Case Law State v. Hopkins

State v. Hopkins

Document Cited Authorities (4) Cited in (1) Related

Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio Case No. 19 CR 377

JUDGMENT Affirmed.

Atty Paul J. Gains, Mahoning County Prosecutor, Atty. Ralph M Rivera, Assistant Chief, Criminal Division, Mahoning County Prosecutor's Office, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Atty. Louis M. DeFabio, for Defendant-Appellant.

BEFORE: Carol Ann Robb, Gene Donofrio, Cheryl L. Waite, Judges.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Robb, J.

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Stephon Hopkins appeals his convictions in the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court after a jury found him guilty of murder with a firearm specification and a judge found him guilty of having a weapon while under disability. He raises issues with: the denial of his motion to suppress an identification provided by a witness who was at the gathering before the shooting; the mid-trial removal of a juror for illness; the admissibility of a detective's testimony identifying Appellant from a surveillance video which recorded the shooter as he fired a gun toward the victim's position; the admissibility of testimony by two detectives disclosing they each received a tip providing the names of the suspects; sufficiency of the evidence; and weight of the evidence. For the following reasons, these arguments are overruled, and Appellant's convictions are affirmed.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

{¶2} Near midnight as June 18 turned to June 19 in 2018, Brandon Wylie was shot multiple times on the grounds of the Plazaview Apartments in Youngstown, Ohio. His body rested face up in the grass under a surveillance camera. Two females told the first-responding officer they were at their car when they saw two males with handguns, heard the shots, and then saw the two males run toward the entrance of the apartment complex at McGuffey Road. (Tr. 492).

{¶3} The police reviewed video from multiple cameras at the apartment complex. The victim arrived at the street entrance to the apartment complex on foot at 11:52 p.m. on the video's time which was approximately ten minutes behind real time. (Tr. 730). The victim walked north on Plazaview Court. At the same time, a small gathering could be seen outside of Building L. At 11:54, the victim turned into the parking lot of Building L. Two males from the gathering approached the victim's location in the parking lot.

{¶4} After viewing video collected from multiple cameras, a detective identified these two males. He said Appellant was the one wearing a white shirt and dark shorts with a large logo covering much of the left leg and Brian Donlow was the one wearing a dark shirt. (A female remained near a car in front of the building, and a different male in a white shirt can be seen with her.)

{¶5} After Appellant and Donlow approached the victim, the three walked in the direction from which the victim approached; Appellant led the way while Donlow trailed behind. As they turned the corner from the parking lot and walked south onto Plazaview Court, they passed close by the camera facing the office at 11:55 (from the time marks of 18 to 36 seconds).

{¶6} After they reached the playground area, the video from the camera above the victim's body shows the person identified as Appellant enter the scene while shooting at 11:55 (at the 48 second mark). He was facing the location of the camera and walking south up the street while firing multiple times with his left hand toward the east side of the road where the victim's body was found. (Tr. 736). The victim was under the camera viewing area.

{¶7} As Appellant stopped firing, the person identified as Donlow ran into the frame toward Appellant from the north. Donlow had a black object in his hand and approached the area where the victim's body was found. Appellant and Donlow then walked south down the sidewalk together. After an approaching car passed, they ran toward the complex exit, turned east at McGuffey Road at 11:56, and ran along the front of the complex. (Tr. 738).

{¶8} Immediately after the first shot was captured on one camera, a different camera showed the female in front of Building L flee into the apartment while two individuals in white T-shirts in front of her building ran in the opposite direction from the location of the shooting and cut north between two buildings. A different camera with a back view of Building L showed these two individuals continuing to run in the opposite direction of the individuals identified as Appellant and Donlow. (Tr. 739-740).

{¶9} Then, at 11:58, two individuals in white shirts walked south past the office camera toward the playground and the victim's body. A detective identified them as Lorice Moore and Chasmar Ford. Moore approached the location of the victim's body under the camera and turned away with both hands on his head as if in distress. They walked up Plazaview Court and were picked up by a vehicle at midnight before they reached McGuffey Road.

{¶10} The police found fourteen shell casings in two distinct areas on the roadway of Plazaview Court. (Tr. 607); (St. Ex. 36). In the northern location, they found eight 9mm shell casings, which testing showed were all fired from the same firearm. (Tr. 676). This location was near where the victim dropped a .32 caliber revolver and cigarettes in the road (north of the victim's final resting place). In the southern location, more parallel to the victim's body, they found six .45 caliber shell casings, which testing showed were fired from the same firearm. (Tr. 677).

{¶11} The victim suffered nine gunshot wounds with the following entry points and paths: (1) right clavicle, upper lung; (2) center chest, through the heart and fatal within seconds; (3) lower right abdomen, from right to left; (4) abdomen, left to right and up, lodging in fat by the colon; (5) skin of abdomen pierced by fragment without penetrating into abdomen; (6) lower left abdomen, lethal wound hitting the largest vessel in the body near the bowel; (7) back of thigh, lodging in the body after an upward path from right to left; (8) right knee at a downward path, passing behind the kneecap; and (9) left inner lower leg, passing straight through with no angle. (Tr. 530-545).

{¶12} The victim's revolver contained three live .32 caliber rounds, which were in position to be fired next, and no empty casings in the other three spots in the chamber, indicating the victim fired no shots (as a revolver does not eject its casings). (Tr. 623, 654, 869). In addition, testing showed none of the recovered casings or slugs were fired by the revolver. (Tr. 679).

{¶13} The victim had a wallet and phone in his pocket and blister packs of Tramadol (an opioid) in his sock. (Tr. 620, 626-627). The victim's phone showed he communicated with Lorice Moore a few times that evening. There were phone calls, and then, at 11:27 p.m., the victim texted, "Tell dude I had to go somewhere." (Tr. 707, 784, 801).

{¶14} On May 16, 2019, Appellant was indicted for aggravated murder (prior calculation and design) and an alternative count of murder (purposely causing the death), both with an accompanying firearm specification. He was also charged with having a weapon while under disability. Co-defendant Brian Donlow was similarly charged. The case was jointly tried to a jury.

{¶15} The victim's father testified the victim helped him move an appliance from a relative's house on June 18, 2018 and they did not get home until nearly 11:00 p.m. The Plazaview apartment complex was a quarter of a mile from their house. The victim's father did not know the defendants. (Tr. 416-422).

{¶16} Witness A testified she was spending time outside of the apartment of her female friend on June 18, 2018. Her other female friend, Witness B, was present as well. Witness A named the four males who arrived later: Lorice Moore, Chasmar Ford, Brian Donlow, and Appellant Stephon Hopkins. (Tr. 452). Witness A said she took orders from each person for drinks and snacks and drove to a convenience store, bringing Witness B with her. (Tr. 454). She identified Appellant and Donlow at trial and said they were at the gathering when she left just minutes before the shooting. (Tr. 457). The victim had not arrived by the time she left for the store. (Tr. 456).

{¶17} Approximately ten minutes later, while driving back from the store, Witness A picked up Moore and Ford on McGuffey Road in front of the apartment complex (as confirmed on video) and dropped them off a few blocks away near the housing development of Victory Estates. (Tr. 455-456, 462-463). She called the police the next day to report who was at the gathering in front of Building L (Tr. 821-822). Moore and Ford were her friends, and she knew Appellant as Chip. (Tr. 460, 474). She did not know Donlow's name until she heard it on the news. (Tr. 466).

{¶18} Witness B confirmed the location of the gathering outside of the friend's apartment and said four males were present: Moore, Ford, Appellant, and one other male. She claimed she did not see the fourth male's face but said he arrived with the other males who knew him. (Tr. 426-427). She was pregnant with Moore's child at the time of the gathering and had attended school with Ford. (Tr. 439-440, 862). She testified Appellant was wearing a white T-shirt and had "a little afro." (Tr. 432).

{¶19} Witness B said while she was at the store with Witness A, the female friend they were visiting called and said not to come back to the apartment complex. (Tr. 428). Witness B confirmed they collected Moore and Ford at the corner of McGuffey Road and Plazaview Court and dropped them off at the corner by Victory Estates; they told...

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex