State v. Jenkins

85 N.E.3d 406

2017 Ohio 693

STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff–Appellee

v.Joseph E. JENKINS, Defendant–Appellant

NO. 2016–CA–10

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Greene County.

Rendered February 24, 2017

ELIZABETH A. ELLIS, Atty. Reg. No. 0074332, Civil Division Chief, 61 Greene Street, Xenia, Ohio 45385, Attorney for Plaintiff–Appellee

ANN M. RINGLER, Atty. Reg. No. 0082305, P. O. Box 3025, Springfield, Ohio 45501, Attorney for Defendant–Appellant

OPINION

DONOVAN, P.J.

{¶ 1} Defendant–appellant Joseph E. Jenkins appeals his conviction and sentence for one count of murder, in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B), for causing the death of the victim, Andre Winston, as the proximate result of committing a felonious assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2). Jenkins filed a timely notice of appeal with this Court on March 17, 2016.

{¶ 2} The incident which forms the basis for the instant appeal occurred on the night of July 22, 2015, where a group of friends and acquaintances had gathered in the parking lot of the Fairborn Apartment Complex in Fairborn, Greene County, Ohio. Among those gathered were two individuals identified as "Mark B." and Timmie Ball. At some point, Mark B. and Ball got into an altercation and began pushing and shoving each other. Jenkins (a/k/a "Bama") attempted to intervene in the fight between the two men and began arguing with a woman named Courtney Howard (a/k/a "Kush") who was also present where the people had gathered.

{¶ 3} Jeremy Harrington, another individual who was present that night, testified that he observed that Howard had taken her cellphone out and was recording or pretending to record the altercation between Mark B. and Ball. This action on the part of Howard apparently upset Jenkins, and he began calling her names and threatening her physically. Before the situation could escalate any further, Andre Winston intervened and told Jenkins to leave Howard alone. Harrington and Howard both testified that Jenkins then punched Winston in the face. Winston quickly recovered from the blow and punched Jenkins in the face, knocking him down. Jenkins got up off the ground, stated "I've got something for you," and ran into a nearby apartment.

{¶ 4} Approximately five minutes later, Harrington and Winston were standing near Harrington's car getting ready to leave the apartment complex when Jenkins returned to the parking lot. Jenkins approached Winston with one hand extended as if to shake hands while he kept his other hand behind his back. Jenkins then took his hand from behind his back and stabbed Winston in the chest with a knife. After being stabbed, Winston managed to stay on his feet for approximately thirty seconds before falling down. Winston died at the scene. Immediately after stabbing Winston, Jenkins fled to another part of the apartment complex.

{¶ 5} After witnessing Jenkins stab Winston, Howard called 911. Shortly thereafter, Sergeant Gary Mader of the Fairborn Police Department was dispatched to the apartment complex. Upon his arrival, Sgt. Mader located Winston where he had fallen after being stabbed. While he was attempting to assist Winston who was being attended to by paramedics, Sgt. Mader testified that he heard an individual, later identified as Jenkins, yelling "I'm the one you want," or words to that effect. When Sgt. Mader went over to speak with him, Jenkins admitted that he was the person who stabbed Winston. Sgt. Mader testified that Jenkins appeared lucid, excited, and anxious to speak with the police. Sgt. Mader further testified that he and other officers located the knife blade where it broke off in Winston's chest when he was stabbed by Jenkins. Sgt. Mader testified that they were unable to locate the handle of the blade. Thereafter, Jenkins was placed under arrest and taken to jail.

{¶ 6} On July 31, 2015, Jenkins was indicted for the murder of Winston. At his arraignment on August 7, 2015, Jenkins pled not guilty to the charged offense. On August 13, 2015, Jenkins entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) and filed a motion for a competency and sanity evaluation. Jenkins was evaluated twice, first by a doctor appointed by the trial court from the Forensic Psychiatry Center for Western Ohio, and a second time by a doctor chosen by Jenkins. After evaluating Jenkins, both doctors found him to be sane at the time that the offense was committed and competent to stand trial. On December 10, 2015, the trial court issued a judgment entry finding Jenkins competent to stand trial.

{¶ 7} Jenkins' jury trial began on February 29, 2016, and ended on March 2, 2016. Jenkins testified at trial, asserting self-defense as his affirmative defense. Jenkins was found guilty of murder as charged in the indictment. On March 15, 2016, the trial court sentenced Jenkins to fifteen years to life in prison.

{¶ 8} It is from this judgment that Jenkins now appeals.

{¶ 9} Jenkins' first assignment of error is as follows:

{¶ 10} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND THUS COMMITTED ERROR BY ALLOWING EXHIBIT 11 TO BE VIEWED BY THE JURY AND ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE, IN VIOLATION OF OHIO RULE OF EVIDENCE 403(A)."

{¶ 11} In his first assignment, Jenkins contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting, over his objection, State's Exhibit 11, which depicted an interior anatomical view of the stab wound suffered by Winston which ultimately caused his death. The photo depicts Winston's internal organs, the blood accumulated in the chest cavity caused by the injury, and the protruding knife blade. Specifically, Jenkins argues that the photo should not have been admitted because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice which resulted from its gruesome nature. Evid.R. 403(A). The trial court concluded that the photograph was necessary to help the jury understand the coroner's testimony regarding medical issues and the cause of death, and that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. We agree.

{¶ 12} The admission or exclusion of evidence such as photographs is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Morales, 32 Ohio St.3d 252, 257, 513 N.E.2d 267 (1987) ; State v. Whitfield, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22432, 2009-Ohio-293, 2009 WL 161336, ¶ 122.

{¶ 13} "In determining the admissibility of a photograph under Evid.R. 403, ‘a trial court may reject an otherwise admissible photograph which, because of its inflammatory nature, creates a danger of prejudicial impact that substantially outweighs the probative value of the photograph as evidence.’ Absent such a danger, the photograph is admissible. ‘[T]he fact that a photograph may be considered gruesome is not, in and of itself, grounds for preventing its introduction into evidence.’ The trial court has broad discretion in balancing the probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice, and its determination will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion." State v. Herron, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19894, 2004-Ohio-773, 2004 WL 315232, ¶ 64, citing State v. Reeves, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 16987, 1999 WL 129469 (Mar. 12, 1999).

{¶ 14} "Abuse of discretion" has been defined as an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83, 87, 482 N.E.2d 1248 (1985). It is to be expected that most instances of abuse of discretion will result in decisions that are simply unreasonable, rather than decisions that are unconscionable or arbitrary.

{¶ 15} A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process that would support that decision. It is not enough that the reviewing court, were it deciding the issue de novo, would not have found that reasoning process to be persuasive, perhaps in view of countervailing reasoning processes that would support a contrary result. AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161, 553 N.E.2d 597 (1990).

{¶ 16} The State had the burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jenkins knowingly stabbed Winston in the chest and this action, in turn, caused the internal injuries which brought about his death. The photograph was clearly probative of such matters and was presented during the testimony of Dr. Christopher Kiefer, who performed the autopsy, for the purpose of explaining to the jury his opinion concerning the cause of Winston's death. Dr. Kiefer is a forensic pathologist employed at the Montgomery County Coroner's Office located in Dayton, Ohio. With respect to State's Exhibit 11, the State elicited the following testimony:

The State: Okay. And let me start with this one, Exhibit 11. Is that the same exhibit that's on the screen right there?

Dr. Kiefer: Yes, it is.

Q: All right. And what's that a photograph of?

A: So this photograph represents the blade still in the decedent's body after removing the chest plate.

* * *

Defense Counsel: Your Honor, may we approach?

The Court: Certainly.

(Whereupon, colloquy ensued at the Bench outside of the hearing of the Jury.)

AT BENCH:

Defense Counsel: I know that the Court has already ruled, but I'd like to renew my objection to this line.

The Court: Okay. You got that, Julie? Okay. Thank you.

OPEN COURT:

The Court: Please proceed.

The State: Thank you.

The Court: You're welcome.

The State: All right. So I think you were explaining that you saw the blade in the chest?

Dr. Kiefer: Yes.

* * *

Q: Can you explain the path of the blade?

A: Yes. The blade enters the anterior chest wall, the front of the chest, enters the pericardial sac, which is the membrane that covers the heart. It goes through the heart very near its, its tip so the pointed part of the heart, and then it continues through the pericardial sac again into the diaphragm and through the diaphragm into the left side of the liver, all the way through the liver and abuts the, or the injury ends on

...