State v. Henderson , 2014 Ohio 3829 ( 2014 )

[Cite as State v. Henderson, 2014-Ohio-3829.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-130541
TRIAL NO. B-1201761-A
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. : O P I N I O N.
DAVID HENDERSON, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: September 5, 2014
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Rachel Lipman
Curran, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Michaela Stagnaro, for Defendant-Appellant.
Please note: this case has been removed from the accelerated calendar.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
F ISCHER , Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant David Henderson was indicted for the
attempted murders and felonious assaults of Brian Hunter and Branetta Carter. The
charges were accompanied by firearm specifications. Following a bench trial, the
trial court found Henderson guilty of the felonious assault of Branetta Carter under
R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), along with the accompanying firearm specifications. It acquitted
Henderson of the remaining charges.
{¶2} At sentencing, the trial court merged the firearm specifications. It
sentenced Henderson to five years in prison for the felonious assault and to three
years on the merged firearm specifications. The trial court ordered the terms be
served consecutively, for a total sentence of eight years in prison.
{¶3} In this appeal, Henderson argues that his conviction for the felonious
assault of Branetta Carter is not supported by the sufficiency or the weight of the
evidence, and is legally inconsistent with the trial court’s verdict of acquittal on the
remaining counts. Finding no merit in his arguments, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
The State’s Case at Trial: A Shoot Out at the A to Z Market
{¶4} Kara Hayes testified that she drove to the A to Z Market on Reading
Road. Her boyfriend, Alonzo White, and his brother, Deron Ferguson, got out of the car
and went into the store. Ferguson’s girlfriend, Mariah, and Mariah’s baby, stayed in the
car with Hayes. Hayes saw two men arguing near some CDs. Mariah wanted to leave.
She and Hayes did not feel safe because of the two men arguing. Hayes went into the
store quickly to tell White that she wanted something.
{¶5} As soon as she got back into the car, Hayes heard gunfire. She ducked.
A bullet hit her car near the trunk. When she looked back up, she saw a girl collapsed in
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
the doorway of the store, bleeding. Hayes tried to assist the girl, who was bleeding from
her neck. Within five to ten minutes, an ambulance arrived. Hayes then spoke with the
police.
{¶6} Hayes identified a photograph of David Henderson, whom she knew as
“Four.” She told police that she had known him for a couple of months. Hayes had seen
Henderson arguing before the gunshots broke out. She had seen Henderson facing
toward her car, and the direction of the girl who had been shot. Hayes testified that the
person Henderson had been arguing with had his back toward her and the front of the
store. Hayes admitted on cross-examination that she had not seen who had started
shooting and that she did not know who had shot at her car or who had shot at the girl.
{¶7} Catherine Carter testified that she drove to the A to Z Market with her
sister Branetta, her brother, Yaman, her son’s father, Tristan, and her Uncle Joe.
Catherine stopped at the store, and everyone got out of the car. Tristan went over to the
“African man” selling CDs. Catherine then went into the store. Shortly thereafter,
someone came into the store and told her that her sister had been shot.
{¶8} Catherine denied hearing gunshots. She testified that she saw her sister
Branetta lying on the ground by the store, called 911, and applied pressure to Branetta’s
neck. According to Catherine, no one else helped her provide aid to her sister.
Catherine further testified that she never saw any of the people involved in the shooting
and she did not see anyone arguing before entering the store. When Catherine was later
interviewed by police, she told them she knew Henderson as “Fo.” Catherine testified
that she knew Henderson from the neighborhood, but that she had not seen Henderson
the day her sister Branetta had been shot.
{¶9} Branetta Carter testified that she went into the A to Z Market with her
sister Catherine to get a drink. As she walked out of the store, she was shot in the neck.
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
She collapsed on the ground and passed out. She was transported to the hospital, where
she remained for a month. She then spent another month at Drake, a rehabilitation
center. She underwent two surgeries. At the time of trial, she could move her legs, but
she could not walk, so she was using a wheelchair. Branetta testified that she had not
heard any arguing outside the store before she had been shot. She also had not seen
who had shot her.
{¶10} Catherine and Branetta Carter both testified that they had not heard
from or seen their brother, Yaman, for days before the trial. The court issued a forthwith
body attachment for Yaman and Tristan because they had been personally served, but
they failed to appear at trial.
The Police Investigation Leads to Henderson
{¶11} Officer Gregory Gehring testified that police had recovered six 40-caliber
shell casings and four 9-millimeter shell casings in close proximity to one another at the
scene of the shooting. After police determined that Henderson was involved in the
shooting, they arrested him. Henderson was hiding at his sister’s residence, and police
had obtained her consent to search. Police recovered a 9-millimeter High Point firearm
in the bedroom where Henderson was found. Police also recovered a 45-caliber
handgun from Brian Hunter, Henderson’s codefendant, at the time of Hunter’s arrest.
But police determined that the 45-caliber handgun had not been used in the shooting at
the market.
{¶12} As Henderson was transported to the police department for an
interview, Henderson told an officer that “on Friday 3/9/12, he saw a gun fight on
Reading Road and while trying to run away, he got clipped in the face.” Officer Gehring
interviewed Henderson at the police station, but Henderson was not very forthcoming.
Henderson eventually admitted that he was known as “Four.” He also admitted that the
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
9-millimeter High Point firearm police had recovered in the bedroom at his sister’s
residence belonged to him, and that he had used the firearm during the shooting at the A
to Z Market. Henderson told Gehring that someone else was shooting at him during the
incident. When Gehring showed Henderson a mugshot of Brian Hunter, Henderson
said, “B. That’s the guy that tried to kill me. No doubt about it.”
{¶13} Officer Gehring testified that no tests had been performed to determine
if the 9-millimeter casings found at the scene matched Henderson’s High Point 9-
millimeter firearm because Henderson had admitted it was the firearm he had used at
the A to Z Market. Officer Gehring further stated that the bullet fragment taken from
Branetta Carter did not contain any identifiable markings and, thus, it could not be
matched to the 9-millimeter firearm recovered from Henderson. He further testified
that the DNA found on the 9-millimeter firearm was a mixture from which Henderson
could not be excluded.
Henderson’s Interview with Police
{¶14} The state then played Henderson’s interview with police. In his
interview, Henderson initially told police that he “did nothing to nobody.” He did not
have a gun at the A to Z Market, and he was not shooting at anyone, but he could give
police the name of the person who he saw fire a gun that day. He told police he was
standing by the store when he saw a man, whom he identified as Brian Williams,
arguing with another man by the “African stand.” Their argument escalated and they
started shooting at one another. Henderson told police that when the shooting started,
everyone took off running. Henderson ran around to the side of the store and to his
aunt’s home.
{¶15} Henderson initially denied that he had a nickname, but he later admitted
that he had been called “Four.” Henderson eventually admitted that he had been
5
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
approached by Hunter’s brother, TO, the previous day, and that TO had fired a weapon
at him. The day of the incident, Henderson was concerned for his safety that he was
carrying a gun. He was standing outside the A to Z Market when he was approached by
Hunter and a group of people. Hunter said something to him about TO and then said,
“Give me everything you got.” Hunter then pulled out a gun and started firing at
Henderson at point blank range.
{¶16} Henderson told police that he had to defend himself, so he pulled out “a
little .25” and started shooting. When police asked Henderson if he still had the gun, he
told them that he had thrown the gun in a river. When asked if he had been shooting a
High Point instead, Henderson denied owning or shooting a High Point.
{¶17} Henderson told police that he knew that Hunter had shot Branetta
because, after Hunter had finished shooting, he had seen Branetta fall, and Hunter had
taken off running. Henderson further stated that this had all occurred before he had
even gotten a shot off. Henderson then fired three to four rounds before he took off
running to his aunt’s home. When questioned about the High Point that police had
found in the bedroom at his sister’s home, Henderson admitted that the weapon
belonged to him and that it would match the shell casings recovered by police at the
scene.
Henderson’s Trial Testimony
{¶18} In his defense, Henderson testified that he had been standing at the
“African stand” next to the A to Z Market. He was buying a CD, when Hunter walked up
to him from behind the store and fired shots. Henderson had been robbed by Hunter’s
brother a day prior to this incident. Henderson testified that when Hunter had pulled
out a gun and had started shooting at him, he had fired two to three shots because he
had felt that his life was in jeopardy and because he could not retreat. He fired three to
6
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
four rounds. He further testified that he did not shoot Hunter or Branetta that day.
Henderson testified that he had only fired his gun because he wanted Hunter to stop
shooting at him. Henderson further testified that Branetta was not in the direction he
had been firing the gun. According to Henderson, Branetta had been hit before he had
even fired a shot. Henderson testified that when Hunter had finished shooting, he took
off running. Henderson testified that someone else was shooting that day, but he did
not want to disclose who it might have been.
{¶19} On cross-examination, Henderson eventually admitted that he had
intended to shoot Hunter. He admitted that he had fired a gun that day. He also
admitted that he had lied to the police during some of his interview. Henderson further
acknowledged that he was testifying to whatever he wanted to say, not necessarily the
truth. Although Henderson denied shooting Branetta, he admitted that the shots he had
fired that day could have hit anyone. When asked if he had ever fired a gun, Henderson
refused to answer any further questions. Eventually, he admitted that he had carried a
gun to defend himself. He said that he had run away after the incident to his aunt’s
home.
{¶20} Henderson repeatedly stated that he was not going to implicate anyone
else. But he said he had returned fire when he was shot at. And although he claimed
that he was facing in the opposite direction, Henderson admitted he had told police that
he had seen Branetta fall. He tried to change this statement during cross-examination
to mean that he had seen a lot of people in the area and that they had moved when the
shooting began.
Trial Court’s Verdict and Sentence
{¶21} At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court took the matter under
advisement to review Henderson’s statement and the trial transcripts. The trial court
7
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
acquitted Henderson of the attempted-murder counts, the felonious-assault count
involving Hunter, and one of the felonious-assault counts involving Branetta. The trial
court found Henderson guilty of the felonious-assault count under R.C. 2903.11(A)(1),
involving Branetta, and the accompanying firearm specifications.
{¶22} Prior to the imposition of sentence, Henderson argued that the trial
court’s guilty finding on the felonious-assault count relating to Branetta was inconsistent
with the trial court’s verdict acquitting him of the other counts pertaining to Branetta
and Hunter. The trial court overruled Henderson’s motion and sentenced him to eight
years in prison.
Sufficiency and Weight of the Evidence
{¶23} In his sole assignment of error, Henderson argues that his
conviction for felonious assault was supported by insufficient evidence and was
contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Henderson argues that because the
trial court acquitted him of the attempted murder and felonious assault of Hunter
and the attempted murder and felonious assault of Branetta, the trial court must
have had reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Therefore, the trial court’s verdict finding
him guilty of the remaining count of felonious assault of Branetta is not supported by
sufficient evidence. He alternatively argues that the trial court must have believed
that he had acted in self-defense, because it acquitted him of the remaining charges,
and therefore, the trial court lost its way in finding him guilty of felonious assault.
{¶24} Henderson’s argument, however, is flawed because it assumes that
a trial court’s verdicts on separate counts in an indictment must be consistent. The
Ohio Supreme Court has held that a verdict will not be set aside merely because the
findings necessary to support that conviction are inconsistent with the findings
necessary to acquit the defendant of another charge. See State v. Hicks, 43 Ohio
8
 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
St.3d 72, 78, 538 N.E.2d 1030 (1989); State v. Smith, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-
194, 2014-Ohio-709, ¶ 23-24. Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that “[t]he
several counts of an indictment containing more than one count are not
interdependent and an inconsistency in a verdict does not arise out of inconsistent
responses to different counts, but only arises out of inconsistent responses to the
same count.” State v. Lovejoy, 79 Ohio St. 3d 440, 683 N.E.2d 1112 (1997),
paragraph one of the syllabus.
{¶25} Ohio appellate courts, including this one, have applied this
principle, regardless of whether the inconsistent verdict has been rendered by a trial
judge or a jury. See State v. Andrew, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-110141, 2012-Ohio-
1731, ¶ 4-6; State v. Colopy, 5th Dist. Knox No. 2011-CA-3, 2011-Ohio-6120, ¶ 44-49;
State v. Webb, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP-289, 2010-Ohio-6122, ¶ 56-59; State v.
Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87218, 2006-Ohio-5325, ¶ 20-21; State v. Pies, 1st
Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-990241 and C-990242, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 6031 (Dec. 17,
1999); State v. Collins, 4th Dist. Athens No. 94CA1639, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 4409
(Sept. 22, 1995). Thus, we will not probe into the logic or reasoning of the trial judge
or jury to determine whether the verdict of acquittal could have been the result of
mistake, compromise, or lenity. Pies at *8; State v. Trewartha, 165 Ohio App. 3d 91,
2005-Ohio-5697, 844 N.E.2d 1218, ¶ 16 (10th Dist.). Rather, we may only reverse a
conviction if it is supported by insufficient evidence or is contrary to the manifest
weight of the evidence. Pies at *8; Trewartha at ¶ 16.
{¶26} In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this
court must determine 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. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St. 3d
9
 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). In addressing a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence
challenge, we must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable
inferences, consider the credibility of the 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. Id. at 387.
{¶27} To convict Henderson of felonious assault under R.C.
2903.11(A)(1), the state had to prove that he had knowingly caused serious physical
harm to Branetta. To prove that Henderson had acted knowingly, the state had to
show that Henderson was aware that his conduct would probably cause a certain
result or would probably be of a certain nature. See R.C. 2901.22(B).
{¶28} The state produced sufficient evidence to support Henderson’s
conviction for felonious assault. Hayes testified that seconds before the shooting
started, she saw Henderson next to the African man’s CD stand arguing with
someone and that Henderson was facing towards the A to Z Market. In his statement
to police, Henderson admitted that he was standing outside the A to Z Market next to
the CD man, arguing with Hunter, when Hunter pulled out a weapon and began
firing at him. He told police he had seen Branetta fall. The trial court could have
found that Henderson had acted knowingly given that Hayes had testified that
Henderson was facing the store when he pulled out his weapon, Henderson saw
Branetta fall, and Henderson had admitted firing multiple shots that day outside the
A to Z Market. Moreover, Henderson never disputed that Branetta had suffered
serious physical harm. She spent months in the hospital and was in a wheelchair at
the time of trial. Thus, the state produced sufficient evidence to sustain Henderson’s
conviction for felonious assault. See State v. Jordan, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 73364,
10
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 5571 (Nov. 25, 1998) (noting that “firing a gun in a person’s
direction is sufficient evidence of felonious assault”); see also State v. Phillips, 75
Ohio App. 3d 785, 792, 600 N.E.2d 825 (2d Dist.1991) (defendant’s “intent to cause
physical harm to the five individuals could be inferred from his having shot a gun
randomly in the direction of each individual”); State v. Gregory, 90 Ohio App. 3d
124, 131, 628 N.E.2d 86 (11th Dist.1993) (“the shooting of a gun in a place where
there is a risk of injury to one or more persons supports the inference that appellant
acted knowingly” regardless of his purpose).
{¶29} Henderson also argues his conviction is against the manifest
weight of the evidence. He claims that he was acting in self-defense when he fired
shots that day outside the A to Z Market.
{¶30} Under Ohio law, “self-defense is an affirmative defense that legally
excuses admitted criminal conduct.” State v. Edwards, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-
110773, 2013-Ohio-239, ¶ 5. To establish self-defense, Henderson had to prove the
following three elements by a preponderance of the evidence (1) he was not at fault in
creating the situation giving rise to the affray; (2) he had a bona fide belief that he
was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and his only means of escape
from such danger was in the use of such force; and (3) he did not violate any duty to
retreat or avoid the danger. See State v. Robbins, 58 Ohio St. 2d 74, 79-80, 388
N.E.2d 755 (1979); R.C. 2901.05(A). The elements of self-defense are cumulative.
State v. Jackson, 22 Ohio St. 3d 281, 284, 490 N.E.2d 893 (1986). Thus, if Henderson
“fail[ed] to prove any one of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence, he
has failed to demonstrate that he acted in self-defense.” Id.
{¶31} Henderson argues that because his testimony at trial was
uncontroverted, the trial court lost its way in finding he had failed to prove the
11
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
defense by a preponderance of the evidence. But Henderson’s trial testimony
conflicted with portions of his statement to police. In his statement to police,
Henderson had stated that he had not fired any shots at Hunter until after Hunter
had stopped shooting, turned, and started running away. In rejecting Henderson’s
claim of self-defense, the trial court could have found that this portion of
Henderson’s statement to police was more credible than his trial testimony. See
State v. Antill, 176 Ohio St. 61, 67, 197 N.E.2d 548 (1964) (the trier of fact is free to
believe all, part, or none of any witnesses’ testimony); see also State v. Lakes, 120
Ohio App. 213, 217, 201 N.E.2d 809 (4th Dist.1964) (“It is the province of the
[factfinder] to determine where the truth probably lies from conflicting statements,
not only of different witnesses but by the same witness”).
{¶32} Based upon Henderson’s statement to police, the trial court could
have found that Henderson had failed to meet the second and third elements of the
test for self-defense. The trial court could have found that once Hunter had stopped
firing his gun at Henderson, the threat of physical harm to Henderson had
dissipated, and Henderson did not need to fire his weapon back at Hunter. Thus,
Henderson had no basis for a “bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of
death or great bodily harm” and could “escape from such danger” only by using
deadly force. Robbins at paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶33} At that point, Henderson also could have retreated from Hunter
had he chosen to do so. By his own testimony, Hunter had stopped firing his
weapon, had turned, and had begun running away from Henderson. Thus, Hunter
no longer posed a threat to Henderson. Henderson, himself, could have turned and
run away. Instead, however, Henderson fired three to four rounds from his 9-
millimeter weapon. Based upon our review of the evidence, we cannot say the trial
12
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
court lost its way in concluding that Henderson had failed to carry his burden to
establish that he had acted in self-defense. See R.C. 2901.05(A); Edwards, 1st Dist.
Hamilton No. C-110773, 2013-Ohio-239, at ¶ 5.
{¶34} Having concluded that the state presented sufficient evidence to
sustain Henderson’s conviction for felonious assault, and that his conviction was not
against the manifest weight of the evidence, we overrule his sole assignment of error
and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
CUNNINGHAM, P.J, and HENDON, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry this date.
13