State v. Deanda

Decision Date25 August 2014
Docket NumberNo. 13–10–23.,13–10–23.
CitationState v. Deanda, 17 N.E.3d 1232 (Ohio App. 2014)
PartiesSTATE of Ohio, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. David L. DEANDA, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtOhio Court of Appeals

John H. Kahler, II, for Appellant.

Derek W. DeVine and Rhonda L. Best, for Appellee.

Opinion

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant David L. Deanda (Deanda) brings this appeal from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Seneca County finding him guilty of felonious assault and sentencing him to seven years in prison. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.

{¶ 2} On September 19, 2009, Deanda was involved in a fight with David B. Swartz (“Swartz”). During the fight, Deanda grabbed a knife and proceeded to stab Swartz multiple times in the neck and chest. When the police and emergency medical technicians arrived, Deanda was arrested and Swartz was taken to the community hospital. Swartz was eventually transported by life flight to a trauma hospital due to his injuries.

{¶ 3} On September 23, 2009, the Seneca County Grand Jury indicted Deanda on one count of attempted murder, a felony of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and 2903.02(A). Doc. 1. A jury trial was held from May 17, to May 21, 2010. Doc. 71. The first relevant witness1 for the State was Jacob DeMonte (“DeMonte”), a police officer for the Tiffin Police Department. Tr. 140. DeMonte testified that he was the first officer to arrive at the scene. Tr. 142. When he arrived he observed a man, later identified as Swartz, and Jolene Haubert (“Haubert”) standing at the end of a driveway. Tr. 142–43. DeMonte observed several lacerations on Swartz's back and that Swartz was bleeding from the wounds. Tr. 143. From speaking with them, DeMonte identified the perpetrator as Deanda and identified him in the courtroom as the defendant. Tr. 143–44. When DeMonte first spoke to Deanda, he noted that he appeared to be oddly calm. Tr. 144. DeMonte did not originally note any injuries to Deanda. Tr. 145. When Deanda heard Swartz and Haubert identify him as the perpetrator, he responded with “F* * * yeah, I stabbed 'em.” Tr. 145. DeMonte then placed Deanda in handcuffs. Tr. 145. DeMonte testified that once he had completely restrained Deanda in the handcuffs, Deanda turned toward Swartz and started yelling “I'll kill you honky!” and “I'm gonna get you. I'm gonna get you Swartz.” Tr. 146. DeMonte testified that he had to physically restrain Deanda from going after Swartz again. Tr. 146.

{¶ 4} DeMonte testified that once Deanda was in the police car, he claimed that he had acted in self-defense after Swartz started hitting him with a stick. Tr. 148. Upon examination of Deanda's head, DeMonte observed a knot on Deanda's head. Tr. 148. According to DeMonte, Deanda kept switching from yelling threats at Swartz to claiming that he had acted in self-defense, but the police weren't going to listen because he was not white. Tr. 148–150. As DeMonte shut the door to the cruiser, Deanda started cursing at the officers and yelling more threats at Swartz. Tr. 150. At the time Deanda was taken to the Sheriff's Office, he was only charged with persistent disorderly conduct and resisting arrest for his actions at the scene. Tr. 150.

{¶ 5} After Deanda and Swartz were removed from the scene, DeMonte continued to investigate. Tr. 151. DeMonte testified that he saw Swartz's abandoned shirt at the end of the driveway and that it was covered in blood. Tr. 151. DeMonte followed Haubert back to the garage where the altercation was believed to have started. Tr. 152. In the garage area, there was a “big mess” from the fight and everything was knocked over. Tr. 152. When DeMonte left the garage, he saw a knife with a silver blade, a gold handle, and blood on it lying beside the driveway. Tr. 152. DeMonte then began to tape off the crime scene and noticed a dowel rod lying by the sidewalk. Tr. 153.

{¶ 6} On cross-examination, DeMonte testified that there were children at the scene when the fight started. Tr. 156. DeMonte admitted that he did not question the children about who started the fight. Tr. 156. Deanda had indicated to DeMonte that Swartz had struck him multiple times with a stick, including hitting him in the head. Tr. 157–58. There was some indication that Deanda had suffered injury from being struck. Tr. 158. DeMonte testified that if someone were to strike another with the dowel rod he found, it would be painful and would cause injury. Tr. 159.

{¶ 7} The second witness presented by the State was Sergeant Mark Marquis (“Marquis”) from the Tiffin Police Department. Tr. 161. Marquis testified that he responded to the report of the stabbing just prior to 9:00 p.m. on September 19, 2009. Tr. 163. When he arrived, he observed a man and woman standing in the driveway holding some cloth against the man's back covering wounds. Tr. 163–64. Marquis also observed DeMonte holding a male up against the front of the house. Tr. 163. Marquis went to the couple and observed what appeared to be puncture wounds in the back of the man, later identified as Swartz. Tr. 164. When Marquis arrived, Deanda was in a highly irate state and did not appear to be injured. Tr. 165. Due to Deanda's emotional state, Marquis and DeMonte placed him in a patrol car to separate Deanda from Swartz. Tr. 166. The entire time the officers were trying to place Deanda in the car, he was trying to physically move towards Swartz and yelling comments at Swartz. Tr. 166. While another officer was driving Deanda away, he continued to yell at Swartz and yelled “I'll f* * * * * g kill you.” Tr. 168.

{¶ 8} Once Deanda was removed from the scene, Marquis began to secure the scene, identify witnesses, and procure statements from the witnesses. Tr. 168. Marquis observed the dowel rod lying in the driveway and also observed a knife with a four inch blade lying in the driveway as well. Tr. 169. Based upon the complexity of the matter and the amount of evidence to be gathered, Marquis called for the detectives to come investigate. Tr. 170. On cross-examination, Marquis testified that he did not take any witness statements at the scene. Tr. 171. Marquis testified that Deanda had claimed to have acted in self-defense. Tr. 172.

{¶ 9} The next witness for the state was Officer LaVerne Keefe (“Keefe”), who worked as a patrolman with the Tiffin Police Department. Tr. 173. Keefe testified that when he arrived at the scene, he observed Haubert and Swartz at the end of the drive with Haubert pressing a shirt against Swartz's back to stop bleeding. Tr. 175. DeMonte had Deanda held against the side of the house. Tr. 175. Deanda was “highly agitated” and was yelling at Swartz. Tr. 177–78. Keefe's involvement was to guard the scene until the detectives arrived. Tr. 179. Keefe then assisted the detectives with the processing of the scene. Tr. 180.

{¶ 10} Toni Haubert (“Toni”), the sister of Haubert, was the next witness to testify for the State. Toni testified that she lives with Haubert at the home where the incident occurred. Tr. 181. Toni testified that they were having a garage sale and she heard arguing in the garage. Tr. 184. Eventually, she observed Deanda with the knife and she saw him jab it towards Swartz a couple of times. Tr. 185. Toni then left the garage and went to call the police. Tr. 185. The next thing Toni observed was Swartz receiving medical treatment from the paramedics, but she was watching from the neighbor's porch. Tr. 187.

{¶ 11} On cross-examination, Toni testified that Swartz had been living with them, but was supposed to have moved out the night before. Tr. 189. The day of the fight, Swartz had packed up his stuff to move and Toni had told him to leave because nobody wanted him there. Tr. 191. Toni testified that at the time of the altercation, her 10 year old daughter and Deanda's eleven year old nephew were present. Tr. 193. The day after this incident, Swartz was back at the house and had spent less than 12 hours in the hospital. Tr. 198. Upon Swartz's return from the hospital, he was not acting differently. Tr. 199. His injuries did not appear to affect how he was living his life. Tr. 201. Swartz sat around watching television just like he usually did. Tr. 201.

{¶ 12} The fifth witness for the State was Haubert, the girlfriend of Swartz. Tr. 204–205. Haubert testified that the children were playing in the backyard. Tr. 210. Haubert testified that Deanda came into the garage, nudged Swartz, and said he “was gonna ‘f* *k him up’ and Swartz had replied back, ‘No, you're not. You need to leave.’ Tr. 210. Haubert then testified that Deanda had a club in his left hand and he brought it around. Tr. 210–11. She then testified that she left to take the children inside and she did not see the fight. Tr. 211. When she came back out of the house, she heard Deanda say “I'm stabbing you. I'm gonna kill you.” Tr. 212. At that time, she called the police. Tr. 212. As far as she knew, Deanda struck the first blow in the altercation. Tr. 213. While Swartz was walking away from Deanda, she heard Deanda repeatedly saying “I'm gonna kill you.” Tr. 213. Later, Haubert was able to observe the knife and identified it as belonging to Deanda. Tr. 214.

{¶ 13} As to the injuries, Haubert testified that she observed a gash in Swartz's neck and multiple stab wounds to Swartz's back. Tr. 215. She then began to put pressure on the injuries to try and stem the blood flow. Tr. 215. She used Swartz's shirt to apply the pressure to the wound. Tr. 215. Haubert testified that Swartz had suffered seven stab wounds. Haubert testified that the ambulance took Swartz from the scene and that she received a call that he was being flown to Toledo for emergency care. Tr. 218. According to Haubert, Swartz was released the next day and was in a very weak condition, barely able to move. Tr. 218. At the time of the hearing, Swartz still has scars from his injuries. Tr. 219.

{¶ 14} On cross-examination, Haubert testified that she had previously dated Deanda and started...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 cases
  • State v. Hawkey
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • March 28, 2016
    ... ... Thus, the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Beck as to this issue. {¶ 68} In order for the admission of hearsay evidence to result in a reversal of the conviction, there must be a showing of prejudice. State v. Deanda, 3d Dist., 2014-Ohio-3668, ¶ 39, 17 N.E.3d 1232. “Hearsay statements admitted that are repetitious of admissible statements and are supported by overwhelming evidence are not prejudicial.” Id. “Error is harmless if there is no reasonable probability that the evidence may have contributed ... ...
  • State v. Wears
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • December 4, 2023
    ... ... Nonetheless, "[h]earsay statements admitted that are repetitious of admissible statements and are supported by overwhelming evidence are not prejudicial." State v. Deanda, 2014-Ohio-3668, 17 N.E.3d 1232, ¶ 39 (3d Dist.). [58, 59] {¶59} "Ordinarily, we review a trial court’s hearsay rulings for an abuse of discretion." State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261, 2016-Ohio-5735, 70 N.E.3d 508, ¶ 97. However, when the defendant fails to prompt such a ruling by ... ...