State v. Anthony Laquan Saxton
| Citation | 2002 Ohio 1024 |
| Decision Date | 07 March 2002 |
| Docket Number | 02-LW-0657,9-2000-88 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. ANTHONY LAQUAN SAXTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT CASE |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
KEVIN P. COLLINS, Attorney at Law, Reg. #0029811, 120 South Main Street, Marion, Ohio 43302, For Appellant
JIM SLAGLE, Attorney at Law, Reg. #0032360, 133 1/2 East Center Street, Marion, Ohio 43302, For Appellee
Defendant-Appellant, Anthony Saxton, appeals a judgment of conviction by the Marion County Common Pleas Court finding him guilty of aggravated murder, in violation of R.C 2903.01(B), aggravated arson, in violation of R.C 2909.02(A)(2), and aggravated burglary, in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(1).
Appellant claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, which, in turn, should have supported his motion for acquittal, and that the convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. However, based upon an abundance of circumstantial evidence coupled with Appellant's numerous contradictory statements to the police during their investigation, we find that the evidence was sufficient to warrant conviction, and as such, the convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Appellant also asserts that the State's expert witness's testimony concerning an out-of-court experiment and his wife's testimony regarding threats he allegedly made just days before the crime should have been excluded. The expert's testimony was probative, however, to determine the solubility of magazine ink that had left a clear impression on Appellant's shoe, and any dissimilarities between the experiment and the actual events went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Furthermore, Appellant's wife's testimony was probative of Appellant's motive behind the crimes, and any potential prejudice was cured by cross examination of the witness about her prior inconsistent statements.
The record further does not support Appellant's contentions that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct, that his attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel, or that his motion for a new trial should have been granted. The State did not inaccurately state the evidence in closing arguments, and the State is free to comment on Appellant's failure to call witnesses to support his case; thus precluding Appellant's claim of prosecutorial misconduct. Appellant's attorneys' failure to seek a continuance in order to locate an alibi witness did not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel because the record does not indicate what the testimony would have been had the witness testified at trial, and there is not a reasonable probability that the outcome would have changed had the witness testified. However, the failure to request a continuance did preclude the granting of a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence because Appellant did not use due diligence prior to trial in attempting to procure the testimony.
The facts leading to Appellant's appeal are as follows. On Saturday, July 3, 1999, Appellant and his wife, Pamela Saxton, argued about her refusal to leave Appellant the keys to her car while she went out of town to visit family. She left the car at her mother and daughter's house and locked the keys to the car in her mother's bedroom without telling anyone. Thereafter, she and her mother left, leaving her daughter, Taranda Braddy, at home alone.
On Wednesday, July 7, 1999, the Marion, Ohio Fire Department was dispatched to Taranda Braddy's house in response to a fire. Once a majority of the fire was extinguished, Taranda's body was found lying on the bed in her upstairs bedroom. The coroner determined that she had died of strangulation before the fire was set. Investigators determined that the fire was intentionally set using gasoline as an accelerant.
Appellant arrived at the scene later that morning and was approached by investigating officers. Thereafter, he consented to a search of his home located approximately one mile from the scene of the crime. During the search, officers found potential evidence linking Appellant to the crimes. Appellant was later arrested for an unrelated parole violation, and the investigation surrounding Taranda Braddy's death continued.
During the investigation, Appellant never accounted for his whereabouts between the times the crimes were committed and continually gave conflicting statements to the police. Furthermore, an abundance of circumstantial evidence was recovered linking Appellant to the crime. Consequently, on July 29, 1999, Appellant was indicted on one count of aggravated murder, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of aggravated arson.
On March 8, 2000, after a two-week jury trial, Appellant was convicted on all counts. Subsequently, Appellant filed a motion for acquittal and a motion for a new trial, which were both denied after a hearing on the motions. On September 22, 2000, Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for aggravated murder, ten years imprisonment for aggravated burglary, and eight years imprisonment for aggravated arson; all terms to be served consecutively.
From this conviction and sentence, Appellant brings his appeal and raises nine assignments of error for our review. For purposes of brevity and clarity, we will not be addressing them in the order in which they were assigned.
The record contains insufficient evidence to support Defendant-appellant's conviction.
The trial court erred to the prejudice of Defendant-appellant by denying Defendant-appellant's post trial motion for acquittal.
Defendant-appellant's conviction is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in his second assignment of error and the weight of the evidence in his first assignment of error. In his eighth assignment, he avers that the trial court erred by denying his Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal. Because these assignments are sufficiently related, we will address them together.
The relevant inquiry for reviewing a denial of a Crim.R. 29 motion is the same as the inquiry for sufficiency of the evidence.[1] To reverse a conviction for insufficient evidence, we must be persuaded, after viewing all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, that no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.[2] The elements necessary for a conviction of aggravated murder in this case include that Appellant purposefully caused another's death while committing or attempting to commit kidnapping, rape, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated robbery, robbery, aggravated burglary, or escape.[3] Likewise, for a conviction of aggravated arson, the State must prove that Appellant knowingly caused physical harm to an occupied structure by means of fire.[4] And, aggravated burglary requires proof that Appellant trespassed in an occupied structure by force, stealth, or deception when another person was present with the purpose to commit any criminal offense and that physical harm was inflicted upon another.[5] Appellant contends that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to maintain his convictions. Based upon the following, we disagree.
The State's case herein was based solely upon circumstantial evidence. No direct evidence was presented that placed Appellant at the scene of the crime; however, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that "[c]ircumstantial evidence and direct evidence inherently possess the same probative value."[6] Therefore, regardless of whether the evidence is comprised of direct or circumstantial evidence, the standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence is the same.[7]
Testimony at trial revealed that the victim died as a result of strangulation before the fire was set. The coroner testified that while the precise time of the victim's death could not be accurately pinpointed due to the burn damage to the body, evidence revealed that the victim was killed between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Arson investigators testified that the fire was intentionally set with a gasoline accelerant based upon the burn patterns found in the upstairs of the house, a gas can found at the top of the stairs, and samples of the upstairs carpet that tested positive for gasoline. Testimony also indicated that there was no forced entry into the house and nothing was taken from the premises.
Less than seven hours after the fire was reported, Appellant gave investigators consent to search his home. In his upstairs bathroom, officers found several articles of clothing soaking in the bathtub. Testimony revealed that the clothes included two pairs of men's underwear, a pair of shoes, a t-shirt, a jacket, a pair of denim shorts, and a yellow mesh outfit consisting of a pair of shorts and a shirt. Officers testified that they smelled gasoline emanating from the tub and the smell of a strong detergent. Next to the tub, officers found an almost completely empty bottle of Purex. Testimony indicated that Appellant told them the clothes had been in the tub since he worked at the county fair dismantling rides in the late hours of July 4th to the early morning hours of July 5th.
Results of scientific testing revealed that traces of gasoline were present on either the denim shorts or the shoes. Which specific item contained the gasoline could not be determined because those articles were packaged together and were possibly cross contaminated. On July 13th, Appellant told the police that the denim shorts were soaking in the bathtub because he accidentally had diarrhea while wearing them, although the State's scientific...
To continue reading
Request your trial