Black v. Hicks

• Decision Date: 06 August 2020
• Docket Number: No. 108958,108958
• Citation: 2020 Ohio 3976,157 N.E.3d 193
• Parties: Arnold BLACK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Detective Randy HICKS, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

157 N.E.3d 193

2020 Ohio 3976

Arnold BLACK, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Detective Randy HICKS, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 108958

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 6, 2020

Willa Hemmons, Director of Law, City of East Cleveland, for appellants.

DiCello Levitt Gutzler, L.L.C., and Justin J. Hawal and Robert F. DiCello, Mentor, for appellee.

Randy Hicks, pro se, for cross-claim defendant-appellee.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, A.J.:

{¶ 1} Defendants-appellants, city of East Cleveland and former East Cleveland Police Chief Ralph Spotts (collectively referred as "appellants") appeal a judgment, rendered following a jury trial, in favor of plaintiff-appellee, Arnold Black. Appellants claim the following eleven errors:

1. In that defendant Randy Hicks was acting as an arm of the state through his assignment to a joint task force whose sole mission was to interdict the violation of state drug laws, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear any of plaintiff's federal or state law claims.

2. The journal entry of 8/15/19 was inapposite of the 8/9/19 jury verdict inasmuch as it deviated from said verdict which awarded $15,000 in punitive damages only as to defendant Ralph Spotts with no award of compensatory damages.

3. Neither the city of East Cleveland nor Chief Ralph Spotts (the city Defendants) may held liable for the misconduct of defendant Randy Hicks, as defendant Hicks was not under the control and authority of these city defendants at the time of his alleged misconduct.

4. Defendant Randy Hicks's actions were outside any scope and authority he might have possessed as an East Cleveland police officer as he was acting as an individual, and the city should have been able to offer rebuttal evidence thereof.

5. The admission of Randy Hicks * * * [sic] admissions and jury instructions violated the previous court of appeals case no. 16-105248 with reference to maintenance of discovery as of 5/10/16.

6. There was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict and it was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

7. The trial court erred when it found a Monell claim against the city.

8. The trial court erred to the prejudice of defendant Ralph Spotts when it imputed supervisory liability to him for the malicious, wanton, reckless action of Randy Hicks.

9. The surprise showing of Arnold Black's head scar from a 2015 surgery irreparably injured the defense and should have resulted in a mistrial in that it was plain error.

10. The statute of limitations had run by 23:44 hours, April 28, 2014 time of the case refiling when, according to evidence, the alleged precipitating incident occurred at 00:55 hours on April 28, 2012, which is plain error.

11. Denial of criminal court State v. Black , Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-2-562242, finding that probable cause existed as a matter of judicial notice was due process violation.

{¶ 2} We find no merit to the appeal and affirm the trial court's judgment.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 3} On April 28, 2012, at approximately 10:00 p.m., Black was driving home from his mother's house when he was pulled over by East Cleveland Patrolman Jonathan O'Leary. (Trial tr. 166-167; 218; 227.) Sergeant Randy Hicks had ordered O'Leary to stop Black's green truck because it resembled a green truck belonging to a suspected drug dealer. Hicks was a narcotics detective in East Cleveland and was also a member of a joint narcotics task force with the Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Department. (O'Leary trial depo. tr. 54.)

{¶ 4} O'Leary told Black to get out of his vehicle, handcuffed him, and escorted him to the back of his truck. (O'Leary trial depo. tr. 8.) O'Leary's patrol car was parked behind Black's vehicle with the lights activated. Black was sitting on his back bumper in front of O'Leary's patrol car when Hicks arrived on the scene. Black testified that Hicks immediately began searching his car and removed the side panels from his truck. Hicks did not find any narcotics in the truck and, after brandishing his badge, began questioning Black about who sells drugs in East Cleveland. (Trial tr. 86.) Black replied that he did not know who sold drugs in the city. Thereafter, Hicks became violent and repeatedly struck Black's face and head without provocation or justification. (Trial tr. 93.) Hicks admitted at trial that he struck Black several times until O'Leary came between them and stopped him. (Trial tr. 93-94.) Hicks described Black as appearing "dazed" after the beating. (Trial tr. 94; 232-234.) O'Leary testified that he believed his dash camera was operating throughout the duration of the incident and captured the incident on film. (O'Leary trial depo. 18.) Black and O'Leary both testified that Hicks may have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident because he smelled of alcohol. (Trial tr. 291-292; O'Leary trial depo. 73-74.)

{¶ 5} Hicks admitted that he called another officer to transport Black to the East Cleveland jail even though he did not have probable cause to arrest him. (Trial tr. 98.) Upon arriving at the jail, Black was placed in a storage room that the police officers referred to as a "holding cell," even though there was no bed and no toilet in the room. (Trial tr. 238-239.) The room contained a wooden bench, some storage lockers, and cleaning supplies and was infested with cock roaches. (Trial tr. 240-241.)

{¶ 6} Black remained in the storage room for four days. At some point, an unknown officer entered the room, gave Black a carton of milk, and allowed him to use his cell phone to make a call. (Trial tr. 244-245.) Black called his former fiancée, Eryka Bey and told her, in a whisper, that he had been arrested and beaten and was being held in the East Cleveland jail. (Trial tr. 190.) Bey went immediately to the jail and asked to see Black. An officer told her she could not see him because he was "under investigation."

{¶ 7} Black testified that on the fourth day following his arrest, a councilwoman came to the jail to inquire about him because she had heard he had been beaten while he was handcuffed and was being detained without probable cause in the city jail. Chief Spotts accompanied the councilwoman during her visit with Black in the storage room. (Trial tr. 272.) In Black's presence, the councilwoman told the chief that she wanted to know what happened to Black and how "at this time and age * * * he got beat up and put in a closet." (Trial tr. 274.) Thereafter, Black was placed in a line of inmates, who were awaiting transport to the county jail. (Trial tr. 271-274.) Later that day, Bey picked Black up at the county jail and drove him home. (Trial tr. 196-197.) According to Bey, Black's head was swollen like a "helmet" and he was acting fearful. (Trial tr. 196-197.)

{¶ 8} In the weeks following the incident, Black complained of headaches and developed vision problems. His mother and Bey also observed changes in his personality. They described him as withdrawn and unwilling to leave the house due to fear of the police. (Trial tr. 199-200, 201, 209, 253-254.) Black eventually sought medical attention and required surgery to remove blood from his brain. (Trial tr. 204-206, 257-260.)

{¶ 9} Following the incident, O'Leary reported Hicks to his superiors, including Spotts. (Trial depo. tr. 29-30.) O'Leary told Spotts that the dash camera video would show Hicks beating Black while he was handcuffed. O'Leary also completed a "Form-M," a report in which O'Leary detailed Hicks's actions with respect to Black. (O'Leary trial depo. tr. 66.) Yet, nobody from the East Cleveland Police Department ever followed up with O'Leary to investigate the incident, and the dash-camera video went missing. (Trial tr. 31; 33-34; 49.) O'Leary testified that the department's failure to take action in response to the incident suggested that the department intended to cover it up. (Trial tr. 33-34.) O'Leary stated:

Q: Now, based on your experience, based on your reference to notify supervisors, based on the actual notifications that you gave to supervisors about what happened, does the missing video and the inaction by the city and chief --- * * * lead you to believe * * * that the chief ignored your information so they could put the matter to rest without prosecuting Detective Hicks?

* * *

A: I don't know what his intentions were, but the appearance to me was that he probably wanted to put [it] to rest.

Q: So the missing video and inaction by the city and chief leads you to believe, and do you in fact, truly believe that the chief participated in a passive, do nothing cover up in this case?

* * *

A: So you're saying that because nothing was ultimately done and – by anybody, basically, that there was no prosecution, was that a covert way to basically, hide this? It has that appearance to me.

(O'Leary trial depo. tr. 33-34.)

{¶ 10} Hicks similarly testified that he propounded discovery to appellants, requesting any police reports, O'Leary's Form-M complaint, the dash-camera video, booking documents, jail records, and his own personnel file, and the city informed him that "[t]hey didn't have [them] anymore" and that "they were gone." (Trial tr. 102-103.)

{¶ 11} Hicks testified that there was a culture of violence in the East Cleveland Police Department. He explained that as part of his on-the-job training, he was taught to use violence against citizens in order to obtain information from them and to instill fear. (Trial tr. 83-84, 87.) Hicks explained that when he was a patrol officer, he and Spotts were part of group known as the "jump-out boys." (Trial tr. 90.) Whenever they encountered citizens gathered on a sidewalk, they would jump out of their cars, throw the citizens on the ground, and beat or "boot" them. (Trial tr. 90.) Hicks was also taught to "clear the corners" by slamming people against police cars, searching them for drugs without probable cause, and if they did not find any drugs, making it "inconvenient for them." (Trial tr. 91...