State v. Wilson , 2023 Ohio 1111 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Wilson, 2023-Ohio-1111.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2021-12-152
: OPINION
- vs - 4/3/2023
:
CAMERON TREITAY KIDD WILSON, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CR2020-12-1581
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and John C. Heinkel, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Law Office of John H. Forg, and John H. Forg, III, for appellant.
BYRNE, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Cameron Treitay Kidd Wilson, appeals from his conviction of two
counts of murder and two counts of felonious assault related to the fatal shooting of Darrien
Shamel. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm Wilson's convictions.
Butler CA2021-12-152
I. Procedural and Factual Background
{¶2} In the early morning hours of June 2, 2020, Darrien Shamel was shot and
killed in the doorway of his apartment with a 9 mm handgun. His mother called the police
around 12:36 a.m. and officers arrived on the scene within minutes. In December of 2020,
a Butler County grand jury indicted Wilson on two counts of murder and two counts of
felonious assault.
{¶3} During a five-day trial, the state presented testimony from Daija Smith,
Shamel's girlfriend, who testified that she was inside Shamel's apartment in view of the front
door when Shamel answered the door. She stated that when Shamel opened the door, a
tall white male, Blake Michels, gave Shamel a "dap hug."1 At that same time, a lighter-
skinned black male standing behind Michels, wearing all black clothing and a black beanie,
shot Shamel twice—once in the head and once in the neck.
{¶4} The state also presented testimony from Officer Sean Figley who arrived at
the scene just minutes after the shooting. Smith informed Officer Figley that a lighter-
skinned black male shot Shamel. Testimony from Detective Robert Horton confirmed that
investigators recovered two 9 mm shell casings at the scene of the shooting.
{¶5} The state presented the testimony of Blake Michels, who alleged that the
following events occurred: Wilson picked up Michels and a friend, Camden Timenfeld2,
from Michels' home in Delhi. The three then traveled together in Wilson's car to several
different locations before going to Hamilton so that Michels could purchase acid from
Shamel. At some point during the evening, Wilson put on a black hoodie. He was also
wearing a toboggan. When they arrived at Shamel's apartment, Michels and Wilson got
1. A "dap hug" is described by the witness to be a type of handshake where the individuals pull one another
toward each other.
2. The record contains different spellings of this name.
-2-
Butler CA2021-12-152
out of the car and went to the front door. Timenfeld remained in the car. When Shamel
opened the door, Michels gave him a "dap hug," and at that point Wilson, who was standing
behind Michels, shot Shamel twice. Wilson told Michels to run. They returned to Wilson's
car and Wilson drove back to his home in Harrison. When they arrived, Michels and
Timenfeld remained in the car, and as Wilson exited the car, Michels saw an all-black
firearm. Wilson remained inside his home for roughly five minutes before returning to the
car to drive Michels and Timenfeld back to Michels' home in Delhi. In addition to this
testimony, Michels also admitted that he was not truthful with the police during his initial
interviews.
{¶6} Wilson testified in his own defense and denied that he was present at the
scene of the shooting. He stated that he picked up Michels and Timenfeld from Michels'
home earlier in the evening of June 1, but that he dropped them both off in Hamilton around
11:30 p.m. before returning to his home. He claims to have returned home around 12:15
a.m., where he spoke with his younger brother for a few minutes before driving to his
girlfriend's house.
{¶7} On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Wilson if he had access to any
firearms and if he ever wore a black toboggan. Wilson responded that he owned a shotgun
and two handgun cases, one of which was found empty during a search of Wilson's room.
He also testified that he normally does not wear a black toboggan. Wilson was then asked
about a video on his cell phone that showed him wearing a black beanie and waiving a 9
mm handgun. Wilson did not deny the existence of the video or dispute its contents.
{¶8} The defense also presented the testimony of two alibi witnesses. Wilson's
mother, Pet Davis, testified that she saw Wilson at home, lying in bed, at 12:09 a.m. on the
morning of the shooting. Wilson's younger brother, Cory Kidd, testified that Wilson was at
home until 12:15 a.m., when Wilson left to go hang out with his girlfriend. He stated that
-3-
Butler CA2021-12-152
Wilson returned home around 12:45 a.m. and went to bed around 1:30 a.m.
{¶9} The state presented rebuttal evidence from Lance Kepple, a special agent
with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Cellular Analysis Survey Team (CAST). Special
Agent Kepple presented his report on the historical cellular analysis for Wilson's and
Michels' phone numbers, based on data obtained from their cellular service providers. The
report showed the general locations of both cell phones on the evening of June 1, 2020,
and into the morning hours of June 2, 2020. The data did not provide pinpoint locations
and instead identified the general area in which the phones were located at times. But in
general, the data suggested that the cell phones of Wilson and Michels were traveling
together from the hours of 8:00 p.m. on June 1, 2020, until roughly 2:00 a.m. on June 2,
2020.
{¶10} According to the report, Wilson's phone was in Hamilton near Shamel's home
at 12:17 a.m. and 12:32 a.m. on the morning of June 2. Michels' phone was in roughly the
same location at 12:34 a.m. The report gave no indication that Wilson's phone was near
his home at 12:15 a.m. or near his girlfriend's house shortly thereafter. Instead, the report
indicated that at 12:56 a.m., both phones were south of Hamilton, but north of Wilson's
home; at 1:24 a.m., both phones were south of Wilson's home but north of Michels' home;
and at 1:58 a.m., both phones were near Michels' home.
{¶11} The jury convicted Wilson on all four counts. The trial court merged allied
offenses and sentenced Wilson to 15 years to life in prison. Wilson now appeals, raising a
single assignment of error for review.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶12} Wilson's Assignment of Error No. 1 states:
{¶13} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING WILSON OF MURDER
AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
-4-
Butler CA2021-12-152
{¶14} In his assignment of error, Wilson contends that his conviction was against
the manifest weight of the evidence. Wilson disputes the state's reliance on circumstantial
evidence, specifically the state's CAST report, which he alleges "cannot provide Wilson's
exact location" at the time of the shooting. He also takes issue with the testimony of Smith
and Michels. He argues that the descriptions of the shooter given by Smith were
inconsistent and questionable. He also argues that Michels' testimony is the "only evidence
that places Wilson at the scene of the crime," and that his testimony was not credible.
A. Standard of Review
{¶15} We first note that in his appellate brief, Wilson identifies an incorrect standard
for making a manifest weight determination.3 Wilson cites to a sufficiency of the evidence
standard, but "[t]he legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence
are both quantitatively and qualitatively different." State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380,
386 (1997). Sufficiency is essentially a test of adequacy, asking whether the evidence is
legally sufficient to sustain a verdict. Id.{¶16} A manifest weight of the evidence challenge examines the "inclination of the
greater amount of credible evidence, offered at a trial, to support one side of the issue rather
than the other." State v. Barnett, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-09-177, 2012-Ohio-2372, ¶
14. To determine whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the
reviewing court must look at the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable
inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether in resolving the
conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest
miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed, and a new trial ordered. State
3. In that same vein, Wilson also ties this incorrect standard to an improper standard for reasonable doubt,
stating that reasonable doubt means "without any degree of uncertainty." It is well established that the
definition of reasonable doubt, as set forth in R.C. 2901.05, is not "mere possible doubt," but instead is "proof
of such character that an ordinary person would be willing to rely and act upon it in the most important of his
own affairs." State v. Van Gundy, 64 Ohio St.3d 230, 232 (1992).
-5-
Butler CA2021-12-152
v. Graham, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2008-07-095, 2009-Ohio-2814, ¶ 66.
{¶17} In reviewing the evidence, an appellate court must be mindful that the original
trier of fact was in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses and determine the
weight to be given to the evidence. State v. Blankenburg, 197 Ohio App.3d 201, 2012-
Ohio-1289, ¶ 114 (12th Dist.). An appellate court will overturn a conviction due to the
manifest weight of the evidence only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs
heavily against the conviction. State v. Zitney, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2020-06-007, 2021-
Ohio-466, ¶ 15.
B. Analysis of the Evidence Presented at Trial
{¶18} Wilson alleges that the testimony of Daija Smith was inconsistent with a
previous statement. Smith witnessed the shooting and testified that she saw a lighter-
skinned black male shoot Shamel. Wilson argues that Smith's testimony is inconsistent
with a 9-1-1 phone call, where "she identified the shooter as a white male." However, Smith
did not call the police—Shamel's mother did. Although Shamel's mother was present at the
scene, she did not witness the shooting.
{¶19} Wilson further argues that the state's reliance on Smith's description of the
shooter is inconsistent with other evidence. Smith testified that the shooter was wearing all
black clothing and a black beanie. A Snapchat video of Wilson taken on the evening of
June 1 shows him wearing a white t-shirt and a blue pair of jeans. Wilson asserts that the
Snapchat video shows that he was not wearing the clothing that Smith identified. However,
Wilson admitted that there was a video of him on his own phone showing him wearing a
black beanie and waiving a 9 mm handgun. Further, Michels testified that he saw Wilson
put on a black hoodie and that he was wearing a toboggan at some point during the evening
of June 1, 2020. It is thus reasonable to conclude that Wilson changed his clothes, or added
another layer of clothing, at some point during the evening before arriving at Shamel's
-6-
Butler CA2021-12-152
apartment in Hamilton.
{¶20} Wilson also argues that his conviction is against the manifest weight of the
evidence because the state's case "rests solely on the testimony of witness Blake Michels."
Wilson asserts that Michels' testimony is unreliable because he lied to police during his
initial interviews, and that his testimony is "inconsistent and suspect" because it leaves an
"unexplained time gap" for what happened between the hours of 11:00 p.m. on June 1,
2020, and 12:17 a.m. on June 2, 2020. Wilson argues that his own testimony accounts for
this period of time: he claims to have been at home.
{¶21} Though Wilson argues that Michels' testimony lacked credibility, a conviction
is not against the manifest weight of the evidence simply because the jury believed the
prosecution testimony. State v. Lovelace, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2022-05-032, 2023-
Ohio-339, ¶ 39, citing State v. Lunsford, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2010-10-021, 2011-Ohio-
6529, ¶ 17. The trier of fact is in the best position to judge the credibility of the witnesses
and the weight to be given to the evidence. State v. Johnson, 12th Dist. Warren Nos.
CA2019-07-076 and CA2019-08-080, 2020-Ohio-3501, ¶ 24. It is "entirely appropriate for
the trier of fact to believe the testimony of some witnesses while disregarding the testimony
of other witnesses." State v. Lloyd, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2007-04-052 and CA2007-
04-053, 2008-Ohio-3383, ¶ 51. Here, the jury, as the finder of fact, apparently determined
that Michels was credible, and Wilson was not.
{¶22} Wilson also argues that the CAST report prepared by Special Agent Kepple
"cannot pinpoint the exact location of a person making a call, only the general range in
which the call was received." While the CAST report operates as circumstantial evidence
as to Wilson's whereabouts on the night of Shamel's murder, "a defendant's convictions
may be based on circumstantial evidence alone." State v. Haines, 12th Dist. Clermont No.
CA2021-07-040, 2022-Ohio-1145, ¶ 37. "[A] conviction based on purely circumstantial
-7-
Butler CA2021-12-152
evidence is no less sound than one based on direct evidence." State v. Babyak, 12th Dist.
Madison Nos. CA2009-10-023 and CA2010-03-006, 2010-Ohio-3820, ¶ 18.
{¶23} The CAST report showed that the cell phones of Michels and Wilson were
near the scene of the shooting between 12:17 a.m. and 12:34 a.m. on the morning of June
2, 2020. The report gave no indication that Wilson's phone was at his home or near his
girlfriend's house, which is where he claims to have been during that time. Wilson gave no
explanation for why his phone was detected in Hamilton during that time—he simply argues
that the report cannot provide his exact location at the time of the shooting. But while the
report did not provide a precise location, it did identify the general area in which the phone
was located at various times, and it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that those
locations and times were consistent with the state's theory of the case.
{¶24} After reviewing the record, we find that Wilson's convictions were not against
the manifest weight of the evidence. Although the state's case was partially based on
circumstantial evidence, the state presented convincing evidence indicating that Wilson
committed the murder of Darrien Shamel. "Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence
have the same probative value, and in some instances, certain facts can only be established
by circumstantial evidence." State v. Mobus, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2005-01-004, 2005-
Ohio-6164, ¶ 51.
{¶25} The jury chose to credit the witnesses presented by the state and believe the
prosecution's version of events. The jury weighed the evidence and concluded that Wilson
was the individual who shot Darrien Shamel. It is within the purview of the jury to believe
some, all, or none of witness testimony, as the jury is in the best position to hear the
witnesses speak and examine their demeanor. Johnson, 2020-Ohio-3501 at ¶ 24; Lloyd,
2008-Ohio-3383 at ¶ 51. We find no merit to Wilson's argument that the jury lost its way in
weighing the evidence and finding him guilty.
-8-
Butler CA2021-12-152
III. Conclusion
{¶26} For the reasons stated above we overrule Wilson's sole assignment of error.
{¶27} Judgment affirmed.
M. POWELL, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.
-9-