State v. Wood

2023 Ohio 2045

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 21, 2023
• Docket: 2022CA00144
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Wood, 2023-Ohio-2045.]

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. -vs- Case No. 2022CA00144 CHRISTOPHER WOOD

Defendant-Appellant OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2022-CR-0246

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 21, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

KYLE L. STONE D. COLEMAN BOND Prosecuting Attorney 116 Cleveland Avenue, N.W. Stark County, Ohio Suite #600 Canton, Ohio 44702 CHRISTOPHER A. PIEKARSKI Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Appellate Division 110 Central Plaza, South Suite #510 Canton, Ohio 44702-1413 Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00144 2

Hoffman, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant Christopher Wood appeals the judgment entered by

the Stark County Common Pleas Court convicting him following his pleas of no contest

to rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b)(B)) and gross sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.05(A)(4)), and

sentencing him to an aggregate term of ten years to life in prison. Plaintiff-appellee is the

state of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} In early 2022, Massillon police were investigating allegations Appellant had

engaged in sexual activity with his niece when she was seven or eight years old. One of

the allegations involved Appellant engaging in anal intercourse with her when they were

sleeping next to each other on the floor of her grandmother’s house. A second allegation

involved Appellant touching the child’s vaginal area and digitally penetrating her with his

fingers.

{¶3} On January 21, 2022, Appellant voluntarily came to the Massillon Police

Department for an interview with Detective David McConnell. Prior to speaking with

Appellant, Det. McConnell informed Appellant he was free to leave at any time. The

detective told Appellant the door to the room was closed, but unlocked.

{¶4} The interview lasted approximately thirty minutes. Det. McConnell noted no

signs Appellant might be intoxicated during the interview. Although the detective did not

specifically ask about drug or alcohol use, Appellant explained during the interview he

had used drugs in the past, specifically during the time the incidents occurred with his

niece, but had “gotten clean” since that time. Appellant made incriminating statements to

Detective McConnell concerning the allegations of sexual abuse of his niece. Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00144 3

{¶5} Appellant was indicted by the Stark County Grand Jury with two counts of

rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b)(B). Appellant moved to suppress the

statements he made to Det. McConnell on the basis the statements were involuntary

because he used drugs on the day of the interview.

{¶6} The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress. The

parties submitted a video recording of the interview to the trial court for review. Det.

McConnell testified he observed no signs of intoxication in Appellant during the interview.

Appellant testified he used opiates on a daily basis for four to five years. He testified on

the morning of the interview, he had crushed Vicodin pills and snorted them. Appellant

testified he was not coherent during the interview. Appellant testified “in his mind” he saw

the detective leaning forward and pointing a finger at him, and Appellant testified he felt

threatened. Supp. Tr. 33-34. However, Appellant admitted the video did not support this

testimony concerning the detective’s conduct during the interview. Appellant testified his

drug use caused him to be overemotional during the interview, and rendered him unable

to hear or understand the questions. He testified he could not focus, as evidenced by the

fact he kept his head down during the interview.

{¶7} Appellant sought to call his brother to the stand, who had watched the video

at Appellant’s attorney’s office, and in counsel’s understanding would testify as to whether

or not Appellant was intoxicated by drug use during the interview. The trial court did not

allow Appellant to call his brother to testify.

{¶8} Following the hearing, the trial court found Appellant was not intoxicated by

drug use during the interview, and overruled the motion to suppress. The State amended

one charge of rape to gross sexual imposition. As to the second charge of rape, the State Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00144 4

amended the charge to remove the special finding the victim was under the age of ten,

while maintaining the statutory language the victim was under the age of thirteen.

Appellant pled no contest to the charges as amended, and was convicted. The trial court

sentenced Appellant to ten years to life incarceration for rape and to five years

incarceration for gross sexual imposition, to be served concurrently. It is from the October

12, 2022 judgment of the trial court Appellant prosecutes his appeal, assigning as error:

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT’S

MOTION TO SUPPRESS.

II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY EXCLUDING

THE TESTIMONY OF DAVID BATTLES DURING THE SUPPRESSION

HEARING.

I.

{¶9} In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in

denying his motion to suppress because (a) Miranda warnings were not given, and (b)

his statement was not voluntary because he was under the influence of drugs at the time

of the interview.

{¶10} Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law

and fact. State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 154-155, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d

71, ¶ 8. When ruling on a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of trier of

fact and is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and to evaluate witness

credibility. See State v. Dunlap, 73 Ohio St.3d 308,314, 1995-Ohio-243, 652 N.E.2d 988; Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00144 5

State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 20, 437 N.E.2d 583 (1982). Accordingly, a reviewing

court must defer to the trial court's factual findings if competent, credible evidence exists

to support those findings. See Burnside, supra; Dunlap, supra; State v. Long, 127 Ohio

App.3d 328, 332, 713 N.E.2d 1(4th Dist. 1998); State v. Medcalf, 111 Ohio App.3d 142,

675 N.E.2d 1268 (4th Dist. 1996). However, once this Court has accepted those facts as

true, it must independently determine as a matter of law whether the trial court met the

applicable legal standard. See Burnside, supra, citing State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio

App.3d 706, 707 N.E.2d 539(4th Dist. 1997); See, generally, United States v. Arvizu, 534

U.S. 266, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740(2002); Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690,

116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911(1996). That is, the application of the law to the trial

court's findings of fact is subject to a de novo standard of review. Ornelas, supra.

Moreover, due weight should be given “to inferences drawn from those facts by resident

judges and local law enforcement officers.” Ornelas, supra at 698, 116 S.Ct. at 1663.

{¶11} Appellant first argues the trial court erred in finding Miranda warnings were

not required. Appellant’s motion to suppress did not raise this issue, nor did he argue at

the suppression hearing Miranda warnings were required. Throughout the suppression

hearing, Appellant argued only that his statement was involuntary because it was made

while he was under the influence of drugs.

{¶12} A criminal defendant is required to raise a Miranda violation in a pretrial

motion to suppress or the issue is waived. State v. Montalvo, 5th Dist. Knox No. 17 CA

000019, 2018-Ohio-3142, ¶37, citing State v. Moody, 55 Ohio St.2d 64, 66 (1978). The

issue of whether a confession is voluntary and whether a suspect has been subject to

custodial interrogation so as to require Miranda warnings are analytically separate issues. Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00144 6

See., e.g. State v. Fowler, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2016AP040024, 2016-Ohio-5940,

¶29.

{¶13} Crim. R. 47 requires all written motions to “state with particularity the

grounds upon which it is made.” “By requiring the defendant to state with particularity the

legal and factual issues to be resolved, the prosecutor and court are placed on notice of

those issues to be heard and decided by the court and, by omission, those issues which

are otherwise being waived.” State v. Shindler, 70 Ohio St.3d 54, 58, 636 N.E.2d 319,

322 (1994).

{¶14} The trial court sua sponte found Miranda warnings were not required

because Appellant was not subjected to a custodial interrogation However, because

Appellant failed to raise the issue in the trial court, the State was not placed on notice the

failure to give Appellant Miranda warnings was an issue at the suppression hearing, and

accordingly the State was not required to bring forth evidence demonstrating the interview

was noncustodial in nature and Miranda warnings were not required. Despite the trial

court’s consideration of the issue, we find Appellant has waived any claim of a Miranda

violation by his failure to raise the issue in the trial court.

{¶15} Appellant next argues the trial court erred in finding his statement was

voluntary, maintaining he was under the influence of drugs at the time of the interview.

With respect to this issue, the trial court found:

The Court finds the majority of the defendant’s testimony to be self-

serving and of little merit. Additionally, the Court has had the opportunity to

view the defendant’s behavior on the recorded video and to compare it to Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00144 7

the defendant’s behavior and testimony during the hearing. Based upon

such observations, the Court finds that the defendant’s mannerisms,

speech, comprehension, and expression during the hearing were the same

as those present during his interview. As such, the Court finds that the

defendant was not under the influence of drugs or otherwise impaired at the

time of the interview with Detective McConnell.

{¶16} Judgment Entry, July 25, 2022.

{¶17} In a footnote, the trial court noted at the time of the hearing, Appellant had

been in jail for nearly ninety days, and no evidence was presented he abused drugs prior

to his testimony at the suppression hearing.

{¶18} The trial court was in a unique position to compare Appellant’s demeanor

and behavior during his testimony at the suppression hearing with the video of the

statement given to Det. McConnell, and is in a better position than this court to determine

the credibility of witnesses. See Fanning, supra (weight of the evidence and credibility of

witnesses are primarily for the trier of fact at suppression hearing). This Court has

reviewed the video, and throughout the interview, Appellant answered the detective’s

questions clearly and appropriately, was able to recount information upon request, and

engaged in conversation with the detective while displaying no visible signs of intoxication

from drug use. Det. McConnell testified he had interacted with people under the influence

of drugs and alcohol in his work as a police officer, and Appellant did not appear

intoxicated. Further, during the interview Appellant admitted to past drug use, but told the Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00144 8

detective he had stopped using drugs. We find the trial court did not err in finding

Appellant’s statement was voluntary and overruling the motion to suppress.

{¶19} The first assignment of error is overruled.

II.

{¶20} In his second assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in

preventing his brother from testifying at the suppression hearing.

{¶21} Evid. R. 103(A)(2) states:

(A) Effect of Erroneous Ruling. Error may not be predicated upon

a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the

party is affected; and

(2) Offer of Proof. In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the

substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer or was

apparent from the context within which questions were asked. Offer of proof

is not necessary if evidence is excluded during cross-examination.

{¶22} Absent a proffer, a reviewing court has no way of determining if the

excluded evidence prejudiced the appellant, and if no proffer is made, the party seeking

to introduce the evidence in question waives the error on appeal. Dieble v. Auto Owner's

Ins. Co., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2006CA00211, 2007-Ohio-3429, ¶ 32. “While the proffer of

the expected testimony need not be as specific as the testimony itself would have been

it must nonetheless be sufficient to enable the reviewing court to determine roughly what, Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00144 9

if any, impact the testimony may have had upon the final disposition of the case.” Moser

v. Moser, 72 Ohio App.3d 575, 580, 595 N.E.2d 518, 522 (3rd Dist. Allen 1991).

{¶23} Counsel for Appellant made the following statement to the trial court

concerning the testimony of Appellant’s brother:

MR. KOUKOUTAS: Your Honor, Mr. Wood wanted me to call his

brother David Battles to the stand to testify. Mr. Battles did come to the

office, he did review the video with me and it’s my understanding he’ll be

able to tell us, given his experience and knowing his brother, whether he

was high or not during the interview.

{¶24} Supp. Tr. 39.

{¶25} We find counsel’s statement was not a sufficient proffer of Appellant’s

brother’s testimony to preserve the issue for our review. From this statement, we are

unable to determine what impact the testimony might have had on the trial court’s

disposition of the motion to suppress. It is not clear from this statement whether Mr.

Battles would testify in a matter favorably or unfavorably to Appellant. Appellant argues

in his brief because Battles resided with Appellant, it is very likely he encountered

Appellant on the day of the interview and is familiar with Appellant’s behavior when he is

under the influence of drugs. However, this is speculation and is not a part of the record

before this Court on appeal. We find Appellant has waived any error in the trial court’s

exclusion of his brother’s testimony by failing to make a sufficient proffer of the testimony. Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00144 10

{¶26} The second assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Stark

County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, J. Gwin, P.J. and Baldwin, J. concur