State v. Roberts

1

2024-Ohio-1604

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELIJAH BLAINE ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. C-220615

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton

April 26, 2024

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Trial No. B-1904356

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip R. Cummings, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Michael J. Trapp, for Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

KINSLEY, JUDGE.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Elijah Blaine Roberts appeals from the trial court's judgment convicting him of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, tampering with evidence, and receiving stolen property in connection with the murder of his mother, Tracey Epperson. Roberts asserts six assignments of error, all of which relate to his convictions for aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, and tampering with evidence. He does not challenge his receiving stolen property conviction on appeal.

{¶2} Roberts argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements in response to questioning during a roadside police encounter and in admitting evidence of his prior acts in Georgia in violation of Evid.R. 404(B). He also contends the trial court erred to his prejudice by convicting him of aggravated murder where there was no evidence of prior calculation and design. He further argues that his convictions for aggravated murder and aggravated robbery were not supported by sufficient evidence and against the manifest weight of the evidence. And he argues that his conviction for tampering with evidence was not supported by sufficient evidence.

{¶3} We sustain Roberts's first assignment of error and hold that the trial court erred in admitting statements made by him when he was in police custody but had not been given Miranda warnings. Excluding Roberts's statements, no direct evidence connected Roberts to the exact time of Epperson's murder. As a result, this error prejudiced Roberts and was not harmless as to his aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, and tampering with evidence convictions.

{¶4} We further hold that the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of Roberts's actions in Georgia under Evid.R. 404(B) and State v. Hartman, 161 Ohio St.3d 214, 2020-Ohio-440, 161 N.E.3d 651. We accordingly sustain Roberts's second assignment of error in part.

{¶5} We nonetheless overrule Roberts's third, fourth, and sixth assignments of error. When considering all evidence admitted at trial, including the evidence that was improperly admitted, Roberts's convictions for aggravated murder and aggravated robbery were supported by sufficient circumstantial evidence, and our holding with regard to the impermissible admission of Roberts's statements and the state's Evid.R. 404(B) evidence renders moot Roberts's manifest weight challenge. But we sustain Roberts's fifth assignment of error, because his conviction for tampering with evidence was not supported by sufficient evidence. We accordingly reverse Roberts's convictions for aggravated murder and aggravated robbery and remand the cause for a new trial, reverse his conviction for tampering with evidence and discharge him from future prosecution for that offense, and affirm his conviction for receiving stolen property.

Factual and Procedural Background

{¶6} The charges against Roberts relate to the tragic death of his mother, Tracey Epperson, and Roberts's activities at his aunt's house in Georgia leading up to her death. On August 1, 2019, Epperson was found dead in her Cincinnati apartment during a wellness check by the police. One day prior, Roberts was questioned on a highway in Tipton County Indiana, and arrested for providing false information to the police. Roberts was subsequently indicted in Hamilton County, Ohio, for one count of aggravated murder under R.C. 2903.01(A), one count of aggravated murder under R.C. 2903.01(B), one count of aggravated robbery under R.C. 2911.01(A)(3), one count of tampering with evidence under R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), and one count of receiving stolen property under R.C. 2913.51(A). Though Roberts was initially found incompetent to stand trial, his competency was later restored.

A. Suppression Hearing

{¶7} Roberts moved to suppress the statements he made in response to questioning by Tipton County and Cincinnati police officers as well as any evidence seized during the search of the car he was traveling in. The first statement Roberts challenged as being made in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights occurred during the sixteenth minute of the traffic stop.

{¶8} The trial court held a suppression hearing on March 17, 2021. At the suppression hearing, Officer Whitney Jordan Lushin, a former deputy with the Tipton County Sheriffs Office, testified. Lushin's body-worn camera footage was also played at the suppression hearing. Lushin testified that on July 31, 2019, he observed a disabled Honda CRV on the side of a two-lane highway in Tipton County, which prompted him to conduct what he called a welfare check.

{¶9} Lushin testified that the car was parked past the fog line of the highway, meaning that it was protruding into the roadway. But in the footage from Lushin's body-worn camera, it is clear that Roberts's car was pulled over behind the fog line and was completely out of the way of traffic. Lushin's body-worn camera footage showed him questioning Roberts as to why he pulled over. Roberts responded that he was connecting his phone to the car's Bluetooth. Lushin testified that Roberts appeared visibly nervous, with shaking hands and a trembling voice.

{¶10} Lushin further testified that when he asked Roberts for identification, Roberts identified himself as "Eli Blaine" but struggled to provide his birthdate. Lushin then ordered Roberts to exit from the car and come to the front of his police car. Specifically, Lushin demanded that Roberts "put his butt on the Ford symbol [of the police car]." Lushin testified that Roberts then admitted he was not being completely honest regarding his identity, because he had not adjusted to a recent name change. Roberts eventually identified himself as "Elijah Blaine Roberts" and provided a birthdate.

{¶11} At this point in his body-worn camera footage, Lushin began repeatedly asking Roberts why he was being dishonest. He also informed Roberts that lying to a police officer was a crime in Indiana. He further asked Roberts if he had drugs in the car, if Roberts was a missing person, and if Roberts had committed murder in Ohio. He then checked Roberts's pockets before asking him to take a seat inside his police car with him. While inside his police car with Roberts, Lushin ran searches on the information Roberts provided him. Lushin testified that he learned Epperson, not Roberts, was the owner of the Honda CRV and that Roberts's license was suspended.

{¶12} Lushin then ordered Roberts to get out of the police car and "put [his] butt right there [on the police car]." He asked Roberts for his mother's name, which confirmed that Epperson was his mother. When he asked Roberts whether his mother knew that he was driving her Honda CRV, Roberts responded that he had her permission to use the car. He also informed Roberts that a canine unit was on its way, but did not explain why or what the canine might be attempting to locate.

{¶13} Lushin testified that although Roberts denied consent to search the car, Roberts allowed Lushin to retrieve his phone from the car so that Lushin could contact Epperson. He further testified that he saw a woman's pocketbook in the center console of the car when he went to retrieve Roberts's phone. He also testified that when he gave Roberts his cellphone to call Epperson, he realized that Roberts dialed Epperson's number, because he did not have any contacts saved. Roberts told Lushin that he had recently reset his cellphone. Epperson did not answer Roberts's call.

{¶14} Lushin questioned Roberts regarding the woman's pocketbook in the center console. Roberts confirmed that the pocketbook was Epperson's and that she had left it in the center console when unloading groceries. Lushin again accused Roberts of lying and changing his story. At this point, the canine unit arrived and conducted a search of the car. After the search, Roberts was put under arrest and taken to the Tipton County Jail. Roberts was not given Miranda warnings at any point during this encounter.

{¶15} Lushin testified that although he initially took Roberts to an advocacy center for victims of abuse due to his odd behavior, he eventually received a call from the Cincinnati Police Department notifying him that Roberts was suspected of homicide in Cincinnati.

{¶16} Lushin testified that his encounter with Roberts occurred in daylight. He further testified that he did not believe Roberts was able to leave or walk away during the encounter. He also testified that Roberts had not committed a traffic violation and before he even asked Roberts for identification and began interrogating him, he determined there was no mechanical or medical problem. He testified that although he had no reason to believe there were drugs inside the car, he requested a canine unit, because he had reasonable suspicion to believe there was evidence of criminal activity inside the vehicle. Lushin also testified at trial to his roadside encounter with Roberts.

{¶17} Detective Kimberly Kelley of the Cincinnati Police Department also testified at the suppression hearing. She testified that she became involved when Epperson's sister requested a wellness check for Epperson. After Epperson was found dead in her apartment, Kelley notified Epperson's sister, who told her that Epperson had been trying to locate her son. Kelley testified that she then learned from...