State v. Cantrill

• Decision Date: 31 March 2020
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals No. L-18-1047
• Citation: 2020 Ohio 1235
• Parties: State of Ohio Appellee v. Jason Ray Cantrill Appellant
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

2020 Ohio 1235

State of Ohio Appellee v. Jason Ray Cantrill Appellant

Court of Appeals No. L-18-1047

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY

March 31, 2020

Trial Court No. CR0201701762

DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Alyssa Breyman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Karin L. Coble, for appellant.

ZMUDA, P.J.

{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on appeal from the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, general division, sentencing appellant to an aggregate prison term of 26 years after a jury trial. Finding no error, we affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural Background

{¶ 2} Over a two-week period, from March 30 to April 11, 2017, appellant Jason Cantrill,¹ Robert Coulter, and Salena Munoz conducted a series of break-ins in Toledo and Maumee, taking property from the dwellings they entered, with the ultimate goal purchasing illicit drugs. According Munoz and Coulter, Cantrill either exchanged the property with their drug dealer for drugs, or Munoz sold jewelry and other property to pawnshops and gave Cantrill the money, which she then exchanged for drugs. At the time, all three struggled with drug addiction.

{¶ 3} The victims of each break-in reported the crimes to police, and police obtained video of some of the incidents from neighbors' security cameras. The various videos showed a black Jeep Cherokee with the front license plate attached to the grill, as well as individuals approaching the houses, returning after some time with property in hand, and then leaving in the vehicle. Based on the video footage, police could not clearly identify the individuals involved. However, police circulated a description of the black Jeep to patrol officers. One of the victims was a retired police officer, and he discovered a crack pipe lying on the floor of his garage while cleaning up after the break-in. He notified police, who collected the crack pipe from the garage for forensic testing. That testing identified Cantrill's DNA on the crack pipe.

{¶ 4} On April 12, 2017, police stopped Cantrill's black Jeep Cherokee after noting it fit the description of the vehicle police believed connected to the series of break-ins. Cantrill and Coulter were in the vehicle, with Cantrill at the wheel. Cantrill immediately exited the vehicle and indicated she had no identification. Police secured her in the back of the cruiser for officer safety while they verified her identity. As Coulter exited the passenger side, police saw a gun, and they secured Coulter in the back of a second cruiser. Munoz had been staying with her sister in that neighborhood, and saw the traffic stop. Munoz owned a gun, and reported her gun stolen the previous day. She approached the officers and told them about her gun, with police later determining the gun in the vehicle belonged to Munoz.

{¶ 5} Police seized the gun, and noted it was loaded with a round in the chamber. They searched the vehicle and recovered "a bunch of electronics," two pill bottles (one bearing a victim's name), and a red gas can with the gasoline mixture handwritten on the container. As Cantrill sat in the back of the police cruiser, she spotted Munoz with police, and yelled to Munoz to "blame Coulter." The police cruiser's dashcam recorded Cantrill's words.

{¶ 6} Police interviewed Cantrill that evening, and she denied all knowledge of any burglaries. She also claimed she had not used heroin in four years, but police noted fresh needle marks, with one area so fresh it was bleeding slightly. In a subsequent interview, police showed Cantrill videos recorded by neighbors' security cameras. Sheidentified Coulter and Munoz as the perpetrators, and claimed the black Jeep belonged to Coulter.

{¶ 7} Coulter initially refused to talk with police, but later spoke with investigators and acknowledged his part in the crimes. Coulter accepted a plea to three counts of a lesser offense of burglary, each felonies of the third degree, and agreed to testify at Cantrill's trial. Munoz also cooperated with the investigation, and reviewed the list of stolen property with police. Munoz added items to the list, and victims later confirmed the additional items as missing but omitted from their initial lists to police. Like Coulter, Munoz accepted a plea to two counts of a lesser offense of burglary, each felonies of the third degree, and agreed to testify against Cantrill.

{¶ 8} On May 3, 2017, Cantrill was indicted in case No. CR0201701762 on three counts of burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(2) and (D) in Counts 1, 2, and 3, all felonies of the second degree; one count of improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle in violation of R.C. 2923.16(B) and (I) in Count 4, a felony of the fourth degree; one count of having weapons while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) and (B) in Count 5, a felony of the third degree; and one count of receiving stolen property in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A) and (C) in Count 6, a misdemeanor of the first degree.²

{¶ 9} On May 31, 2017, Cantrill was indicted in case No. CR0201701915 on one count of breaking and entering in violation of R.C. 2911.13(A) and (C), a felony of the fifth degree.

{¶ 10} Cantrill was arraigned and the trial court appointed attorney Julie Bookmiller as counsel. On September 12, 2017, days before a scheduled trial date, Cantrill asked that her counsel be removed, indicating disagreement over trial strategy. After Bookmiller also requested leave to withdraw, the trial court discharged Cantrill's counsel, continued the trial date, and appointed Jack Viren as counsel.

{¶ 11} On November 21, 2017, Viren asked to withdraw, citing a breakdown in communication between attorney and client, and disagreement over how to proceed with her case. The trial court granted Viren's request to withdraw, and appointed a third attorney for Cantrill, John Thebes.

{¶ 12} On January 4, 2018, Cantrill filed a motion to dismiss, arguing a defect in the process in proceeding to preliminary hearing after arrest.³ The state opposed the motion, as contrary to law, noting the lack of legal authority to support Cantrill's motion.

{¶ 13} On February 8, 2018, on the eve of trial, counsel indicated that Cantrill was "undecided" on her choice of attire for the trial, and she subsequently presented as awoman at trial.⁴ Up until this date, Cantrill had expressed no preference in proceedings regarding how counsel or the court should address her. The focus of this pretrial hearing, furthermore, was not gender identity, but Cantrill's assertion that the trial court must dismiss all charges, based on procedural irregularities prior to the May 3, 2017 indictment. The trial court denied the motion. Dissatisfied with her trial counsel's motion in support of dismissal, and the trial court's denial of the motion, Cantrill inquired into representing herself at trial. Cantrill ultimately chose to proceed with appointed counsel.

{¶ 14} On February 12, 2018, the trial court consolidated the two cases, and trial commenced before a jury.⁵ During voir dire and in opening statements, the prosecutor addressed the fact that Cantrill is a transgender woman, and presented as a woman at trial. At the end of voir dire, the prosecutor probed the issue with the jurors, as follows:

Prosecutor: So, ladies and gentlemen, you may have noticed the defendant she is dressed as a woman today. There will be some mixed testimony that you receive about whether the defendant was dressed as a woman or a man on a particular occasion. Is there anybody who has such strong feelings about issues of sexual orientation, gender, whethersomebody presents as a man, identifies as a man or a woman that you think it might affect your deliberations in this case? And [prospective juror #22], you brought it up, so I'll ask you.

Prospective Juror #22: I don't think it will affect my deliberations in this case, but.

Prosecutor: Is there anybody else who feels like they would have difficulty with that? Very good. Thank you very much, [prospective juror #22], and ladies and gentlemen.

Defense counsel also addressed the issue during voir dire, stating:

And the first thing that [the prosecutor] brought up that it truly is we'll call it the elephant in the room but it's no secret. It's Jason here is dressed as a woman, and anatomically he's a man, and we will refer to him as a woman in the female tense [sic.], female pronoun during the course of this trial. And much like you mentioned, [prospective juror #22], I believe it was, about we were talking about presumption of innocence, remember that, prosecutor asked you a question, and you said something like, well, he got arrested. Remember that? Yeah. Well, this is my question to you, and I'll address you as a group at least right now. Question is, look, we've had somebody who's gone through the process. He's been arrested, he's been indicted, and you heard the indictment read to you by the judge. And now he is dressed as a woman even though he's a man, and we talk to you aboutthese lofty concepts like fairness, presumption of innocence, and the question is, you know, we're human beings. Even though we're in a courtroom, we're still human beings. We have this bank of experience and knowledge no matter how old you are, and the question is can you judge this case just on the facts and the evidence, set aside - - even if it bothers you, set aside those human feelings and judge this case, judge her based on the facts and the evidence? That's the question.

If you have a problem with it, it's okay. It's not a big deal. As the judge said, it just may not be the case for you. But now's the time. See, we can't go in - I can't go inside your heart, your head. Now's the time. And if you have a problem with it, raise your hand. Or if you think you need to talk to us in private, raise your hand. And if not, we'll go forward with it. We'll go forward with it. Anybody have a problem going forward with the case the way

...