State v. Ford

• Decision Date: 03 September 2021
• Docket Number: L-20-1112,L-20-1054
• Parties: STATE OF OHIO APPELLEE v. STEVEN FORD, JR. APPELLANT
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

2021-Ohio-3058

STATE OF OHIO APPELLEE v. STEVEN FORD, JR. APPELLANT

Nos. L-20-1054, L-20-1112

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Lucas

September 3, 2021

COURT OF APPEALS NO. {48}L-20-1054 {48}L-20-1112

TRIAL COURT NOS. CR0201902995, CR0201902836

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

Autumn D. Adams, for appellant.

DECISION AND JUDGMENT

MAYLE J.

I. Introduction

{¶ 1} Following separate altercations with two former girlfriends-C.F. and M.M.-the defendant-appellant, Steven Ford, Jr., was charged with multiple felonies in two separate cases. Those cases were tried jointly before a jury in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. The jury convicted him of aggravated burglary with respect to C.F., and robbery and felonious assault with respect to M.M. For the following reasons, we affirm.

II. Background

{¶ 2} The first victim, C.F., testified that she and Ford were in a relationship from 2014 until 2016 and have a four year-old daughter. By the summer of 2018, C.F. and Ford had very little contact, and when they did speak, it was "rocky." Ford was reportedly living in Southern Ohio to be near another woman, M.M., who is the victim in the second case.

{¶ 3} At approximately 7:00 am on July 30, 2018, Ford went to CF.'s apartment, located on Airport Highway in Lucas County, to see their daughter. C.F. was "shocked" to see him and told Ford "to come back later" because she and her daughter were preparing to leave for work and school. When Ford returned, he played with their daughter and also "play[ed] his Play Station" and "just [hung] out." During the visit, C.F. and Ford "bicker[ed]" about parenting issues. C.F. told him that she did not appreciate him "just popping up" and that he "couldn't just be a dad when it is convenient for [him]." Eventually, C.F. asked Ford to leave, but he refused. Ford told her that he would leave when he was ready.

{¶ 4} To hurry him along, C.F. turned off the wifi to the apartment and changed the password because she assumed that "if he could not play his game he would leave." Ford became "pissed" and "finally left." But, as soon as C.F. had closed and locked the apartment door, Ford "kicked it back in." As C.F. described it,

A piece of the door came flying at me and my daughter because we were standing there. He came in and [was] like, bitch, do you really want to do this right now? And he put both his hands around my neck. * * * It was really tight * * * on the back of my neck.

{¶ 5} The assault lasted "a couple of seconds, maybe five seconds," before C.F. was able to get him off of her. By that time, the two were outside the apartment in the hallway. C.F. reentered her apartment, but Ford followed her and "choked" her again. The two drifted back into the hallway yet again, before Ford finally "took off." C.F. called 911.

{¶ 6} Toledo Police Officer Dwight Daniel, Jr. was dispatched to C.F.'s apartment, and he observed that C.F. was in distress. C.F. reported that Ford had choked her, that she had fallen down on the floor, that he had "choked her again," and then fled the scene. Because the potential charges involved felonies, Officer Daniel contacted the detective bureau, and a warrant was issued for Ford's arrest.

{¶ 7} Pictures taken of C.F.'s apartment door showed a mangled handle and splintered wood. The door was so badly damaged that it could not be secured, and a new door had to be installed that night.

{¶ 8} After the July 30, 2018 assault, C.F had no contact with Ford until May of 2019 when he called to ask "what's my kid been up to?" Over the coming weeks, C.F. allowed Ford to visit with his daughter five or six times at a public place, but after that, he "disappeared."

{¶ 9} At trial, Ford testified in his own defense. Ford admitted that C.F. asked him to leave the apartment that night, he kicked in her door, and he caused the damage depicted in the photos. But, Ford denied strangling C.F.

{¶ 10} The victim in the second case, M.M., did not testify. Without M.M.'s testimony, the state relied upon other evidence to build its case against Ford. First, the state played a 911 call, placed by M.M.'s neighbor at 7:21 p.m. on May 6, 2019. The neighbor reported that M.M. had just called him, asking that he contact the police because "she just got beat up by her boyfriend." The neighbor was calling from outside the apartment complex where he and M.M. each lived, on Collingwood Blvd. in Toledo. Later in the call, the neighbor reported that M.M. and Ford were in the hallway of the apartment complex, in full view, that the assault was continuing "right now," and that the police needed to "hurry." M.M. was reportedly "half naked" and "look[ed] pretty bad." Finally, the neighbor reported that the boyfriend, identified as "Steve," was leaving with a "T.V. in his hand" and was walking down Collingwood Blvd.

{¶ 11} Toledo Police Officer Michelle Sterling and her partner arrived at the scene at 7:39 p.m. At trial, Officer Sterling described M.M. as "crying" and "very shaken up" with "marks" on her neck and chest due to an "altercation in front of the child." The police interview of M.M. was recorded by a body camera attached to Officer Sterling's uniform, and the nearly eight-minute video was also played for the jury.

{¶ 12} During the video, M.M. identified Ford as her former boyfriend and father to her nine month-old daughter. M.M. told police that Ford was there to watch their daughter while she went to work. She reported that the two had argued "a lot lately" because Ford accused her of "talking" to someone else at work and because Ford "kept snooping around" for money. M.M. told police that she "want[ed] him to leave" but that he would not.

{¶ 13} The altercation turned violent when Ford began choking her. According to M.M., Ford "wouldn't let go" of her neck, to the point that she "couldn't breathe" and lost consciousness. M.M. thought she would die as her daughter watched from her pack'n'play. As a result of the attack, M.M reported that her face had "turned brown," that her shoulder "popped" out of its socket-which took "forever" to get "back in" and "hurt so bad." M.M. also reported that she had carpet burns "everywhere," from being dragged.

{¶ 14} At trial, Ford acknowledged he did not want to leave the apartment-even though M.M. wanted him to go. Ford said that the two had gotten into a "heated argument" that turned physical when M.M. hit him with a "little wrench * * * two or three times," and a "tussle" ensued, which led them to fall to the floor. Once they stood up, the "arguing [continued] outside the house." Ford testified that he then left the apartment to "diffuse the situation." Ford admitted that he took the television, but claimed that they co-owned that item. He specifically denied strangling M.M. or causing the marks on her neck, but acknowledged that what he "did" that day was "probably serious."

1. The charges against Ford

{¶ 15} With respect to C.F., Ford was indicted on a single count of aggravated burglary, in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(1) and (B), a felony of the first degree, in case No. CR2019-2836.

{¶ 16} With respect to M.M., Ford was indicted for committing the offense of robbery, in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2) and (B), a felony in the first degree, and felonious assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and (D), a felony of the second degree, in case No. CR01902995.

{¶ 17} Following a two-day jury trial and guilty verdicts, Ford was convicted on all counts. As to the aggravated burglary conviction, the trial court sentenced Ford to serve three years in prison. It sentenced him to two years as to the robbery offense and an additional two years as to the felonious assault offense, to be served concurrently to one another, and concurrently to the three-year sentence ordered in the other case, for a total prison term of three years.

{¶ 18} Ford appealed and raises two assignments of error with respect to the aggravated burglary case, and five assignments of error with respect to the robbery and felonious assault case. We consolidated the appeals and have renumbered the assignments of error as follows:

I. The evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a conviction for aggravated burglary.

II. The Jury's finding of guilty for Aggravated Burglary was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

III. It was a violation of Appellant's rights under the Confrontation Clause for the Trial Court to allow the body camera footage to be shown to the jury as [M.M.] was not present in Court and available for cross-examination.

IV. The body camera footage was hearsay and no exception or exclusion applies that would permit its admission as [M.M.] failed to appear for trial.

V. The Trial Court committed reversible error when it permitted the jail phone call to be played to the jury as the phone call was inadmissible hearsay due to [M.M.'s] failure to appear at trial and further committed reversible error in finding that [M.M.] failed to appear due to Appellant's wrongdoing.

VI. The evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a conviction for Robbery and Felonious Assault.

VII. The Jury's finding of guilty for Robbery and Felonious Assault was against the manifest weight of the evidence. ^[1]

III. Law and Analysis

{¶ 19} For ease of discussion, we address Ford's assignments of error out of order.

1. The victim's out-of-court statements were nontestimonial.

{¶ 20} In his third assignment of error, Ford argues that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to view Officer Sterling's body camera video, which contained M.M.'s statements to police after they responded to the 911 call. Ford argues that M.M.'s recorded...