State v. Martin

2025 Ohio 420

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Martin, 2025-Ohio-420.]

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

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 9-24-23 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

CEDRIC DIMAGGIO MARTIN, OPINION

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court General Division Trial Court No. 24-CR-026

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: February 10, 2025

APPEARANCES:

April F. Campbell for Appellant

Allison M. Kesler for Appellee Case No. 9-24-23

WALDICK, P.J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Cedric Martin (“Martin”), appeals the judgment

of conviction and sentence entered against him in the Marion County Court of

Common Pleas, following a jury trial in a domestic violence case. For the reasons

set forth below, we affirm.

Procedural History and Factual Summary

{¶2} This case originated on January 31, 2024, when a Marion County grand

jury returned a two-count indictment against Martin, charging him as follows:

Count 1 – Domestic Violence, a third-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A)

and (D)(4); and Count 2 – Strangulation, a fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C.

2903.18(B)(3) and (C)(3).

{¶3} On February 5, 2024, an arraignment was held and Martin pled not

guilty to the indictment.

{¶4} On April 16, 2024, a jury trial was held in the case, during which the

State of Ohio presented the testimony of three witnesses and admitted six

photographic exhibits.

{¶5} The evidence established that at approximately 9:00 p.m. on October

24, 2023, Lisa Woods (“Lisa”), an insurance agent, was heading home from an

appointment at a client’s house in Marion. As Lisa was driving down the 300 block

of Uncapher Avenue, she nearly hit a woman who ran out in front of Lisa’s car. The

-2- Case No. 9-24-23

woman was screaming, “Help me, help me. He’s strangling me, he’s gonna F-ing

kill me.” (Tr., 87). Lisa stopped to assist the woman, and then called 911. While

waiting with the woman for the police to arrive, Lisa noticed a black male standing

by the front porch of a nearby home. At trial, Lisa identified Martin in the courtroom

as being the male she observed on the porch. The police arrived a few minutes later

and, after providing her contact information, Lisa continued on her way.

{¶6} The victim in the case, Brittany B. (“Brittany”), testified that in October

of 2023, she and Martin had been in a romantic relationship for approximately six

months and the two were living together at 336 Uncapher Avenue in Marion. In the

early evening of October 24, 2023, Brittany was home alone watching a movie in

bed when Martin returned from an out-of-town trip. Upon arriving home, Martin

came into their bedroom and accused Brittany of sleeping with another man while

Martin had been away. As Brittany began to deny the accusation, Martin jumped

on the bed and began repeatedly striking Brittany in the face with his fist. When

Martin finally quit hitting her, Brittany started to move away, but Martin grabbed

her, threw her down, and slammed her head into the floor. Martin then put his hands

around Brittany’s neck and started strangling her. Brittany was unable to breathe

and reached the point where she started blacking out, while also involuntarily

urinating. Just as she thought she was going to pass out from the lack of oxygen,

Brittany was able to get her leg up, and she kicked Martin as hard as she could.

While Brittany struggled to breathe and regain her focus, Martin said he was going

-3- Case No. 9-24-23

to get a knife and told her not to move. Martin started walking to the kitchen and

Brittany attempted to escape out the front door, but Martin heard her and told her to

sit down in the bedroom. Brittany then backed up into the bedroom and waited until

Martin walked further away. At that point, she ran out the front door and began

running to the neighbor’s home across the street. While doing so, Brittany ran in

front of a car that she did not realize was in the street. Brittany told the female driver

of the car that she needed help and the woman called 911. While waiting on the

police, Martin briefly came out of the house, but then disappeared. Police arrived

and checked the house, but Martin could not be located at that time. The police

stayed with Brittany until an ambulance arrived. At trial, Brittany identified six

photographs that were taken that night and which depicted the various injuries she

suffered as a result of being attacked by Martin.

{¶7} Officer Bryce Lowry of the Marion City Police Department was the

final prosecution witness at trial. Lowry confirmed that, on October 24, 2023, he

and two other police officers responded to a call for help in the area of 336 Uncapher

Avenue. Lowry testified that, upon arrival, Brittany was upset, crying, and

breathing heavily. She blurted out that her boyfriend, Martin, had assaulted her.

Lowry testified as to the various injuries suffered by Brittany that he observed.

Lowry and another officer thoroughly searched Brittany’s house at 336 Uncapher

Avenue, but Martin was not located in the home. An ambulance was called for

Brittany, and she was taken to the hospital.

-4- Case No. 9-24-23

{¶8} At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned verdicts finding Martin

guilty of Domestic Violence, a first-degree misdemeanor, and Strangulation, as

charged in the indictment. The trial court accepted the verdicts and ordered a

presentence investigation.

{¶9} On April 22, 2024, Martin filed a motion for a new trial on the basis of

alleged juror misconduct. On April 27, 2024, the prosecution filed a response in

opposition to Martin’s new trial motion.

{¶10} On April 29, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the issues raised

by Martin’s motion for a new trial. The juror at issue, “L.D.”, was sworn in and

then questioned by the court and counsel. Following arguments on the new trial

motion being made by counsel for the parties, the trial court overruled the motion.

{¶11} A sentencing hearing was then held. Martin was sentenced to 180 days

of local jail time on Count 1, and to 18 months in prison on Count 2, to be served

concurrently. On May 2, 2024, the trial court filed its judgment entry of sentencing.

{¶12} On May 24, 2024, Martin filed the instant appeal, in which he raises

one assignment of error for our review.

Assignment of Error

The trial court committed reversible error by denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial due to juror misconduct.

-5- Case No. 9-24-23

{¶13} In the sole assignment of error, Martin asserts that the trial court erred

in not granting a mistrial on the basis of juror misconduct. However, based on the

content of Martin’s argument on appeal, and because the issue related to alleged

juror misconduct was not asserted until following the conclusion of the trial, by way

of a motion for a new trial, it is apparent that Martin is actually asserting that the

trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial on the basis of juror

misconduct.

{¶14} The record of the April 29, 2024 hearing on Martin’s motion for a new

trial reveals that, at the start of that hearing, the trial court noted that Marion County

Prosecutor Ray Grogan had contacted the court after the trial was concluded. At

that time, Grogan had disclosed some information about a juror in the case that had

come to Grogan’s attention.

{¶15} At the hearing, Grogan was then asked by the trial court to explain the

information that he had disclosed. In response, Grogan stated that a longtime, very

good friend of his, “J.D.”, was the husband of a woman, “L.D.”, who had served as

a juror in the case. Grogan stated that, after the jury had reached a verdict, he and

J.D. spoke on the phone. J.D. told Grogan that L.D. had really enjoyed serving as a

juror. However, according to Grogan, J.D. also revealed that he had talked to his

wife over the lunch recess during the trial, at which time his wife had told him that

the case involved allegations of strangulation and also that the defendant had made

-6- Case No. 9-24-23

a facial expression that did not seem appropriate to her. After hearing that

information from J.D., Grogan felt that he had an ethical obligation to share that

information with the trial court and defense counsel, which he then did.

{¶16} At the April 29th hearing, following Grogan’s explanation of the

information he had received from his friend, L.D. was then sworn in as a witness,

and she was questioned by the court and counsel. L.D. testified that, during the trial,

she called her husband at around 12:30 p.m., during the lunch break. L.D. testified

that she called her husband in order to make arrangements for him to pick up their

daughters at the babysitter’s later that day, because L.D. was not sure how late she

would be at the courthouse. L.D. testified that, during the phone conversation, her

husband asked how things were going and what the case was about. L.D. testified

that, while she did not think she should discuss the trial, she ended up telling him it

was a domestic violence case. When her husband asked what had happened in the

case, L.D. told him that she could not discuss it. L.D. testified that the couple then

moved on to a different topic of conversation; however, L.D. testified that she also

told her husband that the person on trial in the case was smiling during jury

selection.

{¶17} L.D. was specifically asked whether, during that phone call, she and

her husband had discussed any of the evidence that had been presented, and L.D.

testified that they had not. L.D. further confirmed that she at no point conveyed to

her husband that she had made up her mind about the case, or that she had

-7- Case No. 9-24-23

determined what the outcome would be. Finally, L.D. testified that she later spoke

further to her husband about the trial, but not until after the trial was done.

{¶18} Following the completion of L.D.’s testimony at the April 29, 2024

hearing, defense counsel argued that the juror’s telephone conversation with her

husband during the trial amounted to juror misconduct that required a new trial be

granted. The prosecution argued that the telephone conversation was innocuous and

not prejudicial to Martin, as the juror did not reveal any specifics about the evidence

and merely commented that the defendant made a face during voir dire.

{¶19} From the bench, the trial court then overruled Martin’s motion for a

new trial. Specifically, the trial court found that the juror’s trial-related conversation

with her husband during the trial was limited to the fact that she had been selected

as a juror and a mention of what the subject matter of the trial was. Based on those

facts, the trial court determined that the conversation did not amount to juror

misconduct. In support of that determination, the trial court further noted that

potentially commenting about the defendant smiling or making some facial

expression had not resulted in the juror prematurely forming an opinion about the

case, and the juror did not discuss the evidence and was not doing any outside

research that may have improperly influenced her decision. The trial court further

found that, even if the juror’s phone conversation with her husband was construed

as juror misconduct, the defendant’s substantial rights were not materially affected

by the comments made by the juror to her husband over the lunch break.

-8- Case No. 9-24-23

{¶20} Crim.R. 33 governs motions for a new trial. Pursuant to Crim.R.

33(A)(2), “[a] new trial may be granted on motion of the defendant for any of the

following causes affecting materially the defendant’s substantial rights: * * *

(2) [m]isconduct of the jury, prosecuting attorney, or the witnesses for the state[.]”

{¶21} In addressing claims of juror misconduct raised pursuant to Crim.R.

33(A)(2), a court must employ a two-step analysis: first, the court must determine

whether juror misconduct occurred; and, second, if juror misconduct is found, the

court must determine whether the misconduct materially affected the defendant’s

substantial rights. State v. Fisher, 2021-Ohio-3788, ¶ 19 (3d Dist.). Such prejudice

must be established by the party complaining of alleged juror misconduct. Id.

{¶22} “A determination on a Crim.R. 33 motion for a new trial is within the

sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of

discretion.” Fisher, at ¶ 16. See, also, State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 76 (1990).

“The term ‘abuse of discretion’ connotes more than an error of law or of judgment;

it implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.”

State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 (1980). “When applying the abuse of

discretion standard, a reviewing court may not simply substitute its judgment for

that of the trial court.” State v. Pryor, 2024-Ohio-3154, ¶ 55 (3d Dist.), citing

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).

{¶23} After reviewing the record in the instant case, we concur with the trial

court’s ultimate determination that, even if the juror’s telephone conversation did

-9- Case No. 9-24-23

amount to juror misconduct, Martin failed to demonstrate that his substantial rights

were materially prejudiced thereby. While the trial was still ongoing, the juror’s

communication with her husband about the trial was extremely limited in scope, and

went no further than her expressing that she had been seated as a juror, that the case

involved a charge of domestic violence, and that the defendant had smiled during

voir dire. There was no evidence that any discussion was had about the actual

evidence that had been presented and, more importantly, there is no indication that

any outside influence or extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought

to the juror’s attention during the phone call. In other words, there is nothing in the

record to indicate that the jury’s verdicts were ultimately influenced by the single

juror’s brief phone conversation with her husband over the lunch recess during trial.

Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling

Martin’s motion for a new trial.

{¶24} The assignment of error is overruled.

Conclusion

{¶25} Having found no error prejudicial to the defendant-appellant, Cedric

Martin, in the particulars assigned and argued, the judgment of conviction and

sentence entered in the Marion County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

MILLER and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.

/jlm

-10-