State v. Thomas, 40 Ohio St.3d 213 (1988),
paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶ 20} Before giving a voluntary manslaughter instruction in a murder case, the trial
court must apply an objective standard to determine "whether evidence of reasonably
sufficient provocation occasioned by the victim has been presented to warrant such an
instruction." Shane at paragraph one of the syllabus. The provocation "must be sufficient to
arouse the passions of an ordinary person beyond the power of his or her control." Id. at
635. In determining whether the provocation was reasonably sufficient to incite the use of
-6-
Butler CA2013-05-084
deadly force, "the court must consider the emotional and mental state of the defendant and
the conditions and circumstances that surrounded him at the time." Rice at ¶ 36. If this
objective standard is met, the inquiry shifts to a subjective standard, to determine whether the
defendant in the particular case "actually was under the influence of sudden passion or in a
sudden fit of rage." State v. Jones, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-04-077, 2013-Ohio-654, ¶
40.
{¶ 21} In denying Doby's voluntary manslaughter jury instruction, the court reasoned
that a voluntary manslaughter instruction was inappropriate because "if there was
provocation in this particular case, the provocation was actually occasioned not by the victim,
but by the Defendant in this particular case." The court referenced the initial fight at Elks and
reasoned that Doby started the fight by pushing a customer to the floor and that Holland
acted in his employment capacity in fighting Doby. The court also found that Doby provoked
the second fight because Doby approached Holland while brandishing a sledge hammer.
After the fight was over Doby "had sufficient time to - to leave. And again, somehow he - he
obtained a firearm, a - a .40 millimeter pistol in which he used it to cause the death of the
victim in this particular case." Due to this evidence a jury could not reasonably conclude that
the provocation was brought on by Holland.
{¶ 22} Doby claims that the court erred in focusing on the identity of the aggressor in
denying the voluntary manslaughter jury instruction. In support of his position, Doby cites
State v. Linzy, 5th Dist. Richland No. 2012-CA-33, 2013-Ohio-1129, where the court stated,
"[u]nlike self-defense, the issue of who was the aggressor is not the determinative issue in a
voluntary manslaughter defense; rather the appellant must show that he acted under a
sudden rage or passion." Id. at ¶ 81.
{¶ 23} Despite Doby's assertions, the identity of the aggressor is relevant to determine
the sufficiency of the provocation. State v. Torres, 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-01-06, 2002 WL
-7-
Butler CA2013-05-084
418392 (Mar. 18, 2002). In Torres, the court looked to three Ohio Supreme Court cases
where the court found that the defendant was not sufficiently provoked and therefore a lesser
included offense instruction was not appropriate. Id. at *5, citing State v. Deem, 40 Ohio
St.3d 205 (1988); Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d 630; State v. Mack, 82 Ohio St.3d 198 (1998). In
each of these cases "there was overwhelming evidence that the defendant brought the
conflict to the victim and that the defendant was the aggressor." Id. Additionally, in the
Supreme Court cases, "the victims attempted to get away from the defendant-appellant
aggressor prior to their assault but were thwarted by the aggressor." Id. See State v. Milling,
9th Dist. Summit No. 24402, 2009-Ohio-3002, ¶ 10 (violence not occasioned by victim where
victim's initial actions not sufficiently provocative and defendant started fight). Additionally,
Linzy is not in contravention of these principles. In Linzy, the court did not go as far as to say
that the identity of the aggressor is not a relevant issue in a voluntary manslaughter defense.
Instead, the court merely stated it is not the determinative issue.
{¶ 24} Accordingly, in determining whether the jury should be instructed on a voluntary
manslaughter offense, the trial court did not err in considering that Doby was the aggressor in
the conflict. While the identity of the aggressor is not the determinative factor, neither is it an
irrelevant factor in resolving whether the sudden rage or passion was "occasioned by the
victim."
{¶ 25} Further, the facts deduced at trial negate the idea that Doby acted with sudden
passion or in a fit of rage provoked by Holland. Doby argued with another patron at Elks and
Holland, acting in his role as security at the bar, intervened and the two men got into a fight.
Doby suffered injuries as a result of that fight. The evidence is undisputed that Doby initiated
the argument with the other patron. While Doby attempts to argue that Holland went outside
his role as security during the Elks fight, this is irrelevant to whether Doby was under a
sudden fit of rage or passion for the second incident at the Grub Pub because Doby had
-8-
Butler CA2013-05-084
sufficient time to "cool off." See Jones, 2013-Ohio-654 at ¶ 44; State v. Kanner, 7th Dist.
Monroe No. 04 MO 10, 2006-Ohio-3485, ¶ 28.
{¶ 26} The evidence also does not support Doby's assertion that he was acting under
sudden passion or a fit of rage provoked by Holland during the second fight. Instead, the
evidence showed that Doby approached Holland at the second bar, the Grub Pub, with an
item, which was identified by some witnesses as a sledgehammer. The two engaged in a
fight which was eventually broken up by people in the parking lot. Two witnesses testified
that after the fight had ceased and Holland was withdrawing to leave, Doby obtained a gun
and shot and killed him. Doby initiated the second fight and obtained a deadly weapon and
shot and killed Holland after the fight had ended and Holland was withdrawing. Further,
Doby's argument that he was in a fit of rage is contradicted by Carr's testimony that Doby
informed him he intended to kill Holland after the first fight at Elks.
{¶ 27} When viewed in the light most favorable to Doby, the evidence establishes that
Holland engaged in no conduct that would sufficiently provoke an ordinary person to use
deadly force and Doby was not under the influence of a sudden passion to use deadly force.
Accordingly, the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury as to voluntary
manslaughter. Doby's first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 28} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 29} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ADMITTING THE VICTIM'S STATEMENT TO
AN OFFICER.
{¶ 30} Doby challenges the court's admission into evidence of a statement made by
Holland. At trial, Officer Gibson testified that while he was investigating the fight at Elks,
Holland asked Gibson how he could obtain a protection order because he was afraid that
Doby would "come back and shoot him." Doby argues that this statement was admitted in
contravention of the Confrontation Clause and the hearsay rules and the admission of the
-9-
Butler CA2013-05-084
statement was prejudicial.
Confrontation Clause
{¶ 31} The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution preserves the right of a
criminal defendant "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Therefore, the
Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not
appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior
opportunity for cross-examination." Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54, 124 S.Ct.
1354 (2004). "The key issue is what constitutes a testimonial statement: 'It is the testimonial
character of the statement that separates it from other hearsay that, while subject to
traditional limitations upon hearsay evidence, is not subject to the Confrontation Clause.'"
State v. Hood, 135 Ohio St.3d 137, 2012-Ohio-6208, ¶ 33, quoting Davis v. Washington, 547
U.S. 813, 821, 126 S.Ct. 2266 (2006). We review a claim that a criminal defendant's rights
have been violated under the Confrontation Clause de novo. State v. Bryant, 12th Dist.
Warren No. CA2007-02-0241, 2008-Ohio-3078, ¶ 48.
{¶ 32} The Supreme Court has not defined what constitutes a "testimonial" statement,
but it has given examples of "formulations" for "testimonial statements": ex parte in-court
testimony or its functional equivalent, extrajudicial statements contained in formalized
testimonial materials (such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions), and
statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness
reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial. State v.
Muttart, 116 Ohio St.3d 5, 2007-Ohio-5267, ¶ 60, citing Crawford at 51-52.
{¶ 33} The Supreme Court has given further guidance on the meaning of the term
"testimonial" in Davis. In Davis, the Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause of the
U.S. Constitution applies only to testimonial hearsay and not to statements made "to enable
police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency." Id. at 828. Davis' victim had made a
- 10 -
Butler CA2013-05-084
"911" emergency telephone call, and in the course of that call incriminated Davis. Id. at 817.
The court reasoned that,
Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of
police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating
that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police
assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. They are testimonial
when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such
ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the
interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially
relevant to later prosecution.
Davis at 822.
{¶ 34} Another factor to consider in determining whether statements are testimonial is
the formality of the encounter. State v. Clark, 137 Ohio St.3d 346, 2013-Ohio-4731, ¶ 28.
"Formality suggests the absence of an emergency and therefore an increased likelihood that
the purpose of the interrogation is to 'establish or prove past events potentially relevant to
later criminal prosecution.'" Clark at ¶ 28 quoting Michigan v. Bryant, __ U.S. __, 131 S.Ct.
1143, 1159 (2011). A police interrogation lacked formality where the situation was "fluid and
somewhat confused" and the questioning "occurred in an exposed, public area, prior to the
arrival of emergency medical services, and in a disorganized fashion." Id., citing Bryant at
1160.
{¶ 35} In the case at bar, Officer Gibson testified that he was first responder to the
fight at Elks. As Gibson approached the bar in his vehicle, his call screen stated that Doby
was "being a problem." Gibson observed Doby standing on the street and asked him "who
he was fighting with." Doby responded "no one." Gibson then approached Elks, knocked on
the front door, and turned and observed Doby leaving the scene. Thereafter, Holland
answered the front door and Gibson aided Holland in escorting an intoxicated patron out of
the bar. While Gibson was assisting Holland, Holland told him that Doby had started a fight
and Holland had to break it up. Gibson testified that the following conversation then took
place:
- 11 -
Butler CA2013-05-084
[Prosecution]: When you were outside with Mr. Holland, what did
you ask him?
[Gibson]: I didn't—he asked us if we knew who [Doby] was?
[P]: Okay. What was your response?
[G]: Yes.
[P]: Did you ask him anything regarding the police report?
[G]: Yes I asked him if he needed a police report for a statement
that was made to him.
[P]: Okay. Then you asked him if he'd like to file a police report.
What was his response?
[G]: No.
[P]: Okay. Did he ask you anything else?
[G]: He asked about a protection order.
[P]: What did he say about the protection order?
[G]: He asked if he could get a protection order, because he did
not want Mr. Doby to come back and shoot him.
[P]: What did you tell him?
[G]: I told him I could not give him a protection order, that he
would have to petition the Court for that following Monday.
Monday morning, he could come up here and try to get one that
way.
{¶ 36} Officer Gibson's testimony regarding Holland's statement about obtaining a
protection order was not testimonial and therefore its admission did not violate the
Confrontation Clause. The statement was made while there was an ongoing emergency.
Gibson was the first responder to the scene where a fight had just occurred. While Gibson
had received information that Doby was causing problems, Doby denied being involved in the
fight, and then left the scene. Therefore, Gibson was still trying to assess the situation when
he helped Holland remove an intoxicated customer from the bar. Further, the statement was
not made or collected in anticipation of a criminal proceeding. In fact, Holland specifically
- 12 -
Butler CA2013-05-084
declined Officer Gibson's invitation to make a police report concerning the incident.
Additionally, the circumstances surrounding Holland's statement were informal as the
discussion transpired outside a bar. Therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting
Holland's statement.
{¶ 37} Additionally, even if the statement was admitted in contravention of the
Confrontation Clause, any error is harmless. The admission of a statement in violation of the
Confrontation Clause is harmless if the reviewing court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that
the error did not contribute to the verdict. State v. Sims, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2007-11-
300, 2009-Ohio-550, ¶ 16, citing State v. Johnson, 71 Ohio St.3d 332, 339 (1994). Error is
harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that the evidence may have contributed to the
accused's conviction. State v. Burden, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2012-CA-00074, 2013-Ohio-1628,
¶ 66, citing State v. Lytle, 48 Ohio St.2d 391,495 (1976), paragraph three of the syllabus,
vacated on other grounds, 438 U.S. 910, 98 S.Ct. 3135 (1978). There must be other
overwhelming evidence of guilt or some other indicia that the error did not contribute to the
conviction. Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254, 89 S.Ct. 1726 (1969); State v.
Ferguson, 5 Ohio St.3d 160, 166 (1983), fn. 5.
{¶ 38} Doby argues that the state offered Holland's statement to prove Doby's purpose
to kill and therefore its admission was prejudicial. Doby was charged with murder in violation
of R.C. 2903.02(A) and (B). R.C. 2903.02(A) requires that the state prove that Doby
specifically intended to kill Holland. Holland's statement is not probative as to Doby's intent
to kill because it only relates to Holland's apprehension of Doby's possible actions.
Additionally, there was overwhelming evidence as to Doby's purpose to kill Holland. Two
eyewitnesses and experts testified at trial that Doby shot Holland and the evidence
demonstrated that Holland was shot five to seven times. Further, Doby's friend, Carr,
testified that after the first fight at Elks, Doby stated twice that he was "going to kill" Holland.
- 13 -
Butler CA2013-05-084
{¶ 39} We are also not persuaded by Doby's argument that the location and trajectory
of the shots disclose that Doby's purpose in shooting Holland was to simply "injure or maim"
and not kill. The fact that Doby shot Holland five to seven times is strong evidence of Doby's
intent to kill. As this court has previously noted, "[w]hile use of a deadly weapon is not
conclusive evidence of purpose to cause the death of another, such purpose may be inferred
from the use of the weapon." State v. Adams, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2009-11-293, 2011-
Ohio-536, ¶ 21. Accordingly, even if the admission of Holland's statements through Officer
Gibson's testimony was in error, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Hearsay
{¶ 40} Doby also argues that Holland's statement was hearsay and thus its admission
was error. Doby argues that the court erred in determining that Holland's statement fell within
the hearsay exception proscribed in Evid.R. 803(3), a statement of a declarant's then existing
mental, emotional, or physical condition.
{¶ 41} According to Evid.R. 801(C), hearsay "is a statement, other than one made by
the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of
the matter asserted." However, Evid.R. 803(3) provides an exception, whether or not the
declarant is available as a witness for:
A Statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind,
emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan,
motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not
including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact
remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution,
revocation, identification, or terms of declarant's will.
{¶ 42} Where no objection is raised to the admission of alleged hearsay testimony, it
may be considered by the trier of fact for whatever probative value it may have. State v.
Knodel, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2006-06-156, 2007-Ohio-4536, ¶ 13. Moreover, the failure
to interpose a timely objection at a time when the trial court can correct an error constitutes a
- 14 -
Butler CA2013-05-084
waiver of any objection to the admissibility of evidence. Id. Nevertheless, "[p]lain errors or
defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the
attention of the court." Id. at ¶ 15; Crim.R. 52(B). Thus, we review the admission of the
alleged hearsay statement under the plain error standard of Crim.R. 52(B).
{¶ 43} Plain error consists of an obvious error or defect in the trial proceeding that
affects a substantial right. Crim.R. 52(B). Plain error occurs only when, but for the error, the
outcome of the trial clearly would have been different. State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191, 203
(2001).
{¶ 44} At trial, defense counsel specifically waived any argument to the admission of
the statement based on hearsay and chose to contest its admissibility solely upon the
Confrontation Clause. We have previously found that the admission of Holland's statement
was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, because the admission was harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt, any possible error would also not rise to the level of plain error.
See State v. Lee, 162 Ohio App.3d 648, 2005-Ohio-3395, ¶ 20 (1st Dist.); State v. Kelley, 2d
Dist. Montgomery No. 2011 CA 37, 2012-Ohio-1095, ¶ 56-59.
{¶ 45} Consequently, we do not find any reversible error in the admission of Holland's
statement. Doby's second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 46} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 47} DOBY WAS PREJUDICED BY THE PROSECUTOR'S MISCONDUCT
DURING SUMMATION.
{¶ 48} Doby argues that the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct during
closing arguments. Specifically, Doby maintains that the prosecutor's statement during
closing argument: "Don't let him walk out of this courtroom" was improper as it misstated the
law. Doby also argues that this statement was prejudicial because it invited the jury to
disregard the law and evidence and speculate as to the consequences if Doby was acquitted.
- 15 -
Butler CA2013-05-084
{¶ 49} The state is entitled to a certain degree of latitude in making its concluding
remarks. State v. Layne, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2009-07-043, 2010-Ohio-2308, ¶ 58. A
court will find prosecutorial misconduct only when the remarks made during closing were
improper and those improper remarks prejudicially affected substantial rights of the
defendant. State v. Elmore, 111 Ohio St.3d 515, 2006-Ohio-6207, ¶ 62. "The focus of an
inquiry into allegations of prosecutorial misconduct is upon the fairness of the trial, not upon
the culpability of the prosecutor." State v. Gray, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-09-176, 2012-
Ohio-4769, ¶ 57. Therefore, a finding of prosecutorial misconduct will not be grounds for
reversal unless the defendant has been denied a fair trial because of the prosecutor's
prejudicial remarks. Layne at ¶ 60.
{¶ 50} During closing arguments, the prosecution made the following statement:
Look at all the evidence. Make the reasonable inferences the
Judge will tell you you're allowed to; use your sense; use your
logic and please find the Defendant guilty of murder. Don't let
him walk out of this courtroom. Thank you.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶ 51} Defense counsel immediately objected to this statement, which was overruled
by the trial court. Later, the court instructed the jury to disregard the prosecutor's statement.
The court instructed the jury:
I just wish to briefly instruct you that at the end of the
Prosecutor's opening closing [sic] argument, he made some
reference about don't let the Defendant walk out of here. I'm
going to instruct you to disregard that comment. It was
inappropriate and what happens after you reach a verdict is for
the Court to determine. And your job is limited to finding the
Defendant guilty or not guilty of what he is charged within the
indictment as returned by the County Grand Jury. And—and
what happens subsequent to that is the court's obligation. Your
job is limited to whether or not he is guilty or not guilty of the two
counts of the separately charged counts of murder. So you
should disregard that comment.
{¶ 52} Viewing the prosecutor's comments in the context of the entire trial, Doby was
- 16 -
Butler CA2013-05-084
not denied a fair trial. While the prosecutor's comments might have suggested to the jury to
consider punishment in its evaluation of the evidence, the prosecutor made this comment in
the context of urging the jury to consider all the evidence. The prosecutor was merely
reiterating his plea to the jury to convict Doby. Additionally, the court instructed the jury not to
consider this statement and a jury is presumed to follow the trial court's instructions. Gray,
2012-Ohio-4769 at ¶ 62.
{¶ 53} Doby's third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 54} Judgment affirmed.
RINGLAND, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.
- 17 -