State v. Hawkey , 2016 Ohio 1292 ( 2016 )

[Cite as State v. Hawkey, 2016-Ohio-1292.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
DEFIANCE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 4-14-03
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JUDITH I. HAWKEY, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Defiance County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 13 CR 11628
Judgment Reversed in Part and Affirmed in Part,
Remanded for Further Proceedings
Date of Decision: March 28, 2016
APPEARANCES:
W. Alex Smith for Appellant
Russell R. Herman for Appellee
Case No. 4-14-03
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Judith Hawkey (“Hawkey”) brings this appeal
from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Defiance County finding her
guilty of aggravated murder, insurance fraud and child endangering and
sentencing her to life in prison without the chance of parole. On appeal, Hawkey
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the manifest weight of the evidence,
and the admission of certain evidence. For the reasons set forth below, the
judgment is reversed in part and affirmed in part.
{¶2} On November 3, 2003, Hawkey’s husband at the time, Robert
Breininger (“Robert”) was shot and killed by his then ten year old son Corey
Breininger (“Corey”). The shooting was investigated, ruled to be accidental, and
the case was closed. Between May 2011 and March 2012, Corey told people that
the shooting of his father was not an accident and that he had done it at the
instruction of Hawkey. The case was reopened and a new investigation ensued.
The investigation resulted in the death being ruled a homicide and charges being
filed.
Procedural History
{¶3} On March 7, 2013, the Defiance County Grand Jury indicted Hawkey
on one count of Aggravated Murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A), four counts
of Endangering a Child in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(2), and one count of
-2-
Case No. 4-14-03
Insurance Fraud in violation of R.C. 2913.47(B)(1). Doc. 1. Hawkey was
arraigned on the charges on March 12, 2013, and entered pleas of not guilty to all
charges. Doc. 4. On July 30, 2013, Hawkey filed a motion to exclude the expert
testimony of Dr. Barbara Knox (“Knox”) on the grounds that it was not supported
scientifically or medically under the standard set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) and
Miller, et al. v. Bike Athletic Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 607, 687 N.E.2d 735 (1998).
Doc. 40. The record does not indicate that the State ever filed a response to this
motion. No ruling was made on the motion prior to trial.
{¶4} A jury trial was held from October 28, 2013, to November 8, 2013.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned verdicts of guilty as to all counts.
Doc. 92-97. A sentencing hearing was held on December 19, 2013. Doc. 80. The
trial court sentenced Hawkey to life in prison without the possibility of parole on
the aggravated murder charge. Id. On the child endangerment charges, Hawkey
was sentenced to prison terms of eight years for count two and three years each for
counts three, four, and five. Id. The trial court sentenced Hawkey to a prison term
of three years for the insurance fraud conviction. Id. The prison terms for counts
two through six were ordered to be served consecutive to each other for a total
prison term of twenty years, but concurrent to the life sentence. Id. The
sentencing entry was filed on December 30, 2013. Id.-3-
Case No. 4-14-03
{¶5} On January 17, 2014, Hawkey filed her notice of appeal. Doc. 106.
Hawkey raises the following assignments of error on appeal.1
First Assignment of Error
The trial court erred when it accepted the jury’s guilty verdict
which was clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence
and sufficiency of the evidence.
Second Assignment of Error
The trial court erred when it allowed the victim to testify after
the close of the State’s case in chief and after the Defense had
opened their case.
Third Assignment of Error
The trial court erred when it allowed into evidence two critical
instances of hearsay without exception.
Fourth Assignment of Error
The trial court abused its discretion when it overruled
[Hawkey’s] Daubert motion and allowed the testimony of the
State’s expert witness Dr. Knox regarding child torture as a
form of child abuse.
In the interest of clarity, we will address the assignments of error out of order.
Before we can address the assignments of error, the trial testimony must first be
reviewed.
1
This court notes that this opinion only addresses the issues raised in the assignments of error and does not
address anything not raised.
-4-
Case No. 4-14-03
Trial Testimony
{¶6} During the trial, the State presented the testimony of twenty-five
witnesses during its case-in-chief. The first was Lacie Miller (“Miller”). Miller
was the 9-1-1 operator who took the call from Corey after the shooting. Tr. 407.
Miller testified that she told Corey how to perform CPR and that he was counting
out the chest thrusts for her. Tr. 408. A recording of the call was played for the
jury. On cross-examination, Miller testified that Corey was very emotional and
hysterical and told her that he did not know there was a bullet in the gun and his
father was shot. Tr. 410. Corey also identified Hawkey as his mother and
indicated that she was not home at that time. Tr. 411.
{¶7} The second witness for the State was Michael Harris (“Harris”) who
was an emergency medical technician (“EMT”) who responded to the scene. Tr.
414. When he arrived at the scene of the shooting, he saw Corey outside of the
house with a deputy, and the boy was crying. Tr. 415. When Harris and the other
EMT’s went into the bedroom, they saw no sign of life from the victim, so he
backed out of the room. Tr. 415. No attempt at CPR or any other life-saving
measure was made. Tr. 420. He later saw Hawkey in the ambulance with Corey
and recalled Hawkey repeatedly telling Corey to stop crying. Tr. 422. In Harris’
opinion, Hawkey was not showing sympathy to Corey. Tr. 423. On cross-
examination, Harris testified that at the time of the shooting, he did not believe
-5-
Case No. 4-14-03
Corey’s story of the events because it did not match up with the physical evidence
he saw. Tr. 430-32. In Harris’ opinion, the shooting was at close-range and did
not appear accidental. Tr. 436-38.
{¶8} Greg Zimmerman (“Zimmerman”) was another EMT that responded
to the scene of the shooting. Tr. 440. According to Zimmerman, he was informed
that the victim had allegedly been sitting up speaking with Corey when the gun
went off. Tr. 441-42. Zimmerman testified that it did not appear that anyone had
attempted CPR on the victim, as was claimed by Corey. Tr. 444. Zimmerman
testified that he told the officers at the scene that the story told by Corey did not
match the evidence at the scene. Tr. 445. Zimmerman also testified that Corey
stated that “It feels like it’s my fault” which Zimmerman found odd. Tr. 446.
When Hawkey arrived, she seemed to be angry. Tr. 446, In Zimmerman’s
opinion, Corey was upset, but he did not appear to be harmed and he had no blood
on him. Tr. 448. On cross-examination, Zimmerman admitted that he did not
indicate at the time of the shooting that Hawkey appeared to be angry or lacked
sympathy for Corey. Tr. 452.
{¶9} Michelle Potter (“Potter”) was another EMT that came to the scene.
Tr. 457. She stayed with Corey in the ambulance until Hawkey arrived. Tr. 466.
Corey was hysterical and crying at the scene. Tr. 459. She did not recall seeing
any blood on Corey and although she had hugged him several times, there was no
-6-
Case No. 4-14-03
blood on her clothing either. Tr. 465. Potter testified that Hawkey was very cold
to Corey and when she arrived, Corey appeared to be scared and stopped crying.
Tr. 460. The only thing Hawkey said to Corey was “Come on” and Corey left
with her immediately. Tr. 460-61. On cross-examination, Potter testified that in
the time she was alone with Corey, he did not tell her that he was being abused
and she saw no indications of abuse on him. Tr. 469. Potter also admitted that she
knew Hawkey from high school and had “a low opinion” of her. Tr. 470.
{¶10} The fifth witness for the State was Angela Reeve (“Reeve”), who
was employed in the payroll department of Steel Dynamics where Robert worked.
Tr. 473. Reeve testified that Hawkey came into the office the day after Robert’s
death to complete the beneficiary paperwork. Tr. 475. This surprised Reeve as
she did not expect Hawkey so soon. Tr. 475. At that time, Hawkey did not appear
visibly upset to Reeve. Tr. 475. Reeve also testified to the benefits received by
Hawkey and indicated that the total benefits received were $333,864. Tr. 479. On
cross-examination, Reeve testified that Robert had applied for the supplemental
policies when he was hired in 2000. Tr. 481. If Robert had lived, he would have
earned over $730,000 in the next 10 years, would have had health insurance, stock
options, dental coverage, vision coverage, a 401K, and college scholarships for his
children. Tr. 483-87. Reeve also testified that Robert had signed all of the forms
and Hawkey had no involvement in the process. Tr. 496. Reeve noted that the life
-7-
Case No. 4-14-03
insurance would not have been paid out until an independent investigation into the
death was completed. Tr. 485. The forms indicated that Robert had excluded
Corey as a beneficiary, instead leaving everything to Hawkey with Garrett
Breininger (“Garrett”) as the secondary beneficiary. Tr. 497-98.
{¶11} Deputy Kevin Fackler (“Fackler”) testified next for the State. On the
day of the shooting, Fackler was a deputy for Defiance County and was dispatched
to the home. Tr. 501-502. When he arrived on the scene, Corey was on the front
porch with Lieutenant Cliff Vandemark (“Vandemark”). Tr. 502. Fackler then
went into the bedroom to secure the scene and take pictures. Tr. 503. Fackler
testified that he saw Robert lying in a twin bed with blood around his head and
that he had earplugs in both ears. Tr. 505-506. Fackler noted that the stippling
from the gunpowder indicated a close-range shot. Tr. 507. He also saw various
pamphlets about guns lying on the bed, including one lying under the arm of the
victim. Tr. 507. The gun was found lying on the floor on the other side of the bed
from the injury to Robert’s head. Tr. 511. In his opinion, the evidence at the
scene indicated that the body had not been moved after being shot. Tr. 510. On
cross-examination, Fackler testified that he had interacted with Corey and Hawkey
in August of 2001, and saw no indications that Corey was being physically
abused. Tr. 520-21. Fackler also interacted with Corey, Hawkey, and Emily
Breininger (“Emily”) who were all upset about Corey being teased on the bus. Tr.
-8-
Case No. 4-14-03
528. Again, Fackler noted no signs of abuse and Corey did not indicate he was
abused or that he had intentionally shot Robert. Tr. 529.
{¶12} Dr. Gary Okuley (“Okuley”) testified that he had been the Defiance
County Coroner since January of 2013. Tr. 536. After reviewing the crime scene
photos, reading the reports, reading the most recent statements made by Corey,
and speaking with the former coroner, he changed the manner of death from
accidental to homicide. Tr. 537-38. On cross-examination, Okuley admitted that
he changed the certificate at the request of the prosecutor and solely based on the
new statements made by Corey, even though he had not spoken with Corey. Tr.
542-43.
{¶13} The eighth witness for the State was Ronnie Phlipot (“R. Phlipot”).
R. Phlipot testified that he had lived across the street from Corey and his family
for a short time. Tr. 554. During that time, he did not see Corey out around the
neighborhood with the other children. Tr. 556. When Corey decided to leave
Hawkey’s home at the age of 18, he came to live with R. Phlipot because he was a
friend of R. Phlipot’s son. Tr. 554. While there, Corey became emotional and R.
Philipot came home one day to find a note that he took to be a suicide note. Tr.
557. R. Phlipot then went looking for Corey and found him “bawling and
hysterical”. Tr. 559. Corey kept saying “he was going to be with his dad.” Tr.
561. R. Phlipot then took him to the hospital to get help. Tr. 561. During the
-9-
Case No. 4-14-03
time he was with Corey, he did not indicate at any time that he had intentionally
shot Robert. Tr. 568.
{¶14} Charlene Grant (“Grant”) testified that she taught Corey English in
his senior year. Tr. 581-82. During that year, he wrote an essay about something
that had a profound effect upon him. Tr. 582. When Grant read the paper, she
spoke with the guidance counselor, who told her it was being handled. Tr. 583.
{¶15} Lauren Beck (“Beck”) was a former teacher of Corey and first met
him when he was seven. Tr. 586. When Corey was in first grade, she had
concerns because it was hot and he was still wearing long sleeves and pants. Tr.
587. Beck testified that when Corey pulled up his sleeves, his arms were covered
in bruises. Tr. 588. Soon after that, he came to school with a black eye. Tr. 588.
On another occasion, Corey fell and cracked open his head, and neither Robert nor
Hawkey took him to the hospital. Tr. 589. However, Beck did not report her
suspicions to the police and did not speak with the parents. Tr. 590. Beck then
testified that in March of 2012, Corey told her at a ball game that Hawkey had
physically abused him and had forced him to shoot Robert. Tr. 602-608. The next
day, she reported the conversation to the guidance counselor. Tr. 613. On cross-
examination, Beck admitted that she did not ever report any suspicions of child
abuse to Job and Family Services or to law enforcement. Tr. 623. She also
admitted that she did not speak to the police for a few days about what Corey told
-10-
Case No. 4-14-03
her, contrary to what she had previously testified. Tr. 615. As Corey’s physical
education teacher, she never saw any indication that Corey was in pain while
participating and testified that he was able to move around easily and was very
athletic. Tr. 626. Beck was also unaware that Corey told the police that Beck
would do everything she could to make sure Hawkey “got what she deserved.” Tr.
636. She testified that she had told Corey that she would help him in any way she
could. Tr. 637. Beck also testified that she was unaware that Corey had played
soccer, baseball and had been involved in wrestling although he told Beck that
Hawkey never let him participate in sports. Tr. 627, 643-45.
{¶16} Robyn Snyder (“Snyder”) was Corey’s second grade teacher. Tr.
647. Snyder recalled being a little bit concerned about Corey in November of his
second grade year, because he had bruises on his face. Tr. 649. Corey gave her an
explanation of the bruises so she did not make a formal report. Tr. 652. She was
also concerned about Corey because Hawkey mentioned sending him to military
school and she thought he was too young. Tr. 650. Snyder also noted that Corey
sometimes appeared to be dressed too warm for the weather. Tr. 655. However,
on cross-examination Snyder testified that she only saw bruising on Corey that one
time. Tr. 658. She had never made a formal report and Corey told her he obtained
the bruising by falling out of a tree. Tr. 658. Most of Snyder’s notes concerning
Corey were about his behavior, not any issues with perceived abuse. Tr. 657, 663.
-11-
Case No. 4-14-03
Although Corey missed 15 days of school that year, Snyder did not note any
problems with his attendance. Tr. 667-68.
{¶17} The twelfth witness for the State was Vandemark. Vandemark
testified that on the day of the shooting, he was a sergeant and was assigned to
investigate the incident. Tr. 671. When he arrived at the home, there were no
vehicles in the drive and the front door was locked. Tr. 672. Corey opened the
door for him and was extremely emotional. Tr. 673-74. Corey originally started
taking him to the back of the house, but Vandemark stopped him and entered the
bedroom by the door, where he saw Robert’s body. Tr. 674. Vandemark testified
that he knew there was nothing to be done for Robert when he saw him. Tr. 675.
Vandemark then took Corey out onto the porch, where Corey sat on his lap. Tr.
679. Corey appeared to be devastated and told Vandemark that he had taken the
books into the bedroom for Robert to read. When Corey went into the room with
the gun, his finger was on the trigger and “it shot.” Tr. 680. The EMT’s then
arrived and Corey went with one of them to the ambulance while he went with the
other EMT’s. Tr. 680-82. When he saw Hawkey arrive, he went out to meet her.
Tr. 682. She was at the ambulance and he heard her tell Corey that everything
would be okay. Tr. 683. Vandemark then whispered in Hawkey’s ear that Robert
was dead. Tr. 683. Hawkey then asked to take Corey away from the scene and
Vandemark agreed. Tr. 683. At that time, Vandemark believed what Corey told
-12-
Case No. 4-14-03
him because of how devastated Corey appeared to be at the scene. Tr. 685. While
Vandemark was still at the scene, Hawkey returned and he questioned her. Tr.
687. Hawkey told him that Robert worked nights and had gone to bed around
noon wearing his earplugs. Tr. 687. According to Hawkey, when she left to go to
her mother’s that afternoon, Robert was awake, but was still in bed. Tr. 688.
Hawkey also told Vandemark that Robert and Corey had been working with the
gun and talking about it the night before because they were planning on going
hunting. Tr. 688. Vandemark then went to speak with Corey and found him still
sobbing and emotional. Tr. 689. No further investigation was done at the time
because Vandemark relied upon the statement of Corey as to what had happened.
Tr. 691.
{¶18} On March 23, 2012, Vandemark again spoke to Corey who was then
telling a different story. Tr. 692. Corey told Vandemark that he had intentionally
shot Robert at the direction of Hawkey. Tr. 693. According to Corey, Hawkey
told him that Robert had a brain tumor and was dying and wanted to be killed so
that the family would have some money. Tr. 693. Corey also reported that he had
been abused for years by Hawkey and that she was attempting to poison her new
husband. Tr. 693-94. Corey told Vandemark that Hawkey met him at the bus the
day of the shooting, told him that the gun was in the laundry room and ordered
him to shoot Robert. Tr. 694. Corey then went into the laundry room, retrieved
-13-
Case No. 4-14-03
the gun, entered the bedroom, put the gun inches away from his father’s head, and
pulled the trigger. Tr. 695. Corey told him that when he realized he had killed his
father, he dropped the gun and called 9-1-1 as instructed by Hawkey. Tr. 695.
Corey had no explanation for how things got placed on the bed. Tr. 702.
Vandemark realized after reviewing the evidence, that Corey could not have
performed CPR like he told the operator he was doing. Tr. 705. Based upon all
the financial benefits received by Hawkey, Vandemark believed that she had used
Corey to kill Robert. Tr. 716.
{¶19} On cross-examination, Vandemark testified that he interviewed
Corey regarding molestation claims made by him against his paternal
grandmother. Tr. 739. During that time, Corey sat on Hawkey’s lap and showed
no indication of being afraid of Hawkey. Tr. 740, 743. Vandemark also saw no
signs of bruising or any other indicators of physical abuse to Corey at that time.
Tr. 743. Vandemark also testified that he overheard Hawkey ask Corey what
happened in the ambulance and that Corey repeated the same story told to
Vandemark. Tr. 752. Vandemark observed Hawkey trying to comfort Corey and
began crying, but tried to compose herself so as to not upset Corey. Tr. 752.
When Hawkey returned to the scene, he asked her about prior problems between
Robert and Corey. Tr. 760. In 2000, Corey told a teacher that Robert had touched
him in a sexual manner. Tr. 760-61. When Vandemark later interviewed Corey,
-14-
Case No. 4-14-03
Corey told him that he had gotten the gun from the closet and repeated the same
story he had given earlier. Tr. 764. Corey never indicated he was being abused,
that Robert was ill, or that Hawkey had told Corey to kill Robert. Tr. 767-68.
Vandemark also did not notice any signs of abuse the evening of the shooting or
observe any inappropriate interactions between Corey and Hawkey. Tr. 767.
Vandemark also testified that the DNA found on the shell was not linked to
Hawkey and that the fingerprint found on the shell was too smudged for
identification. Tr. 769. Vandemark also testified that on the original death
certificate, the coroner could have indicated that the matter was pending
investigation rather than accidental, but everyone was satisfied at that time that it
was an accident. Tr. 772. Corey indicated in the initial interview that
approximately one month before the shooting Hawkey first told him about
Robert’s alleged brain cancer. Tr. 774.
{¶20} Vandemark also testified that in the 2012 interview, Corey told him
that Hawkey had beaten him his whole life and that some of the beatings were so
severe that he lost consciousness. Tr. 775. Corey told him he was beaten all over
his body with a belt, was beaten with a belt on his genitals, and that his genitals
were burned with a lighter. Tr. 775. According to Corey, these beatings left him
covered in bruises. Tr. 775. Corey also told Vandemark that Hawkey had tried to
kill him on multiple occasions. Tr. 776. According to Corey, Hawkey told him to
-15-
Case No. 4-14-03
climb up a scaffolding and let go so that he would fall. Tr. 777. Vandemark also
testified that Corey told him that on one Halloween, Hawkey threw him in a pond
while he was wearing his costume so that he would drown. Tr. 777. Corey told
Vandemark that Hawkey was attempting to kill her current husband, Gary Hawkey
(“Gary”) by putting poison in his coffee and that he had seen her do it. Tr. 778.
Vandemark testified that when Hawkey was arrested, she denied all of the
allegations of abuse. Tr. 780. Vandemark admitted that there were
inconsistencies in the stories that Corey had told him, the FBI, and the doctors.
Tr. 783. Additionally, none of Corey’s pediatric medical records indicated any
type of abuse was occurring. Tr. 779. On three different occasions, the police
interacted with Corey and no claim of abuse by Hawkey was made. Tr. 804.
Vandemark also admitted that he had been fooled by Corey before when he was a
ten year old boy and that Corey was estranged from his family and was very angry
with Hawkey in 2012. Tr. 807-808. According to Vandemark, Corey blamed
Hawkey for everything and indicated that he wanted Hawkey to pay for what she
had done. Tr. 809. As a result of Corey’s claims against Hawkey, he was not
being prosecuted for any offense related to the shooting of Robert. Tr. 815.
{¶21} On re-direct, Vandemark testified that he believed that Hawkey was
attempting to poison Gary. Tr. 821. Vandemark also testified that when Corey
called Hawkey, he took her statement that he could meet her where there were
-16-
Case No. 4-14-03
cameras as an indication that she knew he would be afraid of her. Tr. 824.
Vandemark thought her demeanor towards Corey during the phone call was cold
because she responded “whatever” when he mentioned suicide. Tr. 825. On re-
cross-examination, Vandemark admitted that the toxicology screens on Gary came
back negative. Vandemark admitted that Hawkey’s cold demeanor to Corey
during the phone call was not to the question of whether he should commit
suicide, but whether he should seek counseling and she responded that he should
do whatever he wanted. Tr. 842.
{¶22} The next witness for the State was Tara Thomas (“Thomas”), the
former neighbor of Hawkey and Robert. Tr. 861. Thomas testified that she was
very familiar with the family and did not like them because Hawkey used vulgar
language. Tr. 862-64. On the day of the shooting, she saw Hawkey meet Corey
when he got off the bus, put her arm around him in an affectionate manner, and
speak to him while they were walking towards the house. Tr. 867. She found this
unusual because she did not recall Hawkey showing Corey affection any other
time and Thomas did not think it was right that Corey was required to shovel the
drive in the winter before he went to school. Tr. 867. On cross-examination, she
admitted that the two families did not get along and that there were police reports
regarding disputes between her children and Corey. Tr. 870, 874. Thomas also
-17-
Case No. 4-14-03
testified that she did not recall seeing Emily get off the bus when she saw Corey.
Tr. 872.
{¶23} Knox was the fourteenth witness for the State. She testified that she
is a Board Certified Child Abuse Pediatrician. Tr. 892. She then proceeded to
testify that Corey was a victim of child torture. Knox defined “child torture” as
“an extreme form of child abuse that includes multiple elements of abuse; physical
abuse, psychological abuse with – in more than one form, and many times
neglect.” Tr. 905. Before interviewing Corey on February 19, 2013, Knox
reviewed all the records sent to her by the State. Tr. 908-909. Corey told Knox
that he was very threatened by Hawkey from the time he met her because “she
would consistently hit him with objects, such as belts, such as, umm, other
implements, and she would also hit him with her hand, both open-handed and
closed fist, and then also isolate him for hours on a porch that – that she had.” Tr.
911-12. Corey told Knox that prior to him entering the second grade, Hawkey
would hit him all over, but switched to beating his genitals and burning them after
teachers started asking questions. Tr. 913. Knox testified that Corey told her the
abuse continued until he left the home at the age of eighteen. Tr. 914. Corey also
reported to Knox that Hawkey would require him to stand in static positions for
hours and would beat him if he broke the position. Tr. 914. Knox testified that
Corey was psychologically abused by being constantly degraded, humiliated,
-18-
Case No. 4-14-03
requiring him to do all the chores, giving him fewer rewards, and isolating him.
Tr. 916. Corey also reported to Knox that Hawkey required him to eat his own
feces, spread his feces on himself, and to eat dog feces. Tr. 917. Corey reported
that Hawkey told him that if he did not kill Robert, Hawkey would kill Corey. Tr.
918.
{¶24} Knox testified that Corey reported to her that Hawkey on one
occasion told Corey to climb up scaffolding and then let go. Tr. 919. Corey
claimed to have done as he was told, even though Hawkey was not there at the
time because he wished to die. Tr. 919. This resulted in Corey having to be
airlifted to a Level 2 Trauma Center. Tr. 919. Corey also reported that Hawkey
had cut him above his penis with a butter knife, and a physical exam showed a
small scar in that area. Tr. 921, 926. Corey claimed to Knox that Hawkey was
always threatening to publicly humiliate him, called him “gay”, and called him a
girl. Tr. 919. Hawkey had a picture of Corey and Garrett in dresses and
threatened to show the picture to Corey’s friends. Tr. 919-20. Knox also testified
that Hawkey was abusive for not seeking counseling for Corey after Robert’s
death because Hawkey was “not going to spend that money.” Tr. 945. In Knox’s
opinion, Hawkey staged videos of Corey acting strange in order to isolate him
from Robert, which Knox believed to be a form of psychological abuse. Tr. 938-
-19-
Case No. 4-14-03
49. Knox also testified that Corey told her that he had a dog that he believed
Hawkey had killed by poisoning it. Tr. 952.
{¶25} On cross-examination, Knox admitted that there was no scientifically
accepted definition of child torture and it was merely an idea that she had which
had yet to be formally accepted by the medical community. Tr. 981. Knox also
admitted that she is not a psychologist or a psychiatrist and had not reviewed all of
the medical records from when Corey was a child. Tr. 962, 985. According to
Knox, she was hired by the prosecutor to investigate the case, and she never has
testified for defendants, only the State. Tr. 988-89. Additionally, she referred the
prosecutor to the psychologist who was hired by the State to testify in this case.
Tr. 989.
{¶26} Concerning the fall from the scaffolding, Knox acknowledged that
this occurred prior to Robert’s death and at a time when Corey alleged to being
beaten severely on a daily basis. Tr. 997. Yet the medical exams after the fall
showed nothing unusual, including no injuries or bruising except what would be
expected from the fall. Tr. 998-1016. Corey also alleged that he was only given
minimal food, yet the medical reports indicate no questions concerning starvation
or malnutrition. Tr. 1013. Corey was alone at the hospital and reported that he
had kicked a ball, which got stuck on the scaffolding and he had climbed up to get
it when he fell. Tr. 1016-17. Additionally, although Corey claimed that Hawkey
-20-
Case No. 4-14-03
removed him from the hospital against medical advice, the reports indicate that
everything was normal, the family was supportive and attentive, and it was safe to
take him home. Tr. 1020-21. A specific exam of the genitals showed no
indication of any bruising or burns, despite Corey’s claim that he was being beaten
there by a belt on a daily basis. Tr. 1019. The x-rays also showed no indication of
abuse. Tr. 1023. Follow-up exams from the fall were done for the next month.
During all of those exams, there were no indications that any abuse was occurring
although Corey claimed that he was still being beaten on a daily basis. Tr. 1027-
29. Additionally, Corey was taken to the doctor for various injuries and illnesses
over the years. Knox testified that all of the records contain no information which
would indicate that any physical abuse was occurring and Corey did not report it.
Tr. 1030-34.
{¶27} Knox testified that in 2011, Corey was hospitalized for psychiatric
reasons. Tr. 1036. At that time, a full physical exam was conducted and Corey
was questioned extensively concerning his mental health. Corey reported to those
doctors that his father had been accidentally shot. Tr. 1037, Ex. C. The report
indicated that Corey reported to the doctors that Hawkey had been physically and
mentally abusive, but was evasive when questioned. Ex. C. Knox admitted that
during his hospitalization for depression, Corey repeatedly told the doctors that he
had accidentally shot Robert. Tr. 1040. The physical exam prior to his admission
-21-
Case No. 4-14-03
revealed no signs of abuse. Tr. 1042-43. Knox admitted that in all of the medical
records, there were no physical signs of abuse other than the one scar above his
penis and the origin of that could have other causes than the one given by Corey.
Tr. 1045-69. Knox determined that Corey’s statements were believable because
they were “complex”. Tr. 1114.
{¶28} On redirect, Knox testified that Corey missed more school while
living with Hawkey than he missed during the year he lived with his grandparents.
Tr. 1118-20. She also testified that psychological abuse leaves mental scars, but
not visible ones. Tr. 1133. However, Knox admitted on re-cross-examination that
the claims of psychological abuse are solely based upon statements of Corey with
no evidence to corroborate them. Tr. 1137.
{¶29} Catherine Connell (“Connell”) testified that she was employed as a
child and adolescent forensic interviewer for the FBI. Tr. 1157. She interviewed
Corey on October 17, 2012. Tr. 1167. According to Connell, Corey’s interview
disclosures to her were generally consistent with his prior statements to other
interviewers. Tr. 1172.
{¶30} On cross-examination, Connell admitted that Corey did not disclose
any sexual abuse by his grandparents, being forced to eat feces, being choked until
he passed out, or being forced to take cold baths during his interview with her. Tr.
1174-79. Corey also claimed that the incident in which Hawkey cut him with a
-22-
Case No. 4-14-03
butter knife was an accident because she only meant to scare him, not to actually
cut him. Tr. 1183. Corey’s statements to her were that Hawkey had gone to the
scaffolding with him and told him to jump while she was there. Tr. 1190. Corey
also told her that he did not have a bedroom and was forced to sleep in the laundry
room or a closet. Tr. 1190. According to Connell, Corey was very sure that
Hawkey first mentioned that Robert had brain cancer three days before the
shooting. Tr. 1192. During her interview with Corey, he indicated that Hawkey
was trying to kill Gary by putting poison in his coffee, though he admitted he had
not seen her do so. Tr. 1194-95. Corey claimed that he did not like Emily because
she was mean to him. Tr. 1196. Corey also alleged that Hawkey forced him to
stand outside in little or no clothing and that he had been deprived of food. Tr.
1199.
{¶31} The sixteenth witness for the State was James Hardie (“Hardie”), a
Supervisory Special Agent for the FBI in the violent crimes against children
section. Tr. 1220. Hardie testified that the crime scene photos appeared to have
been staged. Tr. 1227-29. He also was convinced that Corey was afraid of
Hawkey and Hawkey’s knowledge of that, in his opinion, was evidence that Corey
had reason to be afraid of her. Tr. 1233. During the course of his investigation, he
became concerned about Gary’s safety, so the decision was made to arrest
Hawkey. Tr. 1241. On cross-examination, the witness admitted that any police
-23-
Case No. 4-14-03
reports that existed showing contact between Corey and law enforcement had no
indication that Corey was being physically abused.2 Tr. 1253. Hardie also
admitted that Hawkey had denied abusing Corey in any way during his interview.
Tr. 1261. However, he testified that Corey’s statements were credible because he
was taking responsibility and had asked if he would be going to jail for shooting
Robert. Tr. 1256.
{¶32} Kristi Phlipot (“K. Phlipot”) testified that Corey came to live with
her family when he left home. Tr. 1304. When she lived across the street from
Hawkey, she found her unpleasant and did not like how she wanted the children to
always work instead of playing. Tr. 1307. K. Phlipot recounted how Corey
became very upset one time when Hawkey came to pick him up. Tr. 1308-1309.
In the summer of 2011, her husband found what they took to be a suicide note
written by Corey, so they took him to the Coping Center and he moved out soon
after he left the hospital. Tr. 1310-15.
{¶33} Lisa Nusbaum (“Nusbaum”) testified that she was Corey’s fifth
grade teacher. Tr. 1317. She recalled Corey wearing long sleeves and jeans a lot,
but never had any concerns about his well-being. Tr. 1318. Hawkey told her that
the shooting was caused by the dog running by and knocking the loaded gun. Tr.
2
The witness was very evasive during cross-examination and did not wish to confirm that there had been
instances where the police had contact with Corey and Hawkey after the shooting and had seen no signs of
abuse, even though the officers had filed reports and had testified to such.
-24-
Case No. 4-14-03
1319. On cross-examination, Nusbaum testified that she never saw any marks on
Corey. Tr. 1325. She also admitted that Hawkey could have been telling that
story to take the focus off of Corey. Tr. 1327.
{¶34} Sherry Bell (“Bell”), Corey’s maternal grandmother was the
nineteenth witness for the State. Tr. 1333. Bell testified that she did not see
Corey as a toddler when her daughter had custody of him. Tr. 1334. However,
when Robert married Hawkey, Robert asked her to let Corey stay with her and her
husband because Corey was upsetting the family. Tr. 1335. Corey lived with her
for a year, and during that time, neither Robert nor Hawkey made contact with
Corey. Tr. 1336. Later, Corey returned to live with Robert and Hawkey before
coming back to Bell’s house for another year. Tr. 1337-38. Bell testified that it
was only in the last couple of years that she had renewed her relationship with
Corey. Tr. 1344.
{¶35} Mark Rebber (“Rebber”) testified that he dated Hawkey in 2008 and
allowed Hawkey and the children to live with him for a couple of weeks when she
was having financial issues. Tr. 1357-59. Hawkey told him that Robert died
when Corey tripped over the gun and it accidentally fired. Tr. 1358. While they
lived at his home, Corey was the one who was always doing work. Tr. 1360. In
his opinion, Hawkey was verbally abusive to Corey. Tr. 1362. According to
Rebber, Emily was always at her grandmother’s home, Garrett was with Judy all
-25-
Case No. 4-14-03
the time, and Corey did the work. Tr. 1364. However, on cross-examination, he
admitted that they only lived together for a couple of weeks and that he never saw
Hawkey be physically abusive towards Corey. Tr. 1364.
{¶36} Wendy Forester (“Forester”) testified that she was an acquaintance of
Robert and Hawkey because they lived near each other and had children near the
same ages. Tr. 1368. The day that Corey fell from the scaffolding, Hawkey came
to her house asking for help in finding Corey. Tr. 1371. Before Forester could
help, Hawkey came back and said he had been found, but had fallen. Tr. 1371.
On cross-examination, Forester testified that she, Hawkey, and the children
interacted frequently. Tr. 1373. Hawkey was very excited to adopt Corey and
treated all the children the same. Tr. 1374. Forester’s children played with
Hawkey’s children, both in the houses and outside. Tr. 1374. Forester never saw
any sign of bruises or marks on Corey. Tr. 1375. Forester observed Robert
spending time with each of the children individually, including Corey, when he
was home. Tr. 1377. After Robert’s death, Hawkey was hysterical and was afraid
that Corey would be blamed for the shooting. Tr. 1376. Forester testified that
Hawkey was surprised at the amount of insurance money she received, but had
always been a spender, so bought stuff for the children. Tr. 1380-81. All three
children received four-wheelers and mini-bikes. Tr. 1381. Forester also testified
that both Emily and Corey were required to do chores around the house with only
-26-
Case No. 4-14-03
Garrett not doing much because of his young age. Tr. 1382-83. At no time did
Forester ever see Hawkey be physically abusive towards Corey. Tr. 1383.
{¶37} The next witness was Joe Woodbury (“Woodbury”), who dated
Hawkey for three or four years “off and on.” Tr. 1392. According to Woodbury,
Corey did what Hawkey said without arguing. Tr. 1393. Hawkey told him that
Robert had been shot when a dog knocked the gun over and it went off. Tr. 1394.
Woodbury also testified that Hawkey had bought a car for Corey and there was a
dispute when Hawkey wanted to sell the car and Corey did not. Tr. 1396.
{¶38} Robert Zeedyk (“Zeedyk”) testified that before Robert died, Hawkey
would stop by with the children after school, but Corey was not allowed to play
with toy guns because she did not want him to play with guns. Tr. 1403. Zeedyk
testified that he once heard Hawkey state that if anything happened to Robert, she
and Emily would be wealthy, but she did not mention Corey. Tr. 1406.
{¶39} Dr. Ann Salter (“Salter”) testified that she is a clinical psychologist
with a master’s in child studies who interviewed Corey at the request of the State.
Tr. 1428, 1439-40. During the interview, she was not concerned with using
leading questions because Corey had already been interviewed multiple times. Tr.
1445. She tested Corey for psychopathy, but did not find any issues. Tr. 1462.
She diagnosed Corey with post-traumatic stress disorder and determined that he
feels detached from other people, has issues trusting women and sustaining loving
-27-
Case No. 4-14-03
feelings towards them, and has issues with hypervigilance and reckless behavior.3
Tr. 1466-72. Salter testified that her diagnosis was based upon what Corey told
her and what he had told the other interviewers. Corey told her that Hawkey made
him eat feces and rub them on himself. Tr. 1489. Corey also claimed that he was
isolated and treated as a slave. Tr. 1493. Based upon the abuse claimed by Corey,
Salter determined that Corey had been traumatized and testified that traumatized
children are one of the category of children that are known to kill parents. Tr.
1495-96. In Salter’s opinion, there was no reason for Corey to kill Robert other
than Hawkey telling him to do so. Tr. 1497.
{¶40} On cross-examination, Salter testified that she did not treat people or
provide therapy for anyone. Tr. 1502. Her specialty was researching sexual abuse
and violent crimes. Tr. 1505. Prior to reaching her conclusions, she did not
review any medical records, so believed Corey when he told her that Hawkey had
taken him from the hospital against medical advice, when the records show that
was incorrect. Tr. 1518-21. Salter admitted that when Corey was hospitalized for
suicidal tendencies, he was specifically screened for post-traumatic stress disorder
and it was determined he did not suffer from it. Tr. 1528-31. She also admitted
that Corey tested normal on the test she used for functioning after trauma. Tr.
1527. Although Corey told her that he had tried to commit suicide several times,
3
The determination of reckless behavior was based upon Corey’s riding a Harley Davidson without a
helmet and working at a metal factory where he sometimes gets burned.
-28-
Case No. 4-14-03
he was evasive as to details and there was no verification of any suicidal thoughts
or attempts other than the one hospitalization. Tr. 1534-37. She did not have
Corey complete the MMPI-II test used to identify personality structure and
psychopathology, instead choosing to rely upon a psychopathy test that was based
upon her subjective opinion as to the evidence. Tr. 1544-47. Although Corey told
her that the abuse was daily, the only physical evidence was one scar. Tr. 1549-
53. Salter testified that Corey told her that he slept in the laundry room and did
not have a bedroom until after Robert died. Tr. 1561. Yet, video and photo
evidence shows that Corey did have a bedroom. Tr. 1562. Corey claimed to have
been isolated and starved, yet all the contemporaneous written records do not
corroborate those claims. Tr. 1564. Corey also claimed to not be allowed to sleep
for extended periods of time, yet the school records do not indicate there were any
issues with Corey falling asleep in school. Tr. 1565. Corey also reported to Salter
that as a child, Hawkey, Robert, and the other children would go away for the
weekend and leave him home alone to do chores. Tr. 1586. According to Salter,
Corey indicated that on the day of the shooting, Hawkey grabbed him by the neck
when he got off the bus, but the neighbor who witnessed it reported that Hawkey
put her arm around him. Tr. 1588-90. Corey also told Salter that while he was
sitting in the ambulance he was alone with Hawkey and she told him what to say.
Tr. 1593. Salter admitted that Corey did not indicate that there was an EMT
-29-
Case No. 4-14-03
and/or a deputy with him at all times and they did not corroborate Corey’s
memory. Tr. 1593. Salter admitted that Corey had psychological problems and
that his judgment had been impaired at times. Tr. 1595.
{¶41} Following Salter’s testimony, the State rested their case except for
the discussion of the admission of exhibits.4 Hawkey then presented her first
witness. Dr. Stephen Guertin (“Guertin”) testified that he is a board certified
pediatrician who operates a child abuse clinic and has done so for approximately
30 years. Tr. 1627-30. Guertin testified that he is frequently called by police and
other hospitals when abuse is suspected and that he trains new doctors on how to
recognize cases of abuse. Tr. 1630. According to Guertin, there is no medically
recognized category of abuse called “child torture”, it is just child abuse. Tr.
1636. After reviewing all of the medical records provided for Corey, Guertin
determined that there were no indications of physical abuse. Tr. 1639. If the
abuse were happening as frequently as claimed by Corey, then the records should
reflect something to substantiate the allegations. Tr. 1640. Guertin testified that if
Corey’s genitals were beaten with a belt as claimed, one would expect to see
swelling, difficulty urinating, and bruising that would last for weeks. Tr. 1642.
The medical records never indicated any sign of physical abuse that should have
been evident if there were beatings of the nature and extent claimed by Corey. Tr.
4
At that time, the State had no intention of calling Corey to testify.
-30-
Case No. 4-14-03
1646-58. Guertin also testified that Corey could not have been chronically starved
and been in the 50th percentile for weight and body mass as shown by the medical
records. Tr. 1655-56. As to the scar above the penis, Guertin testified that it could
have been caused by many different sources and indicated that the specific injury
suffered could have been from a toilet seat injury. Tr. 1667-70. A review of the
x-rays indicated that Corey had not had broken bones because even after it heals,
the x-ray will reveal former broken bones due to slight deformities in the structure
that remain. Tr. 1671. Although Corey did not receive yearly physicals and there
were gaps in his medical history, the growth parameters of the records and the
pictures taken do not indicate a child who was chronically starved as claimed by
Corey. Tr. 1672. Guertin also testified that Corey was not taken out of the
hospital against medical advice after the fall from the scaffold because that would
have been well documented in the record for liability purposes, and nothing was
included. Tr. 1695. On cross-examination, Guertin admitted that it was possible
that Corey had been abused over the years and had never reported it to any of the
medical professionals that he saw. Tr. 1678-92.
{¶42} Before Hawkey called her next witness, the State proceeded to have
its exhibits admitted. Upon learning that some of the exhibits would not be
admissible because they were hearsay, the State determined that it would like to
reopen its case and call Corey to testify. The trial court permitted the State to do
-31-
Case No. 4-14-03
so, and Corey then took the stand. Corey testified that when he was little, he lived
with his father and paternal grandmother. Tr. 1764. He then moved to Indiana to
live with his maternal grandparents while he attended kindergarten. Tr. 1766.
After kindergarten, he returned to Ohio to live with his father, Robert, and
Hawkey, who had married Robert. Tr. 1767. Corey testified that Hawkey did not
want him to have contact with Robert and did not want Corey to be a part of the
family. Tr. 1768-69. The relationship between Hawkey and Corey was not good
in Corey’s opinion, and he testified that there was physical, emotional, and mental
abuse. Tr. 1770. Corey testified that Hawkey once put a butter knife above his
penis, told him he was going to become a girl, and accidentally cut him. Tr. 1771.
Hawkey made him dress up like a girl at times. Tr. 1772. On other occasions,
Hawkey forced him to lie in a tub of ice water or forced him to eat dog food and
dog fecal matter. Tr. 1773-74. Corey believed that Hawkey had attempted to
make Robert think that Corey was crazy. Tr. 1775. Corey testified that Hawkey
would pull on his genitals and would burn them with a lighter. Tr. 1775.
According to Corey, the abuse happened on a “pretty regular basis” as a form of
punishment. Tr. 1776.
{¶43} On the day of the shooting, Hawkey met Corey at the bus and told
him he was to shoot Robert that day. Tr. 1778. Corey testified that Hawkey had
left the loaded gun in the laundry room and told him how to set the scene
-32-
Case No. 4-14-03
afterwards. Tr. 1779. Hawkey had told him that Robert had brain cancer and
wanted Corey to do this so that the family would be taken care of financially. Tr.
1778-79. When Hawkey left with Emily and Garrett, Corey went into the house
and saw the gun in the laundry room. Tr. 1781. Corey testified that he took the
magazines into the bedroom and put them around Robert on the bed. Tr. 1782.
Corey then pointed the gun at Robert, but it did not fire. Tr. 1783. Corey then
realized that he had to cock the gun, so he went back into the bedroom, put the gun
near Robert’s head, and pulled the trigger, firing the gun. Tr. 1783-84. Corey
testified that he had no choice but to shoot Robert because Hawkey threatened to
kill him if he did not do so. Tr. 1785. After Corey shot Robert, he called 9-1-1.
Tr. 1788. The operator told him how to perform CPR and Corey told her he was
doing so, but he did not attempt it. Tr. 1790-91. When the deputy arrived, he told
him the story that Hawkey had previously told him to tell. Tr. 1952.
{¶44} Corey testified that he had never told anyone about the shooting or
the abuse because he was afraid. Tr. 1794. Corey testified that he wrote a paper
about the abuse, but the teacher did not read it. Tr. 1795. Corey testified that he
first told about the abuse when he thought about committing suicide, but that he
still did not tell about the shooting. Tr. 1798. Corey also testified that when he
was a child and anyone questioned him about the bruises, he just stated that he
fell. Tr. 1799. When too many questions were asked, Hawkey switched from
-33-
Case No. 4-14-03
beating him everywhere to beating, grabbing and burning his genitals. Tr. 1799.
Corey testified that before Robert’s death, Hawkey told him to climb up the
scaffolding and let go so that he would fall and likely die. Tr. 1801. He did not
recall how he actually fell. Tr. 1805. According to Corey, Hawkey did not allow
him to play sports and she did not put him in counseling after the shooting. Tr.
1810-1813. Although Hawkey had bought him a car, she later sold it. Tr. 1815.
{¶45} On cross-examination, Corey testified that although he was alone
with Vandemark, he told him the shooting was an accident. Tr. 1820. He also
told the doctors at the hospital in 2011 that the shooting was an accident. Tr.
1822. In 2012, Corey told Vandemark that Hawkey had told him Robert had brain
cancer a month before the shooting. Tr. 1823. Corey admitted that he had lied to
the deputy at that time, because it was only a couple days before the shooting that
Hawkey had mentioned cancer. Tr. 1825. Corey also admitted telling
interviewers that he had been beaten his entire life every day with various items,
including hammers, pans, shovels, belts, flyswatters, brooms, rolling pins, and
hands and that these beatings left him covered in bruises. Tr. 1826-27. However,
he told Salter that the beatings occurred a couple of times a day. Tr. 1828. He
also claimed that his genitals were beaten with a belt and burned by a lighter on a
daily basis until he moved out of the house. Tr. 1829. Corey had no explanation
as to why no injuries from these daily beatings were ever noted upon medical
-34-
Case No. 4-14-03
examinations. Tr. 1831. Corey admitted that although he claimed he did not play
sports because Hawkey would not let him, he did not participate in sports after he
moved out either. Tr. 1833. Corey also admitted that he missed as much school
after he moved out of Hawkey’s home as he did when he lived with her and
claimed she was the one keeping him out of school. Tr. 1835. Corey testified that
prior to the shooting he was starved, was not allowed to eat with the family, and
was only allowed to eat and sleep in the laundry room. Tr. 1837-38. However,
when he was alone with Robert, Corey did not ever bring anything up to him. Tr.
1838-39. Corey admitted that his statements to the various interviewers contained
some inconsistencies, including telling one interviewer that he was not permitted
to go to Robert’s funeral when he did go. Tr. 1840-48. Corey testified that
Hawkey was alone with him in the ambulance and told him what to say, but had
no explanation as to why the EMT’s and Vandemark testified that someone was
with Corey at all times until he left the scene. Tr. 1851-52. Corey admitted that
he told Salter that he would have told the police that the shooting was not an
accident if he had ever been alone with them, but he had not done so despite
having the opportunities. Tr. 1853. Corey also admitted that he had told
Vandemark that he had seen Hawkey put what he thought was poison in Gary’s
coffee, but he had not really seen it. Tr. 1857. Although Corey told Salter that he
was never allowed to have fun and had always been left behind to do chores while
-35-
Case No. 4-14-03
the others were gone, he identified pictures of himself at Chuck E. Cheese, Sea
World, the county fair, water parks, the race track in Indianapolis, various zoos,
and Cedar Point. Tr. 1859-63.
{¶46} At this point in the trial, the State concluded its presentation of
evidence for a second time, and Hawkey continued the presentation of her
witnesses. The second witness for Hawkey was Dr. Phillip Esplin (“Esplin”), who
was a psychologist who specialized in forensic questioning of children who were
victims of crimes. Tr. 1921-22. Esplin testified that forensic interviews are
conducted for the purpose of investigation, not treatment and thus must be handled
more carefully to avoid suggesting events to the subject. Tr. 1928. Esplin
testified that memories based upon traumatic events are reconstructive in nature,
so are more subject to influence and more prone to error. Tr. 1939. When one
conducts a forensic interview, the interviewer needs to look for facts that confirm
the situation as well as facts that contradict the memory because independent
records are more reliable than a witness’ memory after a decade of time has
passed. Tr. 1940. According to Esplin, the memory over time is subject to
postdiction, which makes them more prone to error. Tr. 1941. Based upon his
review of the records, as he was not able to meet with Corey, Esplin concluded
that Corey’s life was chaotic and stressful. Tr. 1936, 1942. “[Esplin] had
concerns about how reliable the boy’s present beliefs may be relative to historical
-36-
Case No. 4-14-03
events, so felt that there should be a concentration on attempting some
corroboration, or relying, increasing reliance on corroboration.” Tr. 1942. The
records indicated that Corey’s self-report did not correspond with the written
records and that they varied over time. Tr. 1943. Esplin pointed to Corey’s
statement to Salter that Hawkey removed him from the hospital against medical
advice when the records specifically indicated that he was fine and that the family
was supportive and cooperative. Tr. 1944. Esplin also pointed to Corey’s
statement that the beatings intensified after he won a student of the month award at
school, but the records show that he did not win the award, but that Emily had won
a student of the week award. Tr. 1945. Esplin was also concerned about Salter’s
diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder based upon a subjective test when he
was screened by a psychiatrist for the disorder using a specialized screening tool
that ruled it out and there were no significant elevations in the screening tool used
by Salter. Tr. 1946-47. Another issue that struck Esplin was Corey’s claim of the
severity of the abuse although he was allowed to have a great deal of contact
outside the home, which would be unusual in situations described by Corey. Tr.
1948. According to Esplin, the written records contemporaneous to the time frame
of the alleged abuse along with the missing suspicions from mandatory reporters
do not corroborate Corey’s claim of severe abuse. Tr. 1948-55. The written
records also did not corroborate Corey’s claims of attempted isolation. Tr. 1949.
-37-
Case No. 4-14-03
Esplin was concerned that Salter used a clinical interview format rather than a
forensic one because she used suggestive questions. Tr. 1957-58. “[T]he more
you interview an alleged victim, the more risk you’ll have – you’re going to have
of getting inaccurate information, so you want to be increasingly careful * * *.”
Tr. 1958. Additionally, Esplin testified that when he read Corey’s repeated
statements, it reminded him of a book called “A Child Called ‘It’” due to the
similarities. Tr. 1961. Esplin testified that the book had been very popular and
described a boy who was treated like a slave by his mother, was tortured, and was
forced to suffer horrible and unusual treatment. Tr. 1962.
{¶47} Esplin then compared the claims of Corey to those in the book. Both
had the mother as the source of extreme abuse. Tr. 1965. Both the book and
Corey stated that the daily abuse started at age four and progressed in severity. Tr.
1966. The book talked about the boy being forced to stand in one place for long
periods of time and suffering severe physical abuse if he did not do so. Tr. 1967.
Corey told interviewers that Hawkey would require him to be in forced position
holds for hours and he would be severely beaten if he broke position. Tr. 1967.
The book talked about the boy being thrown about the room and into objects. Tr.
1968-69. Corey claimed the same. Tr. 1969. In the book, the victim claimed to
have been burned and made to lie above flames. Tr. 1969. Corey claimed that
Hawkey burned him with the flame from a lighter. Tr. 1969. In the book, the
-38-
Case No. 4-14-03
mother made up incidents of misbehavior about the son to report to the father. Tr.
1971. Corey told interviewers that Hawkey created scenarios to make his father
think he was a bad child or crazy. Tr. 1971. The victim in the book was only
given his sibling’s leftovers to eat. Tr. 1972. Corey claimed that he usually only
got to eat whatever was left over from Emily and Garrett. Tr. 1972. The victim in
the book claimed to have been accidentally stabbed in the kitchen. Tr. 1972-73.
Corey claimed to have been accidentally cut by Hawkey in the bathroom, though
claimed it was in the kitchen in one interview. Tr. 1972-73. In both the book and
Corey’s statements, the mother was the person in charge of all discipline. Tr.
1973. The victim in the book claimed to be made to do chores all day. Tr. 1974.
Corey made the same claim. Tr. 1974. In the book, the victim was punished for
sitting or lying down. Tr. 1974-75. Corey claimed that he was punished if he sat
down or fell asleep while being in a forced position hold. Tr. 1975. The victim in
the book and Corey both claim to be treated like a slave. Tr. 1975. In the book,
the victim claimed to have been forced to eat feces and rub them on his body. Tr.
1975. Corey made the same claim. Tr. 1975. The book victim reported having to
resort to eating scraps from the dog’s bowl. Tr. 1976. Corey likewise claimed to
have eaten the scraps from the dog’s bowl and the dog food. Tr. 1976. Both the
victim in the book and Corey claimed to be isolated while the family ate meals.
Tr. 1976. The victim in the book was made to sleep in the garage, and was forced
-39-
Case No. 4-14-03
to toilet there. Tr. 1977. Corey claimed to be made to sleep in the laundry room
and to toilet there when denied access to a bathroom. Tr. 1977. The victim in the
book reported losing consciousness from severe abuse and being revived by his
mother only to have the abuse continue. Tr. 1978. Corey claimed to have been
choked or beaten until he passed out and then revived by Hawkey to have the
abuse continue. Tr. 1978. The victim in the book had no self-respect and was
sometimes kept out of school. Tr. 1979. Corey reported the same. Tr. 1979. The
mother in the book dreamed up new and hideous forms of punishment and torture,
while Corey claimed that Hawkey invented new ways to inflict pain. Tr. 1980. In
the book, the victim referred to his siblings as his mother’s little Nazis. Tr. 1980-
81. Corey stated that Emily was just like Judy. Tr. 1980-81. Both the victim in
the book and Corey claimed to have been threatened with death by their mothers.
Tr. 1981. In the book, the victim claims to have been starved for up to ten days
without food. Tr. 1981. Corey claimed to have been denied food or water for
days at a time. Tr. 1981. Both Corey and the victim in the book claimed to have
needed to sneak food and to be punished if caught. Tr. 1982. The victim in the
book claimed to have been made to stay home during family trips. Tr. 1982.
Corey claimed that Judy and Robert would take the other kids on trips and leave
him home alone to do chores. Tr. 1982. Both Corey and the victim in the book
claimed to have been isolated outdoors for hours. Tr. 1982-83. The victim in the
-40-
Case No. 4-14-03
book claimed to be forced into a cold bath for hours and that his head was forced
underwater. Tr. 1983. Corey made the same claim. Tr. 1983. In the book, the
victim claimed to have been hit with a broom. Tr. 1984. Corey also claimed to be
hit with a broom along with many other implements. Tr. 1984. The victim in the
book and Corey both claim that they were denied access to their fathers. Tr. 1984.
The victim in the book claimed that his mother made his life miserable and
brainwashed siblings. Tr. 1984-85. Corey stated that Hawkey made his life
miserable and that he was afraid she had brainwashed Garrett into hating him. Tr.
1984-85. The victim in the book and Corey both claim they were not allowed
friends. Tr. 1985. In the book, the victim claimed his mother told him to jump off
a boat so he would drown, but he did not do so. Tr. 1985. Corey claimed that he
was told to jump into a pond wearing his Halloween costume so that he would
drown, but that he did not do it. Tr. 1985. The book victim was not allowed to do
well in school. Tr. 1986. Corey told Salter that he was not allowed to get good
grades and that he was beaten when he was awarded student of the month. Tr.
1986. Both the victim in the book and Corey claimed to have been choked and
that they were lucky to be alive. Tr. 1986-87. Both claimed to have been called
names by their mother and to have received few or no Christmas presents when
growing up. Tr. 1987. In Esplin’s opinion, there were striking similarities
between the book and Corey’s allegations. Tr. 1989-90.
-41-
Case No. 4-14-03
{¶48} On cross-examination, Esplin testified that he was paid $400 an hour
for document review and $4,000 a day for work. Tr. 1992. Although Esplin has
testified for the State in some cases, he usually testifies for the defense. Tr. 2025.
Esplin admitted that if Corey had never read the book, the connection would be
irrelevant. Tr. 2052. However, the type of abuse in the book is statistically
unusual. Tr. 2054.
{¶49} The next witness for Hawkey was JoEllen Culberson who was the
school librarian for Central Local Schools when Corey was a student there. Tr.
2065. She testified that the school library had multiple copies of “A Child Called
‘It’” and that it was a popular book amongst the students. Tr. 28.
{¶50} Sharon Schock (“Schock”) testified that she was the social worker
who completed the homestudy for Hawkey and Robert when Hawkey adopted
Corey in 2001. Tr. 2073-76. At the time of the homestudy, Corey had been in the
home for years. Tr. 2079. Schock testified that she had training as a child abuse
investigator and saw no indications of physical abuse, neglect or malnutrition
when she conducted the home study. Tr. 2080. The children in the home were
clean, had beds, attended school, and received affection. Tr. 2080. Schock
testified that she found Corey to be in good health on a physical, emotional, and
mental level. Tr. 2080. She observed positive interactions between Corey and
Hawkey as well as between Corey, Emily and Garrett. Tr. 2080-82. Schock
-42-
Case No. 4-14-03
testified that she had spoken to the principal at Corey’s school, who was listed as a
reference, and he recommended the adoption. Tr. 2089. Likewise, Corey’s first
grade teacher recommended the adoption. Tr. 2089. A neighbor told her that
Corey was given lots of attention by Hawkey and recommended the adoption as
well. Tr. 2090. When Schock met Corey, he appeared happy about the adoption
and she saw no indication that Corey was afraid of Hawkey. Tr. 2090-91. On
cross-examination, Schock admitted that the visit was prescheduled and her
knowledge was based upon information from the family. Tr. 2099, 2108-11.
However, she indicated on redirect that if she would have seen signs of abuse, she
would have noted it and would not have approved the home study. Tr. 2114.
{¶51} The fifth witness for Hawkey was Emily. Emily testified that she
never saw Corey being abused by Hawkey. Tr. 2127. On the day that Corey left,
Judy was upset. Tr. 2129. Emily testified that before he left, Corey told Judy
“I’m going to pin this on you, you b***h. He said, I hate you, you’re going to pay
for this.” Tr. 2129. Emily then suspected that Corey was going to blame Hawkey
for killing Robert. Tr. 2130. Emily also testified that on one instance she saw
Corey walking back to the house with Robert and he was bleeding near the
waistband of his pants. Tr. 2132. Robert and Corey did not tell her what
happened, but she saw blood on Corey’s underwear near the waistband of his
pants. Tr. 2133. Emily claimed that she had seen Corey with a copy of the book
-43-
Case No. 4-14-03
“A Child Called ‘It’”. Tr. 2134. She admitted that she and Corey sometimes
skipped school by telling Hawkey that they were sick and she would just let them
stay home. Tr. 2134-35.
{¶52} Emily testified that on the day of the shooting, she got off the bus
with Corey and they were met by Hawkey. Tr. 2136. Emily claimed that Hawkey
put her arms around both of them and they talked on the way to the house. Tr.
2136. When they got to the house, they had to go to her grandmother’s house, but
Corey refused to go. Tr. 2137. Hawkey then took Emily and Garret and they left
Corey behind with Robert, who was sleeping. Tr. 2137. Emily denied that
Hawkey ever told Corey to kill Robert while they were walking from the bus. Tr.
2137. While at her grandmother’s house, Hawkey received a call and was
devastated and crying. Tr. 2139.
{¶53} Emily denied that Corey was isolated from the family. Tr. 2139.
She identified Ex. ZZ as a video of Christmas which showed Corey getting
presents and Hawkey sweeping the floor in the background. Tr. 2140-42. Emily
denied that Corey did all of the chores, and testified that she and Corey each did
chores and they would switch from day to day as to who had to do what. Tr. 2142.
Emily testified that she had previously had a good relationship with Corey. Tr.
2143. She claimed that there was a feud with the neighbors and the boys would
knock her off her bike, so Corey would then knock them off their bikes in
-44-
Case No. 4-14-03
retaliation. Tr. 2143. She identified Ex. AAA as a video the neighbors made,
which showed Corey riding his own bike. Tr. 2147-49. Emily then identified
numerous exhibits as pictures representative of her childhood with Corey. Tr.
2150-86. The numerous pictures showed Corey riding his dirt bike, the two of
them riding on a go-kart that Hawkey had bought them, Corey and Garrett at the
fair, all of them at Castaway Bay, at the zoo, and playing on the reservoir. She
identified pictures of herself and Corey playing dress-up in her room, and
numerous pictures of Corey without a shirt. Emily testified that at Christmas,
Corey either got numerous presents like her and Garrett or they got something big,
such as a four-wheeler. Tr. 2159. Emily also identified pictures of Corey with
numerous other extended family members. She identified one photo of Corey in a
school play and one of him wearing short sleeves in a school photo. Emily
testified that Corey always ate with the family, and that he ate not only his food,
but whatever she did not eat. Tr. 2180. Emily denied that Corey ate in the laundry
room. Tr. 2180. Emily testified that she and Corey went trick or treating together
and identified numerous photos of Corey wearing shorts and no shirt. Tr. 2183.
Emily also identified pictures of Corey eating and photos of Corey in his bedroom.
Tr. 2186. According to Emily, their childhood was good and included them
working and playing together. Tr. 2187-88.
-45-
Case No. 4-14-03
{¶54} On cross-examination, Emily testified that Hawkey had told her that
the gun fell off and the dog hit it causing it to fire and kill Robert. Tr. 2203. Emily
read in the paper that it was a hunting accident. Tr. 2203. Emily admitted that she
was not cooperative with the FBI interviewer, but claimed it was because she was
angry, she had asked for an attorney, and the interviewer did not get her one. Tr.
2204, 2225. Emily testified that Robert had always told her never to answer
questions from law enforcement or sign any papers they give you without talking
to a lawyer. Tr. 2206. Emily admitted that she told the FBI that she was
concerned about Hawkey’s health and that Hawkey had liver cancer and was sick
a lot. Tr. 2209. Emily also admitted that she spoke with Hawkey about her
testimony, but denied that she was only saying what Hawkey told her to say. Tr.
2212. Emily admitted that Hawkey tries to control where she goes and monitors
the car. Tr. 2213-14, 2222. Emily explained this control by stating that since the
car belongs to Hawkey and Gary and she is living in their house, she has to follow
their rules. Tr. 2213-14, 2222. Emily admitted that she told the FBI that Corey
was “nothing but trouble” and that she was angry at Corey for just walking out of
the family. Tr. 2225. Emily admitted that she does have an issue with anger and
will sometimes hit a table or wall, but denied regularly striking other people. Tr.
2247. She admitted that she had struck Corey in a fight, but that he had fought too
and it was just a sibling dispute. Tr. 2259. She also admitted that Corey
-46-
Case No. 4-14-03
frequently did her homework, but denied that Hawkey made him do it. Tr. 2252.
According to Emily, she and Corey had always gotten along. Tr. 2258.
{¶55} On redirect, Emily testified that Hawkey had gallbladder surgery and
was very ill before then. Tr. 2271. She also testified that she was home and upset
the day Hawkey was arrested at the home and that she was then taken to speak to
the FBI and she did not want to do so. Tr. 2275-76. She did not know what was
happening, only that her mother was arrested and that Garrett had been taken from
the school. Tr. 2275-76. Emily testified that cancer runs in their family, so they
are always concerned about it. Tr. 2277. She also testified that it had been
difficult to interact with Hawkey while she was in jail and that they have argued
many times as Hawkey tries to parent from the jail. Tr. 2277.
{¶56} The last witness for Hawkey was her husband Gary. Gary testified
that he married Hawkey in October of 2010 and that Corey had lived with them
for almost a year. Tr. 2285. During that time, he never saw Hawkey abuse Corey.
Tr. 2286. Gary testified that on one occasion, he came in the house to see Corey
holding Hawkey against the wall with a smile on his face. Tr. 2286. When Corey
saw Gary, he stopped smiling and let Hawkey go. Tr. 2286. Hawkey appeared
upset and did not want to talk about it. Tr. 2286. Corey walked into the living
room and started watching television. Tr. 2286. When Gary questioned him about
it, he just got up and walked out. Tr. 2286. Gary testified that on one occasion,
-47-
Case No. 4-14-03
Hawkey had put ibuprofen in his coffee and he did not know it. Tr. 2287. On
another occasion, she had put an energy drink in his coffee, but he spit it out when
he tasted it. Tr. 2287. He claimed that the energy drink was added because he had
been tired. Tr. 2287. Gary testified that Hawkey was a good mother, but was
very outspoken and would tell the kids if she thought they were wrong. Tr. 2288.
Gary denied that he increased his life insurance at Hawkey’s request, instead
stating that he did it because he could get increased insurance from $75,000 to
$100,000 at the same cost. Tr. 2289-90. Gary testified that Hawkey had never
tried to poison him, he had never been ill since getting married, and he had not
missed any work since he had been married. Tr. 2291. According to Gary, his
relationship with Corey was distant and he found Corey to be “kind of a smart
a**”. Tr. 2291. Gary testified that Corey did not like him and was critical of Gary
because he kept old stuff instead of always buying new items. Tr. 2291-92. While
Corey lived with them, Gary was concerned that he was using drugs because he
frequently had glassy eyes. Tr. 2292. Gary testified that Hawkey had denied
doing what Corey claimed and did not understand why he was making the claims.
Tr. 2294. While living in the house with Corey, Gary saw no indication that any
abuse of Corey was occurring. Tr. 2295.
{¶57} On cross-examination, Gary testified that he had married Judy a few
months after the death of his first wife. Tr. 2296. Gary admitted that there was
-48-
Case No. 4-14-03
conflict between his children and Hawkey, but denied that Hawkey was trying to
keep him away from his children. Tr. 2297 Gary blamed his first wife’s family
for the conflict because they were not happy he was getting remarried so soon. Tr.
2297-98. After he married Hawkey, there was property damage around the house
and to his vehicle. Tr. 2307-08. Gary believed that Corey was the one who had
done the damage. Tr. 2308. The State asked Gary if he had seen evidence that
Garrett was the one causing the damage, but Gary stated he had not seen that
evidence. Tr. 2308.
{¶58} On rebuttal, the State put on evidence to show that Emily was not
given a reading assignment to read “A Child Called ‘It’” by Mrs. Leis as Emily
had stated. Tr. 2363. However, Mrs. Leis was Emily’s math teacher, so did not
give any reading assignment and had no knowledge as to what assignments the
English teacher gave. Tr. 2364. Additionally, the State presented evidence from a
library technician that neither Emily nor Corey had checked out “A Child Called
‘It’” from one school library between 2004 and 2008. Tr. 2370. The technician
could not testify to any records after 2008 or for the libraries of the other school
that Corey and Emily had attended. Tr. 2372. She also could not say whether
Corey had ever read the book. Tr. 2373.
-49-
Case No. 4-14-03
Hearsay Testimony
{¶59} The third assignment of error raises the issue of the introduction of
hearsay evidence. “Ordinarily, a trial court is vested with broad discretion in
determining the admissibility of evidence in any particular case, so long as such
discretion is exercised in line with the rules of procedure and evidence.” Rigby v.
Lake Cty., 58 Ohio St. 3d 269, 271, 569 N.E.2d 1056 (1991). An appellate court’s
review of the admission of evidence is limited to a determination as to whether the
trial court abused its discretion. Id. “An abuse of discretion connotes more than a
mere error in judgment, it implies that the trial court’s decision was arbitrary,
unreasonable, or unconscionable.” State v. Gutierrez, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-10-
14, 2011-Ohio-3126, ¶ 22.
{¶60} Hawkey claims that the trial court erred by allowing Beck and Salter
to testify to what Corey told them. Hearsay is defined as “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.” Evid.R. 801(C). Hearsay is
generally not admissible unless there is an exception listed by the rules. Evid.R.
802.
Testimony of Lauren Beck
{¶61} Beck was permitted to testify to Corey’s statements at a ballgame in
2012 about what happened in 2003 pursuant to the excited utterance exception to
-50-
Case No. 4-14-03
the hearsay rule. Hawkey claims that this was too far removed in time to qualify
as an excited utterance.
{¶62} An excited utterance is defined as a “statement relating to a startling
event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement
caused by the event or condition.” Evid.R. 803(2).
The exception derives its guaranty of trustworthiness from the
fact the declarant is under such a state of emotional shock that
his reflective processes have been stilled. Therefore, statements
made under these circumstances are not likely to be fabricated.
2 McCormick, Evidence (5th Ed. 1999), Section 272.
It may generally be said that the trial court must focus on the
declarant’s state of mind at the time the statement was made and
that the shock of the event must be present at the time in order
for the hearsay exception to apply. McCormick has observed
that where a time interval between the event and the statement is
long enough to permit reflective thought, the statements will be
excluded in the absence of some proof that the declarant did not
in fact engage in a reflective thought process. 2 McCormick at
207, Section 272.
State v. Harr, 158 Ohio App.3d 704, 2004-Ohio-5771, 821 N.E.2d 1058, ¶121-122
(2d Dist.).
{¶63} The Ohio Supreme Court set forth a four-part test for determining
whether a statement falls within the excited utterance exception in Potter v. Baker,
162 Ohio St. 488, 124 N.E.2d 140 (1955).5 In Potter, the court held as follows:
5
This same test was recently reiterated by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Jones, 135 Ohio St.3d 10,
2012-Ohio-5677, 984 N.E.2d 948.
-51-
Case No. 4-14-03
Our conclusion is that hearsay testimony as to a statement or
declaration may be admissible under an exception to the hearsay
rule for spontaneous exclamations where the trial judge
reasonably finds (a) that there was some occurrence startling
enough to produce a nervous excitement in the declarant, which
was sufficient to still his reflective faculties and thereby make his
statements and declarations the unreflective and sincere
expression of his actual impressions and beliefs, and thus render
his statement or declaration spontaneous and unreflective, (b)
that the statement or declaration, even if not strictly
contemporaneous with its exciting cause, was made before there
had been time for such nervous excitement to lose a domination
over declarant's reflective faculties so that such domination
continued to remain sufficient to make his statements and
declarations the unreflective and sincere expression of his actual
impressions and beliefs, (c) that the statement or declaration
related to such startling occurrence or the circumstances of such
startling occurrence, and (d) that the declarant had an
opportunity to observe personally the matters asserted in his
statement or declaration.
Id. at 500-501. In reaching this conclusion, the Court held that the utterance must
have occurred before the declarant had time to contrive the statement and
misrepresent the facts. Id. at 496 (citing 6 Wigmore on Evidence (3 Ed.), 142,
155, Section 1749). However, the Court also required that there be flexibility in
the determination of the length of time permitted under the exception. Id.
{¶64} In State v. Duncan, the Ohio Supreme Court addressed whether a
statement by a six-year-old girl made two hours after the incident counted as an
excited utterance. State v. Duncan, 53 Ohio St.2d 215, 373 N.E.2d 1234 (1978).
The mother found the girl shaking violently and emerging from a closet. Upon
questioning the child described being sexually abused by her step-father. The
-52-
Case No. 4-14-03
Court allowed the child’s statements to the mother to be admitted noting that the
child had related the incident at the earliest possible time and there was no
indication that the child had engaged in reflective thought. Id. at 221. Similarly in
State v. Wallace, the Ohio Supreme Court held that a child’s statements made 15
hours after she was attacked were admissible as the child had been drifting in and
out of consciousness. State v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 87, 524 N.E.2d 466 (1988).
“A period of unconsciousness, even an extended period, does not necessarily
destroy the effect of a startling event upon the mind of the declarant for the
purpose of satisfying the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.” Id. at
90.
{¶65} In State v. Boston, the Ohio Supreme Court addressed whether the
statements of a two-and-one-half-year-old child to her mother that were made
several hours after the alleged assault occurred were admissible under the excited
utterance exception to the hearsay rule. State v. Boston, 46 Ohio St.3d 108, 545
N.E.2d 1220 (1989). The Court determined that given the facts of the case before
it, including the shocking nature of the assault and the age of the declarant, it was
reasonable for the trial court to determine that the child was still in a state of
excitement when she made the statement. Id. at 118. The Court held that since
the child had reported the incident at the earliest opportunity and the record
-53-
Case No. 4-14-03
contained no evidence to show that the child had engaged in reflective thought in
the intervening time period, the evidence was admissible. Id.
{¶66} In State v. Taylor, the Ohio Supreme Court addressed directly the
timeliness requirement for a statement to be admissible pursuant to the excited
utterance exception to the hearsay rule. State v. Taylor, 66 Ohio St.3d 295, 612
N.E.2d 316 (1993). In Taylor the trial court admitted the testimony of a witness as
to statements made by the victim to the witness. The statements concerned a
threat to kill the victim by the defendant, which had been made the night before
the victim told the witness about it. The Court in Taylor quoted Weissenberger’s
Ohio Evidence as stating
Reactive excited statements are considered more trustworthy
than hearsay generally on the dual grounds that, first, the
stimulus renders the declarant incapable of fabrication and,
second, the impression on the declarant’s memory at the time of
the statement is still fresh and intense. Accordingly, Rule 803(2)
assumes that excited utterances are not flawed by lapses of
memory or risks of insincerity.”
Id. at 300 (quoting Weissenberger’s Ohio Evidence (1992), Section 803.16). The
Court held as follows.
There is no per se amount of time after which a statement can no
longer be considered to be an excited utterance. The central
requirements are that the statement must be made while the
declarant is still under the stress of the event and the statement
may not be a result of reflective thought.
Therefore the passage of time between the statement and the
event is relevant but not dispositive of the question. “[E]ach case
-54-
Case No. 4-14-03
must be decided on its own circumstances, since it is patently
futile to attempt to formulate an inelastic rule delimiting the
time limits within which an oral utterance must be made in
order that it be termed a spontaneous exclamation.
Id. at 303. The testimony in Taylor was that the declarant was upset. However,
“[m]erely being ‘upset’ clearly does not meet the standard for admissibility under
Evid.R. 803(2) because it does not show that [the victim’s] statements were not
the result of reflective thought.” Id.
{¶67} The facts in this case indicate that Corey was making his statements
to Beck concerning the shooting of Robert almost nine years after the incident.
Likewise, the abuse allegedly suffered at the hands of Hawkey ended when Corey
moved out of the house in May of 2011. Thus, the conversation between Beck
and Corey was occurring ten months after the incident which may have been
considered abuse. Beck testified that Corey was very upset and because of his
being upset, the trial court allowed the testimony to enter as an excited utterance.
However, the trial court did not consider whether there had been time for Corey to
calm down and reflect on what had happened. The facts in this case are that Corey
had nine years to reflect on the shooting of Robert. When he was taken to the
Coping Clinic due to his threatened suicide, he was upset as well, yet he still
claimed the shooting was accidental. What would make the statements in 2012
while upset more reliable than the statements made in 2011 while also upset?
Even if the stress could be said to continue while Corey remained in the household
-55-
Case No. 4-14-03
and was subject to Hawkey’s abuse, he had been out of that house for almost a
year and had already disclosed to doctors that he had been abused. The evidence
was that Corey had been treated for depression after he left the home and was
living on his own. During that time he disclosed to the doctors the abuse and
could have disclosed the shooting, but he did not do so. This court does not find
that in the nearly ten years since the shooting of Robert, Corey had no time to
reflect on what had happened. While there is no set time limit pursuant to the rule,
the passage of nearly a decade, along with the specific facts of this case indicate
that there was a break between the excitement of the incident and the disclosure.
Thus Corey’s statements lack the indicia of reliability required for admission
pursuant to the excited utterance exception. Beck should not have been permitted
to testify as to what Corey told her almost a decade after the incident since Corey
had time to calm down and reflect on the situation. Thus, the trial court erred in
admitting the testimony of Beck as to this issue.
{¶68} In order for the admission of hearsay evidence to result in a reversal
of the conviction, there must be a showing of prejudice. State v. Deanda, 3d. Dist.
Seneca No. 13-10-23, 2014-Ohio-3668, ¶39, 17 N.E.3d 1232. “Hearsay
statements admitted that are repetitious of admissible statements and are supported
by overwhelming evidence are not prejudicial.” Id. “Error is harmless if there is
no reasonable probability that the evidence may have contributed to the
-56-
Case No. 4-14-03
accused[‘s] conviction.” State v. Isham, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2013-07-124,
2014-Ohio-1689, ¶ 15. “In the final analysis, the evidence in favor of conviction,
absent the hearsay, must be so overwhelming that the admission of those
statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Brewer, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 87701, 2006-Ohio-6029, ¶ 11 (reversed on other grounds, 113 Ohio
St.3d 375, 2007-Ohio-2079). In this case, the testimony of Beck was repeated
later by Corey. However, the mere fact that a declarant later testifies does not
make the error harmless automatically. State v. Montaz-Pagan, 11th Dist.
Trumbull No. 91-T-4635, 1994 WL 321598 (June 30, 1994). It is reversible error
to allow repetitive hearsay statements of witnesses to bolster the victim’s
testimony. State v. Haney, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 87AP-561, 1987 WL 6308(Dec. 3, 1987).
{¶69} A review of all the evidence presented in this case shows that this
was not a clear case of guilt of Hawkey and the evidence was not overwhelming.
The photos of the scene of the shooting show clearly that the original story told by
Corey to the police was not supported by the physical evidence. There is no doubt
that Robert was not sitting up in the bed talking to Corey when he was shot as the
photos show no blood splatter on the wall and pooling of the blood in one spot,
which indicates that Robert’s body was not moved from the time of the shooting
until the photos were taken. There was also stippling around the wound which
-57-
Case No. 4-14-03
indicated that the shot was at close range. The pictures showed that the blankets
were not disturbed and the body had not been moved, which belied the original
claim that Corey had attempted to perform CPR. The gun, which Corey claimed
to have dropped immediately after it accidentally went off was on the opposite
side of the bed from the wound indicating that it was not immediately dropped.
The officers and the EMT’s indicated that they had concerns about the scene at the
time, but they believed the story told by the then ten year old boy. The shooting
was ruled an accident based solely upon Corey’s statements to the police despite
the contradictory physical evidence.
{¶70} Nine years later, Corey changes his story and indicates for the first
time that the shooting was intentional and that he did it because he was forced to
do so by Hawkey. All of the evidence is based upon the statements of one person,
Corey. All of the conclusions reached by the professionals and the authorities
were based upon what Corey told them. The only physical evidence to support
Corey’s claims of abuse are a scar, the origin of which is solely based upon
Corey’s statements, and the memories of two teachers that they saw bruising on
one occasion on Corey. However, the bruising was not so severe as to make them
report it to any authorities. Additionally, Corey’s statements to the various
investigators and doctors contained inconsistencies and Salter admitted to using
leading questions during her interviews. The medical records of Corey do not
-58-
Case No. 4-14-03
indicate that there were any signs of abuse. Additionally, the witnesses who
interacted with Corey and Hawkey on a regular basis denied ever seeing any
physical abuse, including the witnesses called by the State. The photos introduced
as exhibits showed Corey throughout his childhood engaged in activities with the
family and showing no indications of abuse or isolation.
{¶71} Outside of Corey’s testimony, there was little evidence offered to
prove that Hawkey committed child endangerment, which was the theory
predicating the murder charge. There was no testimony by anyone that they
actually witnessed any physical abuse of Corey by Hawkey. The only physical
evidence was a small scar, which Knox could not definitively state was a result of
abuse. Additionally, nearly all of the evidence suggesting that Corey was
emotionally or psychologically abused by Hawkey was based upon his own
statements, not observations of others. Rebber did testify that Corey was not
allowed to have friends over and was forced to do all the chores. This evidence
was contradicted by Forester who testified that Corey played with her own
children all the time and that chores were performed by both Corey and Emily.
Although a jury could choose what evidence to believe, the evidence of guilt
cannot be said to be overwhelming. Given that the dispositive issue in this case
was credibility, the effect of allowing the hearsay testimony of Beck was to bolster
Corey’s credibility. Thus, it cannot be said to have had no contribution to the
-59-
Case No. 4-14-03
convictions. The error was therefore prejudicial and is the basis for the granting of
a new trial.
Dr. Ann Salter’s Testimony
{¶72} Hawkey also challenges the admission of Salter’s testimony as to
what Corey told her on the grounds that those statements were hearsay. This court
initially notes that during the direct examination of Salter, there were very few
statements as to what Corey told her and there were no details. The State argues
in its brief that the statements were admissible as statements made for the purpose
of medical treatment. However, the evidence was that the State hired Salter to
interview Corey to confirm aspects of his story. Corey was not sent to meet with
Salter for the purpose of treatment. In fact, Salter testified that she does not treat
patients, but rather specializes in researching child abuse and violent crimes. Tr.
1502-1505. Since Corey was not seeking treatment, but was seeing Salter merely
as part of the investigation, the medical exception to hearsay is not applicable.
{¶73} Next, the State argues that Salter’s testimony as to what Corey stated
was not offered for the truth of the matter, but rather to show why she reached the
conclusions she did. The statements that Salter made concerning what Corey told
her were as follows:
A. * * * And when [Corey] described his life all through it, he
talked about beatings and other forms of child abuse by
[Hawkey].
-60-
Case No. 4-14-03
Q. Did he talk to you or did you – did he talk to you about his
concerns, his fears, where he’s at now based upon what had
happened to him?
A. Yes. He said, one thing he said was that he, if he saw
someone who even reassembled [sic] her, his heart raced and he
said, I believe, he would stop breathing and that he was still
afraid of her.
***
Q. Were Corey’s disclosures to you about some of the physical
things important in your conclusions that you reached and,
specifically, did he talk to you about eating feces, dog poop, or
human feces?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Did he talk to you about being made to rub something all
over himself?
A. Yes, sir. Feces all over himself is what he talked to me
about.
***
Q. And did Corey talk to you and give you examples that would
be consistent with what the neighbor said they [sic] saw as far as
what Corey told you that he had to do?
***
A. Okay. Yes, Corey described being isolated from other
children and made to work all the time. And various people, ex-
boyfriend, I believe, a neighbor --
Tr. 1487-93. At the time this testimony was given, the State did not expect to call
Corey to testify. Tr. 1423. Thus any statements Salter made as to what Corey
-61-
Case No. 4-14-03
stated would be hearsay. The statements made by the investigators and doctors as
to what Corey told them were the only evidence before the trial court that
supported Hawkey’s involvement in a murder or child endangerment. The trial
court noted to the State that if it excluded the interviews, as it did, there was “very,
very limited evidence that gets to the jury.” Tr. 1733. Clearly at that time, the
State was hoping that the jury would take the statements as fact and rely on them
to convict. As discussed above, the evidence supporting the convictions was not
overwhelming in this case. Therefore, Hawkey was prejudiced by the admission
of the hearsay statements. The third assignment of error is sustained.
Testimony of Expert Witness Regarding “Child Torture”
{¶74} The fourth assignment of error, Hawkey claims that the trial court
erred by overruling the Daubert motion and allowing Knox to testify concerning
child torture as a form of child abuse. When determining whether an expert’s
testimony is proper, Evidence Rule 602 sets forth the requirements.
A witness may testify as an expert if all of the following apply:
(A) The witness’ testimony either relates to matters beyond the
knowledge or experience possessed by lay persons or dispels a
misconception common among lay persons;
(B) The witness is qualified as an expert by specialized
knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education regarding
the subject matter of the testimony.
(C) The witness’ testimony is based on reliable scientific,
technical, or other specialized information. To the extent that
-62-
Case No. 4-14-03
the testimony reports the results of a procedure, test, or
experiment, the testimony is reliable only if all of the following
apply:
(1) The theory upon which the procedure, test, or experiment is
based is objectively verifiable or is validly derived from widely
accepted knowledge, facts, or principles;
(2) The design of the procedure, test, or experiment reliably
implements the theory;
(3) The particular procedure, test, or experiment was conducted
in a way that will yield an accurate result.
Evid.R. 702. “Additionally, to be admissible, the expert testimony must assist the
trier of fact in determining a fact issue or understanding the evidence.” Miller v.
Bike Athletic Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 607, 611, 1998-Ohio-178, 687 N.E.2d 735.
In [Daubert, supra], the United States Supreme Court discussed
the question of when expert scientific testimony is relevant and
reliable. In Daubert, the court was faced with the issue of
whether certain scientific evidence was admissible in a birth
defects case. The trial court, in excluding the expert testimony,
relied upon Frye v. United States * * *, which held that an
expert’s opinion is inadmissible unless it has gained “general
acceptance” in the relevant scientific community. * * * The
Daubert court expressly rejected this argument and reversed the
granting of summary judgment. Instead, it held under Fed.R.
Evid. 702, that expert scientific testimony is admissible if it is
reliable and relevant to the task at hand. * * * To determine
reliability, the Daubert court stated that a court must assess
whether the reasoning of methodology underlying the testimony
is scientifically valid. * * * In evaluating the reliability of
scientific evidence, several factors are to be considered: (1)
whether the theory or technique has been tested, (2) whether it
has been subjected to peer review, (3) whether there is a known
or potential rate of error, and (4) whether the methodology has
gained general acceptance. * * * Although these factors may aid
-63-
Case No. 4-14-03
in determining reliability, the inquiry is flexible. * * * The focus
is “solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions
that they generate.” * * *
Miller, supra at 611-612 (citations omitted).
{¶75} In this case, Knox testified that Corey was a victim of child torture as
the form of child abuse. Hawkey challenged this testimony as not being generally
accepted in the scientific community. A Daubert hearing was held on October 9,
2013. Doc. 124. At the hearing, Knox testified that the elements of “child
torture” include various forms of abuse. Child torture is the repeating of the abuse
over time. Hearing Tr. 67. Knox admitted that she has created the definition of
child torture and it has been submitted for publication, but it was not yet an
accepted, formal medical definition. Id. at 68. Hawkey argues that since this
diagnosis is not one accepted by the medical community and has yet to be subject
to peer review, Knox’s testimony diagnosing Corey as a victim of child torture
should not have been admitted.
{¶76} The admissibility of an expert’s testimony is within the sound
discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial
court abused its discretion. Valentine v. Conrad, 110 Ohio St.3d 42, 2006-Ohio-
3561, 850 N.E.2d 683, ¶ 9.
“Abuse of discretion” suggests unreasonableness, arbitrariness,
or unconscionability. Without those elements, it is not the role
of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.
-64-
Case No. 4-14-03
Id. Here, there is no doubt that the actual diagnosis of “child torture” had not been
accepted by the scientific community at the time of trial as Knox testified to this
fact. Additionally, the diagnosis of “child torture” had only been submitted for
publication at the time of trial and had not been subject to peer review. No
information was provided as to how the theory could be objectively applied.
Instead, Knox merely testified that it was a diagnosis that she had created based
upon her opinion and that she believed it would be accepted by the scientific
community. This is not sufficient to meet the requirements of Daubert. Thus, the
trial court erred by permitting Knox to testify that Corey was a victim of “child
torture” and the fourth assignment of error is sustained.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
{¶77} In the first assignment of error, Hawkey challenges whether the
verdicts are supported by sufficient evidence and whether they are against the
manifest weight of the evidence. A claim of sufficiency of the evidence raises a
due process question concerning whether the evidence is legally sufficient to
support the verdict as a matter of law. State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512, 2011-
Ohio-4215, ¶219, 954 N.E.2d 596 (citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380,
1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541). “On review of the sufficiency of the evidence to
support a criminal conviction, ‘the relevant question is whether, after viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact
-65-
Case No. 4-14-03
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’”
State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57, 2006-Ohio-160, ¶34, 840 N.E.2d 1032(quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560).
{¶78} Hawkey was indicted on six counts: one count of aggravated
murder, four counts of endangering children and one count of insurance fraud.
The counts of aggravated murder and insurance fraud were based upon the
conduct making up the charges of endangering children, so they will be discussed
after the four endangering children counts. The second count of the indictment
alleged that at some time between January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2003, Hawkey
had recklessly tortured or cruelly abused Corey in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(2).
Doc. 1. This charge was based upon the allegation that Hawkey had threatened to
cut off Corey’s penis with a knife and caused serious physical harm to Corey by
cutting him in the pubic region, thus leaving a permanent scar. Doc. 35. Corey
testified that Hawkey had put a butter knife above his penis and told him she was
going to make him a girl. Corey then indicated that Hawkey had accidentally cut
him with that knife and that injury had left a scar. The jury was shown a picture of
the remaining scar. Corey also testified that Robert had walked into the room
immediately afterward, thus showing that it occurred before his death in
November of 2003. Although Hawkey may not have intentionally cut Corey, she
was acting in a manner which a reasonable juror could find to be reckless and she
-66-
Case No. 4-14-03
was threatening severe harm to Corey. Viewing the evidence in the record of this
matter in a light most favorable to the State, there was sufficient evidence from
which a jury could determine that Hawkey had recklessly caused him serious
physical injury. A reasonable juror could also determine that the threat to cut off
Corey’s penis while holding a knife above it was emotionally abusive. Thus, the
evidence in this matter was not insufficient to have supported a conviction.
{¶79} The third count of the indictment alleged that between January 1,
2000, and December 31, 2003, Hawkey recklessly tortured or cruelly abused
Corey in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(2). Doc. 1. This charge was based upon
the allegation that Hawkey would partially fill a bathtub with ice cold water, force
Corey to sit in it, and then repeatedly force his head under the water. Doc. 35.
Corey testified that he “was forced to lay in ice water.”6 Tr. 1773. Viewing the
evidence in the record of this matter in a light most favorable to the State, a
reasonable juror could find that this was cruel treatment of Corey. The evidence
in this matter was not insufficient to have supported a conviction.
{¶80} The fourth count of the indictment alleged that between January 1,
2000, and December 31, 2003, Hawkey recklessly tortured or cruelly abused
Corey in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(2). Doc. 1. The count was based upon the
claim that Corey was forced to eat excrement. Doc. 35. Corey testified that
6
Corey did not testify at trial that Hawkey forced his head under the water, though others testified that he
had told them about that activity occurring.
-67-
Case No. 4-14-03
Hawkey would “force [him] to eat dog food and dog fecal matter.” Tr. 1774.
Corey alleged that this occurred sometime when he was in the first, second, or
third grade. Tr. 1774. Viewing the evidence in the record of this matter in a light
most favorable to the State, a reasonable juror could find that this was cruel
treatment of Corey. The evidence in this matter was not insufficient to have
supported a conviction.
{¶81} The fifth count of the indictment also set forth a charge of child
endangerment during the same time frame and in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(2).
Doc. 1. This count was based upon the allegation that Hawkey recklessly
tortured or abused Corey by exposing his genitals to a flame to cause extreme
pain, but removing the flame before any permanent damage occurred. Doc. 35.
Corey testified that before second grade, he was beat daily and was covered in
bruises. However, after teachers started asking questions, Hawkey switched to
beating his genitals and burning them with a lighter. Corey testified that Hawkey
“would pull [his] genitals and burn it with a lighter.” Tr. 1775. Corey indicated
that this happened regularly for many years. Tr. 1776-77. Given this testimony
and viewing it in a light most favorable to the State, a reasonable juror could
conclude that Hawkey had cruelly abused Corey. Thus, the evidence in this matter
was not insufficient to have supported a conviction.
-68-
Case No. 4-14-03
{¶82} The first charge was aggravated murder in violation of R.C.
2903.01(A). Doc. 1. The State alleged that Hawkey compelled Corey through the
use of physical, psychological, and emotional abuse and torturous maltreatment to
shoot Robert. Doc. 35. Corey testified at trial that he shot his father because
Hawkey told him to do so and that he was terrified of Hawkey. Corey also
testified that Hawkey told him what to do and laid out the gun for him. Tr. 1779.
According to Corey, Hawkey told him that if he did not kill Robert, she would kill
Corey. Tr. 1785. Corey testified how Hawkey had repeatedly abused him over
the years. Knox and Salter testified as to how this abuse would affect his mental
state and how it could result in him being coerced into shooting Robert. Viewing
this evidence in a light most favorable to the State, a reasonable juror could
conclude that Hawkey compelled Corey to shoot Robert through years of abuse.
The evidence in this matter was not insufficient to have supported a conviction.
{¶83} Finally, Hawkey was charged with one count of insurance fraud in
violation of R.C. 2913.47(B)(1). Doc. 1. This count was based upon the fact that
Hawkey had completed the insurance forms claiming that the death was accidental
while knowing it was not and had received over $150,000 as a result. Doc. 35.
Reeve testified that the day after Robert’s death, Hawkey came to the office and
completed the paperwork to receive the death benefits. The amount of those
benefits exceeded $300,000. Reeve also testified that Hawkey had indicated on
-69-
Case No. 4-14-03
the forms that the death was accidental and identified the forms showing such as
exhibits. Once the jury determined that the death was not accidental and that
Hawkey was responsible for the death, it could reasonably determine that Hawkey
had intentionally misstated the cause of death on the paperwork and had collected
insurance proceeds as a result. Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to
the State, a reasonable juror could conclude that Hawkey had committed insurance
fraud. The evidence in this matter was not insufficient to have supported a
conviction.
Manifest Weight of the Evidence
Hawkey also challenges that the verdicts were against the manifest weight
of the evidence. Having determined that the trial court erred to the prejudice of
Hawkey by admitting hearsay testimony and allowing Knox to testify to “child
torture”, a new trial is mandated. Thus, the manifest weight claims are rendered
moot and will not be addressed by this court. App.R. 12(A)(1)(c) and State v.
Platfoot, 183 Ohio App.3d 349, 2009-Ohio-3769, 916 N.E.2d 1147 (2d Dist.).
The first assignment of error is affirmed as to the sufficiency of the evidence as
presented herein.
Re-opening of the State’s Case in Chief
Hawkey claims in the second assignment of error that the trial court erred
in allowing the State to reopen its case after it rested to introduce the testimony of
-70-
Case No. 4-14-03
Corey. This assignment of error addresses a procedural issue that occurred in the
first trial. As this court has determined that Hawkey is entitled to a new trial, this
issue is rendered moot and will not be addressed by this court. App.R.
12(A)(1)(c).
{¶84} Having found prejudicial errors in the particulars assigned and
argued, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Defiance County is
reversed in part and affirmed in part. The matter is remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings in accord with this opinion.
Judgment Affirmed in Part,
Reversed in Part,
And Remanded for Further Proceedings
ROGERS, P.J. concurs.
PRESTON, J., concurs in Judgment Only.
/hlo
-71-