State v. Eastman
| Decision Date | 29 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21 CAA 05 0024 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JUSTIN EASTMAN, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
For Plaintiff-Appellee MELISSA A. SCHIFFEL Delaware County Prosecuting Attorney
MARK C. SLEEPER and CHRISTOPHER E. BALLARD Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys
For Defendant-Appellant WILLIAM T. CRAMER
OPINION
{¶1} Appellant, Justin L. Eastman, appeals the decisions of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to suppress statements made to detectives and to another inmate. Eastman also appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for a mistrial. The appellee is the State of Ohio.
{¶2} Justin Eastman was charged with the aggravated murder of Donna Harris in violation of R.C. 2903.01(B), convicted and sentenced to a life term without parole. During the trial he did not dispute many of the facts presented by the state, but contended that Harris was alive when he left her at the park on November 20, 2019. She was found at that same park, having died from blunt force trauma to her skull.
{¶3} The parties in this case have offered a detailed recitation of the facts that preceded the death of Donna Harris. The narratives do not diverge from each other with regard to the characterization of the testimony as supporting the conclusion that the appellant, Eastman, was in a relationship with Ashley Quick and with the victim, Donna Harris. Eastman's relationship with Donna Harris was motivated by his desire to obtain some part of the settlement she received for a disability claim and to share what he obtained with Quick. Harris's family did not approve of the relationship, yet that disapproval did not deter her from enjoying Eastman's company. These details, though an important part of the trial, play a peripheral role in the appeal. The Harris/Eastman/Quick relationships serve as a background for the events that are pertinent to the appeal but are not the focus of the dispute. Instead, the events that occurred after the death of Harris, which are much more limited, and less convoluted, serve as the basis for the appeal.
{¶4} Eastman left the state of Ohio after Harris's death creating a trail of purchases using Harris's debit card that were easily tracked. He was also the subject of a video that showed him selling a cellphone at a kiosk designed to purchase used cellphones. The state provided evidence that the subject of this transaction was Harris's cellphone. A warrant was issued for Eastman, and he was subsequently arrested as part of a traffic stop in Kansas.
{¶5} Detectives from the Delaware County Sheriff's Office visited Eastman in the Kansas prison with the goal of talking with him about the case. They introduced themselves and Eastman responded by telling them that "[o]nce I talk to a lawyer I will tell you everything I've ever done in my entire life* * *" (Suppression Hearing, Exhibit 1, Audio Recording 191126_0192.MP3 at 8:37)[1]. The detectives asked if he had an attorney and offered to put him in contact with an attorney. He referenced an attorney that he knew in Ohio and the detectives made arrangements for him to call that attorney on a private line.
{¶6} After the call, Eastman reported that the attorney was not able to make time for his case. The detectives offered to contact a different attorney, but Eastman declined and stated that he would wait until he returned to Ohio. Then, without prompting, he explained that he wanted to talk with an attorney because he was concerned that Ashley Quick was wrongly charged. The conversation continued and became a bartering session where Eastman contended that he was responsible for several unsolved crimes including a murder, and that he was willing to confess to "everything" if Ashley Quick was exonerated. Eastman spoke freely, openly and confidently. The detectives stopped Eastman, reviewed his rights and he agreed that he understood his rights and continued to actively engage in conversation with the detectives urging them to agree to exchange his comprehensive confession for Quick's freedom. One of the detectives agreed to contact the prosecutor, but it is evident from the record that the parties did not reach an agreement.
{¶7} Eastman moved to suppress the statements he made to the detectives. At a hearing on the motion, the detectives testified regarding the encounter with Eastman and the state submitted video and audio recordings of the meeting with Eastman as exhibits. The trial court denied the motion, holding:
* * * that the Defendant was not subject to custodial interrogation prior to his receipt of Miranda warnings, that he did not unambiguously invoke his right to counsel, and that after he received Miranda warnings, he waived his right to counsel and his right to remain silent after confirming that he understood his rights. No constitutional error occurred during Defendant's interview with Detectives Leonard and Cannon. Judgment Entry Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress, Sept. 1, 2020, p. 17.
{¶8} Eastman also moved to suppress statements made to an inmate housed with him while he was awaiting trial.
{¶9} When Eastman was extradited to Ohio he was incarcerated pending trial and housed with another inmate, William Popich, in what appeared to be the medical wing of the prison. Eastman and Popich were the only inmates in this section and they often talked. Eastman began talking about his relationship with Harris and the events leading to her death, and Popich listened. He had prior experience using information that he had obtained from other cellmates to reduce his sentence, and he saw his relationship with Eastman as an opportunity to do the same with his current charges.
{¶10} Popich contacted detectives at the Delaware County Sheriffs Office and explained that Eastman was making comments that suggested he was responsible for the death of Donna Harris. The detective told Popich to listen and emphasized that he should not ask any questions of Eastman. Popich and his counsel executed a memorandum of understanding regarding any benefit that Popich might receive for his cooperation that stated, among other things, that (Trial Transcript, Vol. VI, p. 1375, lines 4-11). Popich confirmed that he understood that the only benefit he received from his cooperation was a report to the trial judge that he complied with the agreement and that the state recommend a prison sentence, but would defer to the judge regarding the length of any sentence.
{¶11} Eastman sought to have the testimony of Popich excluded from the trial arguing that Popich was an agent of the state that intentionally elicited a confession from Eastman in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. After a hearing on the matter, where only Popich testified, the trial court denied the motion finding that:
I don't think that there's been a deliberate elucidation. Obviously, the purpose of the Sixth Amendment is to avoid uncounseled interrogation. And if somebody is sitting there just listening, there is no interrogation, even if the person is an agent of the State. So it doesn't appear so in this case that the person is an agent of the State, and there doesn't appear to be any interrogation based on testimony. So the Court will deny the motion to exclude the testimony.
Trial Transcript, Vol. 1, p. 27, lines 11-20.
{¶12} At trial, Popich confirmed that he had no access to the facts of Eastman's case and testified that Eastman had confessed to the murder of Donna Harris:
{¶13} The state also offered the testimony of over twenty additional witnesses who provided significant evidence that supported a conclusion that Eastman was involved in Harris's death:
To continue reading
Request your trial