Akron v. Wendell
Decision Date | 24 October 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 14541,14541 |
Citation | 590 N.E.2d 380,70 Ohio App.3d 35 |
Parties | CITY OF AKRON, Appellee, v. WENDELL et al., Appellants. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Charles R. Quinn and Thomas DiCaudo, Asst. Pros. Attys., Akron, for appellee.
Daniel G. LaPorte, Akron, and George G. Keith, Cuyahoga Falls, for appellants.
Defendant-appellants, Kathleen M. Drumm, Mary O. Drumm, Charles F. Hoskins, Sylvia C. Slifko, and Stephen Michael Slifko, appeal their conviction for resisting arrest, R.C. 2921.33, trespassing, Akron Codified Ordinance ("ACO") Section 131.08(B)(1), and disorderly conduct, ACO Section 132.01(A)(4), arising from their protests at a medical clinic offering abortion services. We affirm.
In the morning hours of January 13, 1990, appellants participated in a demonstration at an Akron area abortion clinic. The protesters surrounded the entrances to the clinic and refused to allow passage. Apparently, they never entered the building, but stood and sat instead on the sidewalk and parking lot immediately outside the doorways. Another group of demonstrators picketed along the street but were not arrested.
Akron police officers arrived on the scene and warned the protesters blocking the doorway that they were violating state and city laws. When appellants refused to leave, they were placed under arrest. At that point, each protester went limp and had to be carried through the on-field booking process.
A joint trial was subsequently scheduled for the appellants. At voir dire, a number of potential jurors expressed strong anti-abortion sentiments. Those who openly stated that their views would prevent them from rendering fair and impartial verdicts were excused. During a recess, appellants lodged their objection to this proceeding. Their request for a mistrial was denied by the trial court.
Each of the appellants was found guilty by the jury on all three counts. Fines and costs were assessed ranging from $1,408.40 to $2,658.40. Sentences from twenty days of community service to twenty-seven days' net jail time were also imposed. One of the appellants, Stephen Michael Slifko, was required to post his driver's license as bond pending appeal.
The trial court expressed a willingness at sentencing to modify the terms of incarceration imposed if fines and costs were paid promptly. Two of the original defendants, William M. Wendell and Helen Moreno, took advantage of this offer and voluntarily dismissed their pending appeals. Subsequent motions to reinstate these proceedings were denied by this court.
Appellants' argument under this assignment of error is twofold: the trial court perpetrated prejudicial error by (1) excluding potential jurors for cause simply because they were morally opposed to abortion, and (2) refusing to permit questioning and possible rehabilitation of these individuals by counsel. We disagree with both charges.
The record simply does not support the accusation of improper removal of potential jurors. Initially, the court excused David Bell and June Grismer when both openly admitted that they could not be fair and impartial in their deliberation. The trial judge proceeded to emphasize to the rest of the panel:
Moments later he repeated:
This message was continuously reemphasized throughout this portion of voir dire. Nevertheless, Juanita Tomlinson, Edward Devlin, Viola Parsons, Bill Marshall, Robert Kory, Ann Marie Barnes, Debra Tell, and Ernest Donnie all expressed serious doubts as to whether they could "fairly and impartially" decide this case.
The trial court enjoys considerable discretion in removing potential jurors for cause. See Palmer v. State (1885), 42 Ohio State 596, paragraph four of the syllabus; State v. Vails (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 103, 105, 51 O.O.2d 133, 134, 258 N.E.2d 225, 226; State v. Henderson (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 24, 27, 528 N.E.2d 1237, 1241. Crim.R. 24(B)(9) parallels R.C. 2945.25(B) and provides that:
It is well settled that veniremen should not be excluded simply for voicing a general objection or opinion so long as they can still fairly decide the case upon the evidence presented. Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968), 391 U.S. 510, 521-523, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 1776-1778, 20 L.Ed.2d 776, 784-786; State v. Jenkins (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 164, 179-188, 15 OBR 311, 324-332, 473 N.E.2d 264, 281-288.
The record in this appeal, however, does not reveal any evidence that potential jurors were excused simply because they held anti-abortion sentiments. To the contrary, each expressly stated that they were incapable of reaching a fair and impartial verdict. Such admissions clearly constitute proper grounds for removal. R.C. 2313.42(J); see, also, Akron v. Detwiler (July 5, 1990), Summit App. No. 14385, unreported, at 6-11, 1990 WL 95683. Indeed, one court was found to have abused its discretion by failing to exclude a potential juror who made a similar statement. Hankison v. Brown (1981), 3 Ohio App.3d 249, 3 OBR 282, 444 N.E.2d 1059.
It is important to note that while this decision is based, to this point, upon statutory authority, it is also consistent with the Sixth Amendment, United States Constitution and Section 5, Article I, Ohio Constitution. Both the state and the defendant are entitled to an unbiased and impartial jury that will properly apply the law to the facts as they believe to be true. State v. Wilson (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 203, 211, 58 O.O.2d 409, 414, 280 N.E.2d 915, 920-921. A balance must be struck, as stated in State v. Bayless (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 73, 90, 2 O.O.3d 249, 258, 357 N.E.2d 1035, 1048:
* * * "
Contrary to appellants' suggestions, neither Constitution demands the inclusion of jurors predisposed in their favor.
Turning to the question of appellants' right to rehabilitate the potential jurors, R.C. 2945.27 allows "reasonable examination" by defense counsel on the issue of fairness and impartiality. The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized that a failure to permit any such questioning in a capital case violates due process of law. State v. Anderson (1972), 30 Ohio St.2d 66, 59 O.O.2d 85, 282 N.E.2d 568, syllabus. Nevertheless, the trial court may exercise its sound discretion in controlling these proceedings and limit questioning to relevant and material matters. State v. Beuke (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 29, 39, 526 N.E.2d 274, 285.
In the case sub judice, there is no record of timely objections to the trial court in response to its alleged refusal to permit questioning by counsel. Appellants' motion for a mistrial, which has been supplemented to the record, was not raised until after the pertinent veniremen had been excused. Such errors, as alleged, must be called to the trial court's attention at the time at which they could be remedied. State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 112, 5 O.O.3d 98, 364 N.E.2d 1364, paragraph one of syllabus; LeFort v. Century 21-Maitland Realty Co. (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 121, 123, 512 N.E.2d 640, 642- State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 119, 552 N.E.2d 913, 919. This assignment of error is therefore overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cincinnati v. Thompson, C-920619
...the defendants were arrested had assumed to any degree the functional attributes of public property. See, e.g., Akron v. Wendell (1990), 70 Ohio App.3d 35, 590 N.E.2d 380 (anti-abortion activists charged with disorderly conduct and criminal trespass had no First Amendment right to assemble ......
-
Eastwood Mall, Inc. v. Slanco
...549 N.E.2d 561, 564; Columbus v. Kasper (Dec. 23, 1987), Franklin App. No. 87AP-508, unreported, 1987 WL 31290; Akron v. Wendell (1990), 70 Ohio App.3d 35, 590 N.E.2d 380. Moreover, this conclusion is consistent with the majority of states whose courts of review have considered this questio......
-
City of Cincinnati v. Charlotte Thompson, Mae Breadon, Adele Sakler, Catherine Federspiel, Kim Bush, Allen Rainey, Douglas Robinson, David Burridge, Michael Meyer, Richard Ulbrich, Lawrence Garrison, John Parker, Mathew Keck, Robert Rush, Raymond Loebker, Glen Montgomery, Joyce Anderson, Marcella Tilford, Janet Grazani, Doris Sakler, Vivan Skougard, Teresa Hurvel, Zoe Vankleek, Kristina Kelly, Marlene Avey, Allyse Kerns, Stephanie Hunley, Carolyn Knapschaeter, Orville Macomber, Todd Thompson, Robert Loreaux, Gerald Garno, Andrew Corier,wilbert Grimme, Andsteven Borchert
...on private property when the First Amendment would not. Eastwood Mall, supra at 222-223, 626 N.E.2d at 61; accord Sundermeier, supra; Wendell, supra (neither First Amendment nor Section 11 free-speech guarantees precluded arrest and conviction of anti-abortion activists for trespassing on p......
-
State v. Michael W. Benge
...of all the evidence, appellant waived any error arising out of the trial court's denial of his motion for acquittal. See Akron v. Wendell (1990), 70 Ohio App.3d 35, 41; State v. Bell (Jan. 31, 1994), Butler App. CA93-07-143, unreported, at 3. Notwithstanding appellant's waiver, his convicti......