State v. Sheeders

2019 Ohio 3120

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. JASON M. SHEEDERS Defendant-Appellant

Appellate Case No. 2019-CA-2

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DARKE COUNTY

August 2, 2019

Trial Court Case No. 18-CRB-001-0765

(Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court)

OPINION

CHANCE O. COX, Atty. Reg. No. 0095164, P.O. Box 158, Greenville, Ohio 45331 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee

V. GAYLE MILLER, Atty. Reg. No. 0091528, P.O. Box 10124, Dayton, Ohio 45417 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

FROELICH, J.

{¶ 1} Following a bench trial, Jason M. Sheeders was found guilty of aggravated menacing and unlawful restraint, and he was sentenced to 180 days in jail (with credit for two days served), fines totaling $400, and court costs. He appeals from that Darke County Municipal Court judgment. The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

Factual and Procedural Background

{¶ 2} On December 9, 2018, Sheeders was charged by Officer Brandon Hardy of the Greenville Police Department with one count of aggravated menancing in violation of R.C. 2903.21, a first-degree misdemeanor, and one count of unlawful restraint in violation of R.C. 2905.03(A), a third-degree misdemeanor. After Sheeders entered a plea of not guilty, counsel was appointed to represent him.

{¶ 3} The matter proceeded to a trial to the Darke County Municipal Court on January 7, 2019. Sarah Dynes testified that on the evening of December 9, 2018, she was at her home in Greenville with her friend Kayla Trittschuh and Trittschuh's son, who were staying with Dynes temporarily. Dynes's friend Trevor Newbauer also was there visiting. Dynes and Newbauer were sitting in the living room, and Trittschuh and two other male friends¹ were in Trittschuh's bedroom,² when Sheeders knocked on Dynes's front door. Dynes had met Sheeders once before and knew that he was a friend of Newbauer's. Dynes, Newbauer, and Sheeders then sat in the living room talking and smoking cigarettes until Newbauer left. Thereafter, Sheeders "went outside and met withsomeone." (Trial Tr., p. 8.)

{¶ 4} According to Dynes, when Sheeders re-entered her home, "it was like he had just snapped." (Id., p. 9.) Dynes elaborated: "His eyes were real big. He seemed to have a real nasty attitude. He just didn't seem like a stable person * * * He just seemed real jittery. Not like a normal person would act. * * * Violent." (Id., p. 10.)

{¶ 5} Dynes testified that Sheeders "began swinging * * * around" a black-handled knife that Dynes recognized as one from a set in her kitchen. (Id., pp. 10-11.) She said that Sheeders told everyone in the house to give him their cell phones. Keeping Dynes in her bedroom and Trittschuh and her two friends in the other bedroom, Sheeders was "pacing back and forth" between the two bedrooms. (Id., p. 14.) Dynes testified that Sheeders continued to wave the knife while pacing, "telling us to stay put, nobody was leaving. If we did, he'd kill us." (Id.) According to Dynes, during this time, Sheeders "beat [Trittschuh] in the ribs", threw Dynes onto her bed, causing "a very big mark on my stomach", and punched one of Trittschuh's male friends in the face. (Id., pp. 13, 15.)

{¶ 6} Dynes further testified: "I never felt that I was free to leave. * * * I thought I was going to die. * * * [Sheeders] was acting very violent swinging a knife around. I was afraid I was going to get stabbed with the knife or cut. I wasn't for sure what was going to happen. * * * I thought he was going to cause all of us harm. * * * [H]e was meaning to do something to someone. * * * From the minute I saw him with the knife to the minute that the cops got there and found the knife, I was afraid." (Id., pp. 15-16.)

{¶ 7} Dynes said that although Sheeders had taken her main cell phone, she had another cell phone in a drawer in her bedroom that she was able to use to call 911 when Sheeders was not looking. When the police arrived, Dynes felt that it was safe to move into the living room, where she waved to the police to enter the house. Dynes testified that after the police placed Sheeders in handcuffs, they found the black-handled knife on the table of a floor lamp in the living room.

{¶ 8} On cross-examination, Dynes admitted that the written statement she prepared for the police on the date of the incident did not indicate that Sheeders threatened anyone with the knife. On re-direct, she explained that she was not able to see Sheeders threaten anyone else while she was confined to her bedroom, and she failed to realize that she should write down that she personally was threatened. Dynes said that she did not see Sheeders place the knife on the lamp table where she said it was found, but she was "most definite" that the knife introduced at trial was "the knife that he was waving around." (Id., p. 25.)

{¶ 9} Officer Hardy testified that he was dispatched to Dynes's residence on December 9, 2018, in response to a call about "a subject with [a] weapon." (Id., p. 29.) Officer Hardy said that two other officers arrived at Dynes's home at about the same time. As he approached the house, Officer Hardy "could hear yelling" (id.) and saw Sheeders and Dynes arguing in the living room; Dynes waved the officers inside. Dynes "was yelling that he had a knife and was waving it around." (Id., p. 31.) Officer Hardy could see Trittschuh, a small child, and two other men in the spare bedroom; one of the men was "highly upset" and "crouched down on the floor," "kind of in a ball position." (Id., pp. 31-32.)

{¶ 10} The officers advised Sheeders "to calm down [and] explain what happened." (Id., p. 32.) Because Sheeders was "highly agitated" and kept reaching into his pockets, another officer detained but did not arrest him. (Id., p. 33.) Asked by Officer Hardy about the location of the knife, Dynes pointed out a knife on the stove in the kitchen. Another officer took possession of the knife. Officer Hardy said that Dynes, in her testimony, was incorrect about where the knife was found. The knife was not dusted for fingerprints or tested for DNA.

{¶ 11} Defense counsel asserted a chain of custody objection to the admission of the knife into evidence, but the trial court overruled that objection. Defense counsel also moved for acquittal pursuant to Crim.R. 29, arguing that the evidence failed to establish proper venue. The court took that issue under advisement. On January 9, 2019, the trial court issued a judgment entry finding Sheeders guilty of both offenses.

{¶ 12} On January 14, 2019, Sheeders appeared by video for sentencing. (Sentencing Tr., p. 5.) As to the aggravated menacing offense, the trial court ordered a $250 fine and a 180-day jail sentence with credit for two days served, for a remaining sentence of 178 days. On the unlawful restraint offense, the court imposed an additional $150 fine and court costs, together with a 60-day jail sentence and two days' credit, with the remaining 58 days to be served concurrently with Sheeders's aggravated menacing sentence. (Id., p. 5.) On the same date, the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc amended judgment entry, finding Sheeders guilty of both offenses "[b]ased upon the credibility of the witnesses," and sentencing him in accordance with the record at the sentencing hearing. (Doc. #12.)

{¶ 13} Sheeders appeals from that judgment, setting forth five assignments of error:

1) The trial court erred in convicting [Sheeders] of aggravating menacing against the manifest weight of the evidence and testimony presented at trial.

2) The trial court erred in convicting [Sheeders] of unlawful restraint against the manifest weight of the evidence and testimony presented at trial.

3) The trial court erred in finding that the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the charge of aggravating menacing.

4) The trial court erred in finding that the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the charge of unlawful restraint.

5) The trial court erred in overruling the defense's objections to admission of * * * Exhibit 1 in light of the State's failure to authenticate the exhibit through first-hand testimony of the exhibit's chain of custody, in accordance with Ohio Evidence Rule 901.

{¶ 14} We will consider those assignments in the order most conducive to our analysis.

Assignment of Error # 5 - Chain of Custody

{¶ 15} In his fifth assignment of error, Sheeders contends that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence, over Sheeders's objection, the knife presented as a prosecution exhibit. Sheeders asserts that because the State failed to present the testimony of the police officer who took possession of that knife at the crime scene, the "chain of custody" was not established, and the knife was not properly authenticated for evidentiary purposes.

a. Standard of Review

{¶ 16} We review trial court decisions related to the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. State v. Glenn, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27639, 2018-Ohio-2326, ¶ 20, citing State v. Belton, 149 Ohio St.3d 165, 2016-Ohio-1581, 74 N.E.3d 319, ¶ 116; State v. Adams, 144 Ohio St.3d 429, 2015-Ohio-3954, 45 N.E.3d 127, ¶ 240. "A trial court abuses its discretion when it makes a decision that is unreasonable, unconscionable, or arbitrary," which "includes a situation in which a trial court did not engage in a 'sound reasoning process.' " (Citations omitted.) State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343, 2013-Ohio-966, 986 N.E.2d 971, ¶ 34. "Abuse-of-discretion review is deferential and does not permit an appellate court to simply substitute its judgment for that of the trial court." Id.

{¶ 17} In addition, appellate courts "give further deference to a judge's [admission of evidence] decision when the evidence is introduced in a bench trial." State Cty. Park Dist. v. Dickerhoof, 2018-Ohio-4319, 122 N.E.3d 608, ¶ 49 (5th Dist.), citing State v. Fautenberry, 72 Ohio St.3d 435, 439, 650 N.E.2d 878 (1995). "Unless the record indicates otherwise, the judge is presumed to have considered only admissible...