State v. Wilcox

1

2023-Ohio-2940

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. QUANTEZ WILCOX, Defendant-Appellant.

No. C-220472

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton

August 23, 2023

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Trial No. B-2004192

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Timothy J. McKenna, for Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

Bergeron, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} Following a shooting outside the library in downtown Cincinnati, defendant-appellant Quantez Wilcox was charged with and found guilty of murder, felonious assault, having weapons under disability, and tampering with evidence. On appeal, he raises six assignments of error, claiming, among other things, a violation of his Confrontation Clause rights. Because we agree that Mr. Wilcox's Confrontation Clause rights were violated when the trial court allowed a prejudicial video interview of a nontestifying witness to be played at trial, we reverse the trial court's judgment with respect to Mr. Wilcox's murder conviction (the felonious assault charge and second murder charge were merged), and we remand this cause for a new trial to be held in accordance with this opinion and the law. We otherwise affirm the trial court's judgment, including the convictions for tampering with evidence and having weapons under disability.

I.

{¶2} During an August 2020 evening, Mr. Wilcox parked near the public library in downtown Cincinnati. As he sat in the driver's seat of his silver Mazda, he was approached by victim Keshawn Turner-his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend. The two quarreled. As the dispute escalated, Mr. Wilcox fired a single shot, which struck Mr. Turner in the chest and later killed him. The sole witness to the shooting was Doniesha Monroe-Mr. Turner's girlfriend and Mr. Wilcox's ex-girlfriend.

{¶3} Kenneth Rue was working as a downtown ambassador for 3CDC that evening. Walking near the downtown library at approximately 8:45 p.m., he heard a loud bang and then saw people running. He witnessed Mr. Turner fall to the ground multiple times then pick himself up, and then followed him into an alley where he collapsed for the final time. Mr. Rue radioed the police to recount what he had seen. He then knelt beside Mr. Turner to tell him that police were on the way. Mr. Rue did not see a gun in Mr. Turner's possession.

{¶4} Another witness, Haneen Maghathe, also heard the gunshot and saw Mr. Turner and Ms. Monroe run into the alley. She followed the pair into the alley and recorded the scene with her phone. She described Ms. Monroe as "frantic" and "scared." In the recording, Ms. Monroe identified Mr. Wilcox as the shooter. This video was shown at trial.

{¶5} Officers David Price and Nicholas Casch of the Cincinnati Police Department were each dispatched to the scene. They both wore body cameras, which captured the following events. Officer Price spoke with Ms. Monroe about the events of the evening, and he also talked with Ms. Maghathe. Officer Casch saw Mr. Turner lying motionless while another officer performed CPR. Two other officers arrived and began to render first aid services to the victim. They cut off Mr. Turner's clothing to find the bullet hole, and as they rolled him over, they found a loaded firearm in a black holster behind his back. Officer Casch took possession of the 9 mm handgun, removing the magazine and a round in the chamber before depositing it in the back of his cruiser.

{¶6} Minutes earlier, a street over, Cincinnati Police Officer Cian McGrath had just left the Hamilton County Justice Center and was heading west on Ninth Street when he heard the gunshot. He saw a silver Mazda fly through an intersection at a red light, and he initiated a traffic stop. Mr. Wilcox pulled over. As Officer McGrath approached the car, Mr. Wilcox opened the driver's door with his hands out. He told Officer McGrath that his brakes had failed, and Officer McGrath noted that he was sweating and seemed nervous. After hearing on his radio that Mr. Wilcox was suspected of the shooting, Officer McGrath took him into custody.

{¶7} William Sweet also witnessed a person driving fast just before he was pulled over. He saw the driver throw something out of his window. Mr. Sweet crossed the street to investigate, discovering a gun. He picked it up and turned it over to a police officer. Mr. Wilcox's DNA was discovered on the gun. Additionally, a firearms expert determined that the bullet found in Mr. Turner's back was fired from the gun that Mr. Wilcox tossed from his vehicle, and a trace evidence examiner from the Hamilton County Coroner's Office prepared a report showing that Mr. Wilcox's hands and the driver's side window of his car tested positive for gunshot residue.

{¶8} During his initial interview with Cincinnati Police Homicide Detective Sandy Sieving, Mr. Wilcox professed his innocence. By the time of trial, however, Mr. Wilcox admitted to the shooting but insisted that he acted in self-defense. He testified that he was sensitive to violence, as he had been shot when he was 18 years old and he had lost a cousin and two friends in shootings. At trial, when describing what happened the night of the shooting, Mr. Wilcox explained that Ms. Monroe had called him earlier in the night and asked him to bring her some food. He picked up the food and drove downtown to the library, where she requested they meet. After he parked, Ms. Monroe approached his car and he handed her the food. The two chatted for a bit. At this point, Mr. Turner came up to the car. Mr. Wilcox explained that he had never met Mr. Turner before and did not know of his relationship with Ms. Monroe. Mr. Wilcox felt threatened by statements made by Mr. Turner and testified that he saw him reach for his gun holster. Fearing that Mr. Turner would shoot him, Mr. Wilcox grabbed his own gun from the passenger seat and shot Mr. Turner. He then drove off quickly. Soon after he drove off, he threw the gun out the window before Officer McGrath stopped him. Mr. Wilcox also admitted that he was not initially truthful with Detective Sieving about what happened because he did not trust the police.

{¶9} Ms. Monroe did not show up to testify at trial, but police body-worn camera footage from the night of the murder was played before the jury. The footage included a nearly 10-minute interview between Officer Price and Ms. Monroe during which she was questioned about the murder.

{¶10} Mr. Wilcox was indicted on two counts of murder, with specifications, in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A) and (B); two counts of felonious assault, with specifications, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A); one count of having weapons while under disability, in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3); and one count of tampering with evidence, in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1). The state dismissed count 4 for felonious assault immediately before trial. Mr. Wilcox testified at trial, admitting to shooting Mr. Turner, having a weapon while under disability, and tampering with evidence, but proceeded to argue that he acted in self-defense. Unpersuaded by his defense, the jury found Mr. Wilcox guilty of all five remaining charges.

{¶11} The trial court sentenced Mr. Wilcox to an indefinite term of 15 years to life for count 1 (murder), plus 5 years on the firearm specification, to be served consecutively. The second murder count and the felonious assault count were merged with count 1. For counts 5 (weapons under disability) and 6 (tampering with evidence), Mr. Wilcox received 36 months each, to be served consecutively to both count 1 and each other. The aggregate sentence totaled 26 years to life in the Ohio Department of Corrections. Mr. Wilcox now appeals.

II.

{¶12} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Wilcox maintains that the trial court erred when it allowed into evidence certain statements made by Ms. Monroe, who did not testify at trial. He takes issue with two videos that were played at trial-the video recorded by Ms. Maghathe and Officer Price's body-worn camera footage.

{¶13} "[T]he Confrontation Clause prohibits 'testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.'" State v. Smith, 2019-Ohio-3257, 141 N.E.3d 590, ¶ 10 (1st Dist), quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), paragraph (a) of the syllabus. The clause exists" 'to ensure the reliability of the evidence against a criminal defendant by subjecting it to rigorous testing in the context of an adversary proceeding before the trier of fact.'" Id., quoting State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378, 384, 721 N.E.2d 52 (2000). And "we review objections to evidence based on the Confrontation Clause de novo." Id., citing State v. Thomas, 2015-Ohio-5247, 54 N.E.3d 732, ¶ 14 (9th Dist.), and State v. Burton, 2017-Ohio-322, 77 N.E.3d 449, ¶ 16 (4th Dist.).

{¶14} In Crawford, the United States Supreme Court established a framework for determining whether the Confrontation Clause bars the admission of evidence. Crawford at 68-69. The Court distinguished between testimonial and nontestimonial statements, explaining that nontestimonial statements do not implicate the Confrontation Clause while testimonial statements by a nontestifying witness are inadmissible unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine her. Id. At minimum, testimonial statements include "prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial; and to police interrogations." Id. at 68.

{¶15} We begin by reviewing the admissibility of the video recorded by Ms. Maghathe. This clip is...