[Cite as State v. Forbus, 2011-Ohio-4287.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO : : Appellate Case No. 24061 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial Court Case No. 2009-CR-3152 v. : : RICHARD FORBUS, JR. : (Criminal Appeal from : (Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant : : ...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 26th day of August, 2011.
.........
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by KIRSTEN A. BRANDT, Atty. Reg. #0070162, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building, P.O. Box 972, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee
JAY A. ADAMS, Atty. Reg. #0072135, 424 Patterson Road, Dayton, Ohio 45419 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
HALL, J.
{¶ 1} Richard Forbus appeals from his conviction and sentence on charges of felonious
assault, improperly discharging a firearm at or into a habitation, and a related firearm
specification.
{¶ 2} Forbus advances three assignments of error on appeal. First, he contends the trial 2
court erred in overruling his objection to the prosecutor’s use of his pre-arrest silence as
substantive evidence of guilt. Second, he alleges that he received constitutionally ineffective
assistance of trial counsel. Third, he challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support
his convictions.
{¶ 3} The present appeal stems from an incident that occurred outside the home of
Randy Hamblin on the evening of September 23, 2009. While Hamblin was standing in his
own front yard, two males and a female pushing a stroller walked by on the sidewalk. As they
did, Hamblin’s dog began barking at them. Although the dog was fenced in the front yard, the
barking frightened the female, who began arguing with Hamblin. A neighbor, Jeremiah Lyons,
overheard the argument and began yelling at the female from his yard across the street. The
female approached Lyons and confronted him on his property. When she threatened violence,
the two males, one of whom later was identified as Forbus, pushed the stroller across the
street and persuaded her to leave. As she was leaving, the female threatened that someone
would return to “shoot up” the neighborhood.
{¶ 4} After the female departed, Hamblin retrieved a handgun from his house and
placed it in a hip holster. Hamblin’s son Aaron arrived approximately thirty minutes later and
heard about the incident. The two Hamblins stood outside along with Lyons, who had arrived
from across the street, and another neighbor, John Vanderpool. While the men were talking,
Forbus reappeared and approached them on the sidewalk. Lyons testified at trial that he saw
Forbus pull a handgun from his waistband. Upon seeing the gun, Lyons exclaimed, “He’s got
a gun, he’s got a gun.” Prosecution witnesses testified that Forbus held the gun sideways and
fired it multiple times at the men. Aaron Hamblin grabbed Randy Hamblin’s handgun and 3
returned fire, striking Forbus in the neck.
{¶ 5} Police responding to the scene located Forbus two or three blocks away,
bleeding from the neck. Forbus refused to cooperate and would not tell the officers what had
happened or who had shot him. He refused to answer questions, providing only his name, date
of birth, and Social Security number. Forbus continued to be uncooperative as he was placed
in an ambulance. At the hospital, he again refused to tell police anything. In the mean time,
other officers spoke to witnesses who stated that Forbus had fired first and that Aaron
Hamblin had returned fire. Police recovered the gun Aaron Hamblin had fired and four .40
caliber spent shell casings from it. They were unable to find Forbus’s gun or any other shell
casings in the area. Police did find a nine-millimeter bullet, however, lodged in the siding of a
front porch three houses from Randy Hamblin’s residence. Randy Hamblin subsequently
identified Forbus as the shooter in a photo lineup. After a jury found Forbus guilty on several
charges, the trial court merged them into the offenses set forth above and imposed an
aggregate ten-year prison term. This appeal followed.
{¶ 6} In his first assignment of error, Forbus contends the trial court erred in
overruling his objection to the prosecutor’s use of his pre-arrest silence as substantive
evidence of guilt. This argument concerns testimony presented during the State’s case-in-chief
from the police officers who spoke to Forbus immediately after the shooting.
{¶ 7} The first officer, Brian Spencer, testified that he responded to a dispatch about
the incident. When he reached the area, he saw Forbus standing near an intersection and
bleeding from the neck. At that time, Spencer had no “solid information” about what had
happened. The officer considered Forbus a potential victim and asked what had happened, 4
where it had happened, and who had shot him. (Trial transcript at 352-353, 356). Forbus
responded by turning away and not answering any of the questions. (Id. at 354, 357).
{¶ 8} Officer Spencer’s partner, Michael Dorsten, also testified for the State. Officer
Dorsten testified that he too considered Forbus a victim. He described Forbus as being
uncooperative. Dorsten stated that Forbus would not answer any questions and only gave his
name, date of birth, and Social Security number. (Id. at 366-367). A third officer, Christopher
Cornwell, provided similar testimony. When Cornwell approached Forbus in the back of an
ambulance, Forbus gave his name and then “refused to talk.” (Id. at 376). Finally, a fourth
officer, Willie Hooper, testified about his interaction with Forbus at the hospital. Several
times, Forbus refused to say anything when Hooper asked who had shot him and what had
happened. (Id. at 345).
{¶ 9} During closing arguments, the State used Forbus’s silence against him as
evidence of guilt. The prosecutor stated:
{¶ 10} “* * * Ladies and gentlemen, [this] is an absolutely perfect example of an
individual acting with a guilty conscience. Because an innocent person who’s been shot
wrongfully says to the police as soon as they show up, oh, my God, I’ve been shot, I’ll tell you
exactly who did this. I’ll tell you exactly where they are. I’ll look at photographs. I’ll look at
mug shots. I’ll look at houses. I’ll tell you exactly what happened. An innocent person doesn’t
say my name is Richard Forbus, Jr., here’s my date of birth, here’s my social security number,
I don’t want anything to do with you.
{¶ 11} “* * *
{¶ 12} “* * * If you’re an innocent victim who’s just been shot in the neck, you don’t 5
have anything to hide. And yet when the very people who are sworn to protect us arrive, tell
us what happened, how can we help? Like a prisoner of war, he says his name, rank, and serial
number. * * *.” (Id. at 487, 509).
{¶ 13} On appeal, Forbus contends the State’s use of his pre-arrest silence against him
violated the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that “no
person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” It is well
settled that the Fifth Amendment’s protections apply to questioning outside of the courtroom
when the information sought reasonably could lead to a criminal prosecution. See, e.g.,
Cincinnati v. Bawtenheimer (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 260, 264-266. It is equally true that the
Fifth Amendment protects a defendant from having his pre-arrest silence used against him as
substantive evidence of guilt. In State v. Leach, 102 Ohio St.3d 135, 2004-Ohio-2147, the
Ohio Supreme Court held that the prosecution’s use of pre-arrest silence as evidence of a
defendant’s guilt “substantially subverts the policies behind the Fifth Amendment privilege
against self-incrimination and is not a legitimate governmental practice.” Id. at ¶37.
{¶ 14} In reaching its conclusion, the Leach court recognized that “[u]se of pre-arrest
silence in the state's case-in-chief would force defendants either to permit the jury to infer
guilt from their silence or surrender their right not to testify and take the stand to explain their
prior silence.” Id. at ¶31. Moreover, “in the face of police questioning, the suspect might
remain silent for innocent reasons: fear of police, threats from another person not to speak
with police, embarrassment about a relationship or course of conduct that is not necessarily
criminal, or the belief that explaining his or her conduct is futile.” Id. at ¶34. The Leach
court saw “no reason to permit individuals to remain silent only when they have been 6
specifically told by police of their right to do so.” Id. at ¶35.
{¶ 15} While not disputing the rule articulated in Leach, the State insists that Forbus’s
case is distinguishable. It notes that the defendant in Leach was a suspect when police
questioned him. Conversely, the record contains testimony that Forbus was not a suspect at
the time he refused to answer questions. The State insists that this distinction is critical and
that many of the concerns identified in Leach are not implicated when the subject of police
questioning is not a suspect.
{¶ 16} The application of Leach to the unique facts of this case is not certain. Indeed,
even the Leach court pointed out that the United States Supreme Court has not specifically
addressed whether pre-arrest silence can be used as substantive evidence of guilt. Moreover,
the United States Circuit Courts are split on the issue. The Fifth Amendment to the United
States Constitution provides that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself.” Arguably, there is no compulsion and there is no “criminal case”
when the person being questioned by police is questioned as, and considered to be a victim.
The evidence in the record supports the conclusion that Forbus was a victim rather than a
suspect at the time he was questioned by the various officers. There is also the question of
whether Forbus’s supply of only his name, date of birth and Social Security number was a
clear exercise of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. In Leach, the ultimate defendant
was not only definitely a suspect, but Leach’s failure to appear at the police station for an
interview was coupled with the message that he wanted to speak to an attorney before
speaking to the police. “‘A suspect’s right to an attorney during questioning * * * is
derivative of his right to remain silent * * *.’ Wainwright v. Greenfield (1986), 474 U.S. 284, 7
298–299, 106 S.Ct. 634, 88 L.Ed.2d 623 (Rehnquist, J., concurring).” Leach, at ¶13. On the
other hand, denying Fifth Amendment protection because police themselves did not know
Forbus would be prosecuted when they questioned him could miss the point. Forbus obviously
knew he might be prosecuted for firing a weapon at several people so in his mind he is still
faced with the choice “either to permit the jury to infer guilt from [his] silence or surrender
[his] right not to testify and take the stand to explain [his] prior silence.” Id. at ¶31.
{¶ 17} In our view, the critical issue is not whether Forbus was a suspect when he
apparently chose not to explain his injury. Rather, for Fifth Amendment purposes, the issue is
whether he remained silent in the face of police questioning during an active criminal
investigation. We also cautiously note that this Court has recognized “all of the cases that
prohibit the use of one’s silence as evidence of guilt–even the Leach holding that the use of
one’s pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence violates the court’s sense of fair play–do so only when
silence is invoked in the presence of law enforcement officers. None * * * extend the
constitutional protection to a defendant’s behavior during the course of a crime or before law
enforcement officers have become involved in the situation.” State v. Buelow, Clark App. No.
2004 CA 18, 2004-Ohio-6052, ¶28.
{¶ 18} For purposes of our analysis we will assume that Forbus invoked his silence in
the presence of law enforcement officers and in response to their questioning during an active
criminal investigation. Therefore, we will view the State’s use of his silence in its
case-in-chief as substantive evidence of guilt as a violation of his Fifth Amendment right
against self-incrimination.
{¶ 19} The remaining issue is whether the Fifth Amendment violation requires 8
reversal of Forbus’s convictions. We conclude that it does not. As a preliminary matter, it is
questionable whether defense counsel sufficiently objected to the police officers’ testimony
about his silence. The prosecutor initially raised the issue in his opening statement, telling
jurors that Forbus gave his name, birth date, and Social Security number but refused to say
anything else. (Trial transcript at 100). Defense counsel did not object to the opening
statement. Instead, defense counsel first objected on the morning of the second day of trial. In
apparent anticipation of the police officers’ testimony later that day, defense counsel raised the
Fifth Amendment issue out of the jury’s presence. (Id. at 225-227). The trial court took the
matter under advisement until after the lunch recess. At that time, the trial court treated
defense counsel’s oral objection as a motion in limine and overruled it. (Id. at 335). Following
additional remarks by the prosecutor, the trial court reiterated its ruling by telling defense
counsel: “I’ll overrule your objection, then, and note your exception.” (Id. at 336). The
prosecutor proceeded to call each of the four police officers to testify. In the course of their
testimony, the officers stated that Forbus had refused to answer their questions. Defense
counsel did not object during this testimony.
{¶ 20} Even if we assume, arguendo, that defense counsel’s objection on the morning
of the second day of trial, alone, was enough to preserve the issue for appeal, we conclude that
the Fifth Amendment violation constituted harmless error. 1 See, e.g., State v. Thompson
(1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 1, 4 (recognizing that a violation of a defendant’s constitutional right
against self-incrimination is subject to harmless-error review). Notably, nine eye-witnesses
1 If the lack of a contemporaneous objection when the police officers testified resulted in a waiver of Forbus’ objection, then plain-error analysis would apply. Based on our determination above that the Fifth Amendment violation here constituted harmless error, the result would be the same under plain-error review, which is less favorable to a defendant. 9
testified about the shooting and what they saw. All but one of them testified that Forbus fired
first. (Trial transcript at 123, 155, 189, 208, 234, 263, 282, 295, 309). The other witness heard
shots and looked up but was not asked who fired first. Although they lived on the same street,
not all of the eye-witnesses were friends. Some of them did not even know the Hamblins. (Id.
at 241, 251, 292-293).
{¶ 21} The fact that police found Forbus a few blocks away and bleeding from a
gunshot wound to the neck establishes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was the person
eye-witnesses saw firing at Aaron Hamblin. The uncontroverted testimony of the eight
eye-witnesses (some of whom were disinterested) who saw Forbus fire first establishes,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that Forbus was guilty of the offenses charged. This conclusion is
strengthened by the unrefuted testimony of Jeffrey Fugate, who recounted hearing a “thug”
and finding a nine-millimeter bullet lodged in the exterior of his house at the time of the
shooting. (Id. at 324-325). 2 In light of the foregoing evidence, we conclude, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the jury would have convicted Forbus even absent the improper
testimony about his silence. Introduction of that testimony constituted harmless error, and
Forbus’s convictions need not be reversed. Thompson, at 4. Accordingly, the first assignment
of error is overruled.
{¶ 22} In his second assignment of error, Forbus alleges that he received
constitutionally ineffective assistance of trial counsel. He advances two arguments in support.
First, he contends counsel provided ineffective assistance by not seeking suppression of Aaron
2 Although defense counsel stressed that a home-invasion shooting had occurred at Fugate’s residence a week or so earlier, the record reflects that the home-invasion shooting occurred inside the home. (Trial transcript at 330). 10
Hamblin’s photo line-up identification of him. Second, he claims counsel provided ineffective
assistance by making an untimely objection to the State’s use of his pre-arrest silence as
evidence of guilt.
{¶ 23} To prevail on his claim, Forbus must show deficient performance and resulting
prejudice. Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. To
establish deficiency, he must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness. Id. To show prejudice, he must demonstrate that counsel’s
deficiency impacted the judgment against him. State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136.
Reversal is warranted if there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient
performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id.
{¶ 24} Upon review, we conclude that Forbus cannot prevail on his
ineffective-assistance claim. “When a witness has been confronted with a suspect before trial,
due process requires a court to suppress the witness’s identification of the suspect if the
confrontation was unnecessarily suggestive of the suspect’s guilt and the identification was
unreliable under the totality of the circumstances.” State v. Armstrong, Montgomery App. No.
20964, 2006-Ohio-1805, ¶16. “The defendant must first show that the identification procedure
was unduly suggestive. If the defendant meets that burden, the court must then consider
whether the identification, viewed under the totality of the circumstances, is reliable despite
the suggestive procedure.” Id. “If the pretrial confrontation procedure was not unduly
suggestive, any remaining questions as to reliability go to the weight of the identification, not
its admissibility, and no further inquiry into the reliability of the identification is required.” Id.
{¶ 25} In the present case, Forbus asserts, without elaboration, that a photo spread 11
shown to Aaron Hamblin was “unduly suggestive.” Having reviewed the pictures, we see
nothing unduly suggestive about them. In light of that determination, and absent any specific
argument from Forbus, we find no basis for suppressing Aaron Hamblin’s identification. As a
result, defense counsel did not provide deficient representation by failing to seek suppression.
{¶ 26} With regard to the State’s use of his silence against him, Forbus claims his
attorney should have raised the issue in a pre-trial motion in limine or filed a motion to
suppress. We see no deficient performance on these grounds. Failure to file a pre-trial motion
in limine, which results in only a tentative ruling by a trial court, does not constitute
ineffective assistance of counsel provided counsel objects at trial sometime before the
evidence is introduced. State v. Lenoir, Montgomery App. No. 19241, 2003-Ohio-2820, ¶25.
This is precisely what occurred here. Despite not filing a true liminal motion, defense counsel
objected to the prosecutor’s use of Forbus’s silence against him before any of the officers
testified. (Trial transcript at 225, 335). Finally, we see no basis for having Forbus’s
invocation of his silence “suppressed.” There was nothing illegal about the police officers’
interaction with Forbus. He was not under arrest when they questioned him, and he remained
free to answer or refuse to respond. The only issue was whether the State could use his
decision to remain silent against him. The use of his silence as substantive evidence of guilt
raised a Fifth Amendment self-incrimination issue, not a Fourth Amendment suppression
issue. Thus, defense counsel did not provide deficient representation by failing to seek
suppression of Forbus’s silence. The second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 27} In his third assignment of error, Forbus challenges the legal sufficiency of the
evidence to support his convictions. In support, he notes that police never found the gun he 12
allegedly fired, never found any shell casings from the gun he allegedly fired, and never found
any property damage in the immediate area of the shooting. Although police did find a single
nine-millimeter bullet in the siding of a porch three houses down the street, Forbus claims this
location was “out of the immediate range of fire” and was a location where another shooting
had occurred a month earlier. Forbus reasons that “[i]t is difficult to comprehend how a man
could fire at least four shots at a range of 6-10 feet and hit absolutely nothing and leave no
shell casings for the evidence team to find.” As a result, he argues that his convictions are
based on legally insufficient evidence.
{¶ 28} When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, he is arguing that
the state presented inadequate evidence on each element of the offense to sustain the verdict
as a matter of law. State v. Hawn (2000), 138 Ohio App.3d 449, 471. “An appellate court’s
function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to
examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would
convince the average mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant
inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶ 29} With the foregoing standards in mind, we conclude that Forbus’s convictions
are based on legally sufficient evidence. Numerous eye-witnesses testified that they either saw
a gun in Forbus’s hand and saw him shoot it or saw what they described as fire, flames,
sparks, or flashes coming from his hand. The State’s evidence established that Aaron Hamblin
fired a .40 caliber Glock handgun. Aaron Hamblin described the weapon Forbus fired as a 13
semi-automatic handgun. Jeffrey Fugate, a resident of the house where police found a
nine-millimeter bullet lodged in the siding, testified that he heard a “thug” hitting his house
around the time of the shooting. Although police never recovered a nine-millimeter handgun
or found any nine-millimeter shell casings at the scene, the State presented legally sufficient
evidence to support a finding that Forbus had fired a handgun at his intended victims and had
struck a neighbor’s house. Therefore, the State presented legally sufficient evidence to support
Forbus’s conviction for felonious assault (deadly weapon), improperly discharging a firearm
at or into a habitation, and a related firearm specification.3 The officers’ failure to recover the
weapon Forbus fired or any of his shell casings does not negate the legal sufficiency of the
State’s evidence. Accordingly, the third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 30} The judgment of the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
..............
FROELICH and CELEBREZZE, JJ., concur.
(Hon. Frank D. Celebrezze, Jr., Eighth District Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.)
Copies mailed to:
Mathias H. Heck, Jr. Kirsten A. Brandt Jay A. Adams Hon. Timothy N. O’Connell
3 Although Forbus also challenges a conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, we note that the trial court merged that offense into the felonious assault (deadly weapon) for purposes of sentencing. See Termination Entry, Doc. #50.