In re C.M.

Ohio Court of Appeals

In re C.M.

2022 Ohio 240

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 31, 2022

Docket1-21-31

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 2022 Ohio 240 (In re C.M.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re C.M., 2022 Ohio 240 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

[Cite as In re C.M., 2022-Ohio-240.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY

IN RE: CASE NO. 1-21-31

C.M., OPINION DELINQUENT CHILD.

Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court Juvenile Division Trial Court No. 2020 JG 37053

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: January 31, 2022

APPEARANCES:

Linda Gabriele for Appellant

Ashley R. Stansbery for Appellee Case No. 1-21-31

SHAW, J.

{¶1} Child-appellant, C.M., brings this appeal from the July 23, 2021,

judgment of the Allen County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, adjudicating

him a delinquent child and committing him to DYS after C.M. was found to have

committed Aggravated Robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), a first degree

felony if committed by an adult, with an accompanying firearm specification

pursuant to R.C. 2941.145. On appeal, C.M. argues that his adjudication was not

supported by sufficient evidence, that it was against the manifest weight of the

evidence, and that the only witness identifying him as a culprit in this matter was

improperly compelled to testify by the trial court.

Background

{¶2} On October 21, 2020, a complaint was filed alleging that C.M. was a

delinquent child due to committing Aggravated Robbery in violation of R.C.

2911.01(A)(1), a first degree felony if committed by an adult. The charge carried

an accompanying firearm specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.145. The charge and

specification stemmed from an incident that occurred in September of 2020 wherein

fifteen-year-old C.M. and another juvenile allegedly entered a residence brandishing

firearms and demanding money. One juvenile dragged his gun across a victim’s

face, causing minor injuries. The juveniles stole an iPhone 11 Pro Max from one of

-2- Case No. 1-21-31

the individuals present and left the residence. C.M. entered a denial to the

allegations in the complaint.1

{¶3} On May 17-18, 2021, the matter proceeded to an adjudication hearing.

Following the presentation of evidence, C.M. was adjudicated delinquent for

Aggravated Robbery with the accompanying firearm specification as alleged in the

complaint.

{¶4} On July 22, 2021, the case proceeded to disposition. C.M. was

committed to the care and custody of the Ohio Department of Youth Services for a

minimum period of one year to a maximum of the age of twenty-one for the

Aggravated Robbery charge. He was ordered to serve a mandatory three year

commitment at the Ohio Department of Youth Services for the firearm specification

adjudication, prior to, and consecutive to the commitment for Aggravated Robbery.

A judgment entry memorializing C.M.’s disposition was filed July 23, 2021. It is

from this judgment that C.M. appeals, asserting the following assignments of error

for our review.

Assignment of Error No. 1 The Child-Appellant’s adjudication as a delinquent child was based upon insufficient evidence.

Assignment of Error No. 2 The Child-Appellant’s adjudication as a delinquent child for Robbery is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

1 C.M. was eventually indicted for Aggravated Robbery with a firearm specification and a discretionary serious youthful offender specification; however that indictment was dismissed and the case proceeded on the original juvenile court complaint.

-3- Case No. 1-21-31

Assignment of Error No. 3 The Child-Appellant’s conviction for the firearm specification is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Assignment of Error No. 4 Compelling the testimony of the sole identification witness was an abuse of discretion and violated the Child-Appellant’s right to due process and a fair trial.

{¶5} Due to the nature of the discussion, we will address the fourth

assignment of error first.

Fourth Assignment of Error

{¶6} In his fourth assignment of error, C.M. argues that the only witness at

trial who identified him as one of the individuals who committed the Aggravated

Robbery in this matter was improperly compelled to testify. More specifically,

C.M. argues that the events leading to State’s witness B.G. identifying C.M. as one

of the perpetrators in this matter were coercive, and because B.G. was the only

witness who identified C.M., his conviction should be reversed.

Relevant Authority

{¶7} Ohio Appellate Courts have held that where the trial court and/or the

prosecutor coerced testimony at trial from a witness by making statements that

“went beyond permissible admonitions and rose to the level of intimidation” a

defendant’s right to a fair trial is violated because the credibility of the witness’s

testimony is destroyed. State v. Bradley, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-940543, 1995

-4- Case No. 1-21-31

WL 356284; State v. Asher, 112 Ohio App.3d 646, 650, 679 N.E.2d 1147 (1st

Dist.1996). However, “[m]erely warning a [] witness of the consequences of perjury

[or contempt or other crimes] does not, in and of itself, violate a defendant’s due

process rights.” State v. Harrison, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-150642, 2016-Ohio-

7579, ¶ 6, citing United States v. Pierce, 62 F.3d 818, 832 (6th Cir. 1995).

{¶8} A defendant’s due process rights may be violated by unnecessarily

strong admonitions against perjury that are aimed at discouraging a defense witness

from testifying. Id.; Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 93 S.Ct. 351 (1972). To establish

such a violation, the defendant must show that the admonition substantially

interfered with the witness’s free and voluntary choice to testify. Pierce at

833; United States v. Foster, 128 F.3d 949, 953 (6th Cir. 1997); State v. Shurelds,

3d Dist. Allen No. 1-20-35, 2021-Ohio-1560, ¶ 46.

Background Leading to Witness Coercion Claim

{¶9} Testimony at trial indicated that two young males entered the residence

of Julius S. and Ashlyn T. at gunpoint and demanded money. The males were both

wearing black pants and black hooded sweatshirts with the hoods up and the cords

pulled. At the time the males entered the residence, there were three other adults

present along with Julius and Ashlyn, in addition to multiple children. During the

incident, one of the juveniles dragged a gun across Julius’s face, leaving a minor

injury. Before the young males left the residence, they took an iPhone 11 Pro Max

-5- Case No. 1-21-31

from Julius. B.G. was one of the adults present during the robbery, and she

recognized the assailants.

{¶10} B.G. was properly subpoenaed to testify on the first day of the

adjudication hearing. However, she did not appear for court pursuant to the

subpoena. At the conclusion of the first day of the adjudication hearing, the State

filed for a “material witness warrant.” The court granted the State’s request, but

B.G. appeared voluntarily for the hearing the next day. (Doc. No. 61).

{¶11} B.G. testified to being at the residence when the robbery occurred. She

testified that two people committed the robbery, but when she was asked at the

adjudication hearing if she identified the individuals to the police on the date the

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI