State v. Crawford
| Decision Date | 10 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | C.A. CASE NO. 24833,T.C. NO. 09CR879 |
| Citation | 2012 Ohio 3595 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. DAMON CRAWFORD Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
(Criminal appeal from
Common Pleas Court)
OPINIONANDREW T. FRENCH, Atty. Reg. No. 0069384, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 301 W. Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
J. ALLEN WILMES, Atty. Reg. No. 0012093, 4428 N. Dixie Drive, Dayton, Ohio 45414 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
{¶ 1} Damon Crawford was convicted after a jury trial of murder with a firearm specification. Crawford appeals from his conviction, raising three assignments of error.For the following reasons, the trial court's judgment will be affirmed.
{¶ 2} In the early morning of October 31, 1993, Ebony ("Punkin") Fisher was shot in the head while he was seated in a car in the parking lot of Spunky's bar. Several witnesses saw a man running away in the field adjacent to the bar's parking lot. Soon thereafter, Crawford was apprehended and arrested by Montgomery County deputy sheriffs and returned in a cruiser to Spunky's parking lot. Crawford was subsequently taken to the Jefferson Township police station and questioned by the Jefferson Township police about the shooting. After receiving Miranda warnings, Crawford invoked his right to counsel and to remain silent and was later released. No one was prosecuted for the murder at that time.
{¶ 3} In January 2008, Detective Brad Daugherty reopened the investigation of Fisher's Halloween 1993 murder. He spoke with the original witnesses as well as newly discovered witnesses and, in April 2009, after communicating with Crawford's parole officer, Daugherty questioned Crawford at the Adult Parole Authority's office. Crawford made incriminating statements during the interview.
{¶ 4} In August 2009, Crawford was indicted for murder with a firearm specification. Crawford moved to suppress the statements that he made to his parole officers and Daugherty. After a hearing, his motion was denied. In a separate ruling, the trial court did suppress the 1993 identification of Crawford by two witnesses.
{¶ 5} The case was tried to a jury in October 2010; that trial ended in a hung jury. Prior to a second trial, Crawford renewed his motion to suppress. The court again denied the motion. A second jury trial was held in August 2011, at which time Crawford wasconvicted of the murder charge and the firearm specification. The court sentenced him to 15 years to life for the murder, plus an additional three years for the firearm specification.
{¶ 6} Crawford appeals from his conviction, raising three assignments of error.
{¶ 7} In his first assignment of error, Crawford claims that the trial court erred in failing to suppress his statements to Detective Daugherty.1
{¶ 8} In reviewing the ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court must accept the trial court's supported findings of fact as true. State v. Dudley, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24904, 2012-Ohio-960, ¶ 6. The court must then determine whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard; this is done without deference to the conclusion of the trial court. Id.
{¶ 9} At the suppression hearing, the State presented the testimony of Krista Burke and Jason Butler, both of the Adult Parole Authority ("APA"), and Detective Daughterly of the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office. Their testimony established the following facts.
{¶ 10} In November 2008, Burke became Crawford's parole officer after his release from prison on drug-related and weapon-related offenses. Burke initially met withCrawford at the Montgomery County Jail, at which time Burke reviewed with Crawford the conditions of his parole. These conditions included that Crawford refrain from using illegal drugs and alcohol, that he be subject to random urine screens, and that he agree to warrantless searches of his person, vehicle and residence by a supervising officer or other employee of the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. Crawford signed a form, acknowledging these conditions.
{¶ 11} On March 9, 2009, Crawford came into Burke's office for a scheduled meeting, including a drug test. After Crawford failed the drug screening, he began to yell that people were trying to kill him and "you're not listening to me and I'm asking for help here." Crawford made "erratic comments" that Burke did not understand. Burke had Crawford walk back to her office so that she could address his failure to comply with his drug treatment program. Along the way, she asked Butler, another parole officer who knew Crawford, to walk with them and to help calm down Crawford.
{¶ 12} Once in Burke's office, Crawford asked for protection due to his belief that he was being investigated for a murder and that people were trying to kill him. Crawford told the parole officers that he had been at a bar named Spunky's on Halloween in 1992 or 1993, that he was pulled over by the police as he was walking home, and that he thought he was going to prison. Crawford told the officers that he was "real high" that night and had fallen asleep in the police cruiser, and he woke up when the cruiser was at a murder scene. Crawford stated that he was taken to jail and questioned, but was later released. Crawford stated that people had been trying to kill him since that time. Crawford also told Burke that he was taking notes and writing the story of his life, and he wanted to show the notes to her.Burke and Butler had not previously heard about the murder; when Crawford left, Burke told him to talk to her supervisor the following day.
{¶ 13} The following day, Crawford returned with his notebook and spoke with Burke, Burke's supervisor, and Butler. Butler made a copy of the notebook and returned the original to Crawford. After Crawford left, Burke contacted the Sheriff's Office to look into Crawford's claims. The following day, she spoke with Detective Daugherty, who informed her that he was investigating a cold case murder at Spunky's and that he had been interviewing people about the crime. Daugherty speculated that Crawford may have heard about the investigation.
{¶ 14} In mid-April 2009, Crawford was reassigned to Butler. On the morning of April 27, Detective Daugherty contacted Butler and told him that a confidential informant stated that there were weapons and drugs in Crawford's residence. Daugherty also told Butler that Crawford was a suspect in Fisher's murder and that he wanted to speak with Crawford. Daugherty and Butler planned to go together to Crawford's apartment that afternoon.
{¶ 15} By coincidence, Crawford came unexpectedly to Butler's office later that morning, and he asked Butler to copy a journal that he (Crawford) had. Crawford talked about needing protection. Butler contacted Daugherty and told the detective that Crawford was at the parole office. Daugherty stated that he would be there in five to ten minutes. Before the detective arrived, Butler asked Crawford, "Would you be willing to talk to the detectives without a lawyer present?" Crawford responded, Butler explained toCrawford that he was not under arrest at that point; Butler did not inform Crawford of his Miranda rights.
{¶ 16} Daughterty and another detective, both in plain clothes, arrived within a few minutes. At Butler's suggestion, they moved to a small conference room, which was also located in a secure area of the office. Daugherty testified that he advised Crawford that he was not under arrest, and Crawford went back and forth about wanting a lawyer.
{¶ 17} Without Crawford's knowledge, Daugherty audio-recorded the interview. The trial court described portions of the audiotape, stating:
* * * The audio of the interview reveals that in the first two and a half minutes of the encounter, Defendant stated three times that he wanted an attorney, but continued to converse with Daugherty. During this time, no questions were asked regarding the homicide. Daugherty testified, and the audio confirmed, that * * * he asked Defendant, The audio provided in State's Exhibit 5 confirms that Defendant said, "yes." Defendant was also told at two minutes and fifty seconds that he was not under arrest and was free to leave. Defendant stated that he wanted to talk to the detectives. Defendant then proceeded to answer the detective's questions and elaborate on why people were trying to kill him. This information was similar to what Defendant had written in the journal that he gave to Butler to copy. [Approximately 12 minutes into the interview, Crawford said that he was "cool with them Arlington Court people so they know I ain't killedPunkin yet."] At approximately 31 minutes into the interview, Defendant states that he wants to go [to] the job center, and 35 minutes into the interview, Defendant stated that he was through with Daugherty. A couple of minutes later, he stated that he wanted an attorney. The interview then ended * * *.
{¶ 18} Based on information that Crawford had possible drugs and guns at his residence, Butler handcuffed and detained Crawford in order to investigate those allegations. Butler testified that Crawford's detention was unrelated to the murder investigation.
{¶ 19} Butler and another parole officer took Crawford to his residence; the parole officers were followed by Detective Daugherty in a separate vehicle. Daugherty stood and chatted with Crawford outside the residence while Butler searched inside. After suspected heroin was located, Crawford was detained by the parole officers on a parole violation, and Daugherty took the suspected drugs in order to pursue new drug charges against Crawford.
{¶ 20} After Crawford was indicted for murder, Crawford moved to suppress the statements that...
To continue reading
Request your trial