State v. Browning
| Decision Date | 02 November 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 09CA36.,09CA36. |
| Citation | 190 Ohio App.3d 400,942 N.E.2d 394 |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee,v.BROWNING, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
James B. Grandey, Highland County Prosecuting Attorney, and Anneka P. Collins, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.Susan M. Zurface Daniels, for appellant.PETER B. ABELE, Judge.
[Ohio App.3d 403] {¶ 1} This is an appeal from a Highland County Common Pleas Court judgment of conviction and sentence. A jury found Iva Browning, defendant below and appellant herein, guilty of two counts of attempted felonious assault on a peace officer in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and 2903.11(A)(1).
{¶ 2} Appellant assigns the following errors for review:
First Assignment of Error:
The trial court erred in finding that the officers' warrantless entry into the defendant's private vacation home did not violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution when the state failed to show exigent circumstances or any other valid exception to the warrant requirement.
Second Assignment of Error:
The trial court misapplied this court's holding in State v. Neal and the Ohio Supreme Court's holding in Columbus v. Fraley and erred in denying defendant-appellant's request to present evidence of self-defense and in denying appellant's request for a self-defense instruction.
Third Assignment of Error:
The trial court erred in instructing the jury that “the deputies had a legal right to enter the trailer to arrest the defendant” as warrantless entry was not a fact that needed to be proven or disproven and simply created a prejudicial situation where the jury was led to believe that the actions of law enforcement officers were legitimate.
[Ohio App.3d 404] Fourth Assignment of Error:
The trial court erred in overruling the defendant's Crim.R. 29(A) motion for acquittal on the grounds that, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, the state had failed at the close of its evidence to meet its burden on essential elements of each charge.
Fifth Assignment of Error:
The verdicts finding defendant guilty of attempted felonious assault in violation of O.R.C. § 2923.02(A) and O.R.C. § 2903.11(A)(1) were against the manifest weight of the evidence, as all physical evidence presented at trial supported the defendant's version of the events and did not support the officers' testimony.
Sixth Assignment of Error:
The verdicts finding defendant guilty of attempted felonious assault in violation of O.R.C. § 2923.03(A) and O.R.C. § 2923.11(A)(1) were not supported by sufficient evidence, as the state failed to present any evidence supporting the officers' version of the events.
{¶ 3} Late in the evening on April 24, 2009, someone notified the Highland County Sheriff's Office that a lady was being assaulted with scissors at the Hickory Hills campground. Deputy Ronnie Hughes arrived at the scene and met with the alleged victim, Dorothy Ellis. Ellis identified appellant as the perpetrator but said that she did not want to press charges. Deputy Hughes went to the appellant's camper to speak with her and warn her that if he had to return to the campground that night, someone would be going to jail.
{¶ 4} Less than an hour after the first call, the Sheriff's Department received a second call indicating that appellant was driving up and down a campground road and threatening people. When Deputy Hughes returned to the scene, appellant was in her camper. Deputy Hughes told appellant that she was under arrest, but she refused to exit the camper or let him inside. After a short argument, Deputy Hughes called for backup.
{¶ 5} A short time later, Deputy Michael Gaines arrived on the scene. When appellant still refused to come out, the deputies used a crowbar to open the camper door. Once the door came open, Deputy Hughes attempted to grab appellant's wrist, but she escaped his grasp and ran to a back bedroom and locked the door. After the deputies broke down the bedroom door and attempted to enter the bedroom, appellant threw bleach into their faces and forced them to retreat. Outside, various bystanders brought water to them to wash their eyes. Deputy Hughes eventually subdued and arrested appellant. She was later transferred to the local jail and accused the deputies of sexual assault.
[Ohio App.3d 405] {¶ 6} The Highland County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging appellant with two counts of assault on a peace officer. She pleaded not guilty to both charges and filed a motion to suppress (1) the statements she made to sheriff's deputies during custodial interrogation and (2) any evidence of the assault. Appellant argued that the deputies unlawfully entered appellant's camper and, thus, any evidence of the assault should be suppressed.
{¶ 7} The trial court partially sustained her motion. The court suppressed a recorded statement but allowed other statements to be admitted into evidence. Concerning to the suppression of the evidence of the assaults, the court ruled that exigent circumstances justified the forced entry. Moreover, the court concluded that even if entry was unlawful, appellant “had no right to commit an assault against the Deputies by throwing bleach in their faces and eyes.”
{¶ 8} At the November 2009 jury trial, Deputies Hughes and Gaines recounted their version of the events. Dr. Thomas Randall, the emergency physician who treated the deputies, testified about the severity of the pain they experienced and the potential for permanent eye damage. Deputies Rob Music and Erica Engle both testified that during their encounters with appellant, she freely admitted the assaults but claimed that she had acted in self-defense and also stated that she had been sexually assaulted.
{¶ 9} Appellant testified in her own defense and explained that she had refused to exit the camper because a crowd of people outside were calling her “bitch,” “cunt,” and “slut” and she was frightened. Further, when the deputies entered the camper, she claimed that they Tasered her breast and called her a “bitch.” Appellant did admit that she threw the bleach at the deputies, but only after she received a “crushing blow to [her] vaginal” area.
{¶ 10} Appellant requested a self-defense instruction, but after she rested her case the trial court refused to give the request and instruction. Subsequently, the jury returned verdicts finding appellant not guilty of felonious assault, but guilty of the lesser offense of attempted felonious assault against the deputies. The trial court sentenced appellant to serve consecutive four-year prison terms for each count. This appeal followed.
{¶ 11} In her first assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred by overruling a portion of her motion to suppress evidence. In particular, appellant argues that the court's conclusion that exigent circumstances justified the forced entry into the camper is erroneous.
{¶ 12} Appellate review of a motion to suppress evidence decision involves mixed questions of law and fact. [Ohio App.3d 406] State v. Grubb, 186 Ohio App.3d 744, 2010-Ohio-1265, 930 N.E.2d 380, at ¶ 12; State v. Book, 165 Ohio App.3d 511, 2006-Ohio-1102, 847 N.E.2d 52, at ¶ 9. In hearing such motions, courts assume the role of trier of fact and are in the best position to resolve factual disputes and evaluate witnesses' credibility. State v. Roberts, 110 Ohio St.3d 71, 2006-Ohio-3665, 850 N.E.2d 1168, at ¶ 100; State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, at ¶ 8.
{¶ 13} Generally, appellate courts will accept a trial court's factual finding if competent and credible evidence supports the finding. State v. Little, 183 Ohio App.3d 680, 2009-Ohio-4403, 918 N.E.2d 230, at ¶ 15; State v. Medcalf (1996), 111 Ohio App.3d 142, 145, 675 N.E.2d 1268. However, appellate courts conduct a de novo review of a trial court's application of law to those facts. State v. Higgins, 183 Ohio App.3d 465, 2009-Ohio-3979, 917 N.E.2d 363, at ¶ 14; State v. Poole, 185 Ohio App.3d 38, 2009-Ohio-5634, 923 N.E.2d 167, at ¶ 18. With this in mind, we turn our attention to the facts adduced at the suppression hearing.
{¶ 14} The trial court found that Deputy Hughes arrived at appellant's camper, knocked on the door, conversed with her through an open window, and informed her that she was under arrest. Appellant, however, refused to exit the camper and refused to allow Deputy Hughes to enter. After Deputy Gaines arrived, appellant again refused to exit or to let the deputies enter. However, our review of the record reveals no evidence to indicate that the officers interacted with appellant outside the camper and that she retreated inside the camper.
{¶ 15} The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the rights of people “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.” 1 (Emphasis added.) The touchstone of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is that searches and seizures must be reasonable. See Wilson v. Arkansas (1995), 514 U.S. 927, 931, 115 S.Ct. 1914, 131 L.Ed.2d 976; New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985), 469 U.S. 325, 337, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720; AL Post 763 v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 108, 111, 694 N.E.2d 905. The question of whether a peace officer's warrantless entry into a home is reasonable requires an analysis of the sequential and consequential events that led up to and included the entry. State v. Huff (June 10, 1999), Highland App. No. 98CA23, 1999 WL 402222; State v. Russell (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 414, 713 N.E.2d 56.
[Ohio App.3d 407] {¶ 16}Here, the trial court concluded that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless and forced entry into the camper. We respectfully disagree. Although the exigent-circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement may, at times, appear to be somewhat amorphous, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial