State v. Boaston

Decision Date26 March 2020
Docket NumberNo. 2018-0364,2018-0364
Parties The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. BOASTON, Appellant.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Stephen P. Hanudel, Medina, for appellant.

James A. Anzelmo, Columbus, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Donnelly, J. {¶ 1} This discretionary appeal from a judgment of the Sixth District Court of Appeals presents us with the opportunity to construe Crim.R. 16(K). The issue is whether the admission of expert-opinion testimony that was not set forth in a written report is reversible error. We hold that it is error to admit expert opinion testimony when the expert's opinion was not set forth in a written report prepared in compliance with Crim.R. 16(K). In this case, however, the trial court's admission of testimony that went beyond the scope of the expert's written report was harmless error. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the Sixth District Court of Appeals, although on grounds other than those stated in its opinion.

I. FACTS

{¶ 2} In April 2014, appellant, Ronald Boaston ("Boaston"), was indicted on one count of murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A) and one count of murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B) for the death of his ex-wife, Brandi Gonyer-Boaston ("Brandi").

{¶ 3} Boaston's trial began on September 15, 2015. The jury heard testimony from numerous witnesses, including the deputy coroner, family members, Brandi's coworkers and friends, police officers, and other law-enforcement personnel. Although Boaston did not take the stand, his recorded voluntary interviews with the police were played and admitted into evidence.

A. Early relationship history

{¶ 4} Boaston and Brandi were neighbors and met when 16-year-old Brandi began to babysit two of Boaston's children. At the time, Boaston was in his late 20s. When Brandi was 18, she became pregnant with the first of two children she and Boaston had together. They got married in 2005. Their marriage ended in 2006, according to Boaston, due to Brandi's infidelity. Although Boaston and Brandi never remarried, they reconciled the following year and lived together with their two children and three children from previous relationships. In early 2014, all seven were living together in a condominium unit on Amanda Circle, in Toledo, located in Lucas County.

B. 2013

{¶ 5} In 2013, Brandi graduated from nursing school and started working at a senior-care facility, Arbors of Waterville. Through her job, Brandi developed a friendship with Daron Walls-Jones ("Jones"), a coworker. In the fall of 2013, Boaston discovered that Brandi and Jones were exchanging text messages. Because Boaston suspected that Brandi was being unfaithful, he installed spyware on her cell phone, software that allowed him to monitor her text messages without her knowledge.

{¶ 6} In late October 2013, Boaston contacted Jones and asked him if he was sleeping with Brandi. Although Jones denied having a sexual relationship with Brandi, Jones and Brandi decided to stop texting and instead began communicating by voice calls. Stymied by the inability to monitor Brandi and Jones's cell-phone calls, Boaston added a second spyware program to Brandi's phone that enabled him to record and listen to her voice conversations.

C. 2014

1. Bathtub incident

{¶ 7} Sometime near the end of January or the beginning of February 2014, Brandi and Boaston were in the bathroom together at their Amanda Circle residence. According to testimony elicited from several witnesses, Brandi told them that Boaston tried to drown her in the bathtub while she was taking a bath. Brandi suffered two black eyes and an injury to her nose. A neighbor who lived in the bordering condominium testified that one day during this time frame, she heard a woman's scream and the sound of running water coming from the Boaston residence through an adjoining wall.

{¶ 8} Boaston admitted that Brandi sustained a black eye and bruises one day when they had just finished taking a bath together. He claimed that after he stepped out of the tub, Brandi asked whether he intended to harm her. In response to this question, he forcefully splashed water two to three times at Brandi who was lying back in the bathtub. Boaston denied striking Brandi or attempting to drown her, and instead claimed that Brandi had "spazzed out" and was somehow injured while overreacting to having water splashed in her face.

2. Brandi leaves

{¶ 9} On February 3, shortly after the bathtub incident, Brandi moved out of the Amanda Circle residence and moved in with her mother. Soon thereafter, Brandi and her mother applied to rent a mobile home together. After Brandi moved out, Boaston closed their joint checking account and opened his own personal checking and savings accounts.

{¶ 10} Although Brandi and Boaston's relationship remained tumultuous over the next several days, Brandi returned to the Amanda Circle residence nearly every day to prepare the children for school and to help them with homework in the afternoons.

3. Cell-phone activity

{¶ 11} Brandi purchased a new cell phone around the time of her move. Her number, however, remained unchanged, and Boaston was able to add spyware to this phone as well.

{¶ 12} At trial, the state introduced cell-phone communications it had retrieved for the time period from February 1 through February 15. According to the cell-phone records and Jones's testimony, Brandi and Jones resumed texting each other shortly after she moved out. Boaston monitored their communications and on numerous occasions contacted Brandi after a particularly suggestive communication. For instance, on one occasion after Brandi had texted Jones, "should have let me kidnap you," Boaston immediately texted Brandi, "I wish u would stop acting so hateful towards me."

{¶ 13} Boaston's phone-harassment campaign against Brandi persisted. On February 12, Brandi texted him, "Don't start being a jerk. i can call my kids * * * anytime I want." After this text, Boaston called Brandi eight times in six minutes, prompting Brandi to text: "Stop calling me. I'm not guna talk to u n hv u calln me a c**t." Despite Brandi's text, Boaston persisted, calling Brandi's phone seven more times over the next several minutes and texting, "Why wont u answer ur phone???"

{¶ 14} That same day, Boaston went to Brandi's mother's home while Brandi was there alone. Brandi called her mother and told her that Boaston was at the house. When Brandi's mother arrived home, she heard Boaston tell Brandi that "either [she] or [Jones] was gonna pay." Brandi's mother told Boaston to leave.

{¶ 15} That afternoon, Brandi also texted Jones that Boaston "just started trippn" and "[h]e f**kn came over n went through my phone n got pissed I was textn u. Don't know if he was threatn me or wat." Previously, Brandi had also told Jones that Boaston had pictures of Jones on a desk at the Amanda Circle condominium. Jones responded to Brandi's texts expressing his concerns about Boaston, and he and Brandi discussed taking a break from each other. In an attempt to reassure Jones, Brandi explained, "He just mad bc I won't go back he is not going to do anything to u or me bc he know he guna get in trouble if he does" and, "He don't want to lose the kids n he will if something happens."

4. February 13 and early-morning hours of February 14

{¶ 16} The next day, February 13, Brandi spent time alone with Boaston at the Amanda Circle residence before reporting to work for her shift, which started at 6:00 p.m. Earlier in the day, while Brandi slept, Boaston read the text messages on her phone because the spyware program attached to Brandi's new phone did not work as well as the earlier versions he had used. Additionally, Boaston purchased $20 of gas for Brandi's car at approximately 8:30 a.m. that morning.

{¶ 17} Brandi began her shift at Arbors of Waterville at 6:00 p.m. While at work, she and a coworker made plans for the following night of February 14. Brandi and Jones began texting at approximately 8:30 p.m. By 10:30 p.m., their exchanges turned flirtatious and at roughly 12:15 a.m., the conversation was even more sexually charged. At 12:25 a.m., Brandi invited Jones to come out with her and her coworker the following evening and Jones agreed to meet them. At 1:25 a.m., Brandi texted, "Well wat if I jump on u?" to which Jones replied, "Well wat can I say." Brandi then asked, "U really want to do something or u playn around." Jones responded, "I do," and Brandi answered, "Well what should we do." Boaston texted Brandi six minutes later, but the text content was unrecoverable.

{¶ 18} Around 2:00 a.m. on February 14, Boaston drove to the apartment of his friend Matt Gwozdz.1 Gwozdz's friend Mark Reno was there as well. Boaston admitted to having discussed his relationship problems with them.

{¶ 19} According to Reno, Boaston asked Reno for a gun or for someone to "take care of some business." Reno asked if they needed to "gather up the home boys and go take care of some shit" and whether someone needed to be "pistol-whip[ped]" or put "in ICU or something." Reno testified that Boaston responded, "Something like that, but deeper." At first, Reno thought Boaston was kidding. However, Reno then realized Boaston was serious and surmised that Boaston meant to do harm to some guy "that was f**king with his family." At some point after this discussion, Reno left Gwozdz's home. After he left, Boaston called Reno at 2:51 a.m. with his prepaid Verizon cell phone.2 The call lasted for over eight minutes, and the record of the call was subsequently deleted from Boaston's phone. Reno testified that during the call, Boaston asked if they could "meet up tomorrow afternoon sometime and maybe have lunch and talk."

{¶ 20} At 2:59 a.m., Boaston purchased gas for his car. He then drove across town and at 4:06 a.m., withdrew $100 from an ATM.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • State v. Kamer
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • June 17, 2022
    ... ... counsel shall preclude the expert's testimony at ... trial." (Emphasis added.) Id. The exclusion ... provision is mandatory, and the trial court is required ... to exclude any expert opinions that are beyond the scope ... of the expert's written report. State v ... Boaston, 160 Ohio St.3d 46, 2020-Ohio-1061, 153 N.E.3d ... 44, ¶ 55 ("The plain language of Crim.R. 16(K) ... expressly provides the consequence for failing to disclose an ... expert's report as required: 'Failure to disclose the ... written report to opposing counsel shall preclude ... the ... ...
  • State v. Jacinto
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • July 16, 2020
    ...the expert witness'[ ] testimony, findings, analysis, conclusions, or opinion" and "qualifications." See also State v. Boaston , 2020-Ohio-1061, 153 N.E.3d 44, ¶ 59 (trial court erred in admitting expert opinion testimony on topics that were not set forth in a written report prepared in com......
  • State v. Smith, 19CA33
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • August 20, 2021
    ... ... deficient for failure to move for exclusion of the ... trooper's testimony based on the State's failure to ... provide a report on the trooper's testimony, we also find ... no error. The Supreme Court of Ohio in State v ... Boaston, 160 Ohio St.3d 46, 2020-Ohio-1061, 153 N.E.3d ... 44, observed that the plain language of Crim.R. 16(K) ... expressly provides the consequence for failing to disclose an ... expert's report as required: "Failure to disclose ... the written report to opposing counsel shall ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT