State v. Franks
| Decision Date | 04 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 103682,103682 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE CROSS-APPELLANT v. JAYLIN P. FRANKS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT CROSS-APPELLEE |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
The 820 Building, Suite 430
820 West Superior Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1800
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Daniel A. Cleary
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{¶1} Jaylin Franks appeals his conviction, entered upon a jury's verdict, in which Franks was found guilty of aggravated murder and felony murder, aggravated robbery, kidnapping, felonious assault, discharging a firearm near a prohibited premises — each with an associated firearm specification — and tampering with evidence. After merging the murder and assault-related counts, the trial court sentenced Franks to the indefinite term of 23 years to life in prison. We affirm.
{¶2} Franks's friend, the codefendant Coates, was a known drug dealer. On the evening of the murder, one of Coates's clients, Angel, was in the drug house and had bartered the use of her 2013 Toyota Corolla for a supply of drugs. Franks and Coates were driving the vehicle around and stopped for fuel. Angel had a dedicated significant other, the victim, who had been searching for Angel throughout the day, fearing she was on another bender. The victim spotted Angel's car with two strangers at the gas station. The victim approached Franks and Coates and explained the situation, ultimately offering Franks and Coates money to take him to Angel and pay off her debt. Franks spotted a bundled stash of cash in the victim's possession. The conversation at the gas station was caught on camera.
{¶3} At the gas station, Franks and Coates devised a robbery plan. Franks claims he wanted nothing to do with the robbery, but he admitted to accompanying Coates. After the trio arrived at the drug house, Franks guarded the victim while Coates wentinside.1 Franks and Coates believed the victim to be armed. The victim believed Coates went inside the drug house to retrieve Angel, instead Coates returned with a semiautomatic, high-powered rifle. Immediately before returning, Coates called Franks and told him to get out of the Corolla in which Franks and the victim were sitting.
{¶4} Either Franks or Coates proceeded to shoot at the victim, who was sitting helpless in the front seat of the car, 19 times. The victim was hit several times, once through the back of his head, causing his immediate death. Franks and Coates immediately fled the scene, leaving the victim with the cash that had been the intended target. The money was found in the victim's right-front pocket. The police found the victim with his left-front pocket turned out as if someone had quickly rifled through it. The video surveillance pictures of Franks and Coates, derived from the gas station cameras, were turned over to news stations in the immediate aftermath of the shooting.
{¶5} The day after the murder, Franks and Coates were overheard talking. Franks admitted to being the shooter and said that he would not let Coates take the blame for the shooting. Franks told Coates he shot the victim because the victim had a gun. The next day, Franks volunteered himself to the police, laying blame on Coates who, in turn, blamed Franks. During his interview, Franks claimed to have discarded the red pants hewore on the evening of the murder, the ones he was seen wearing in the surveillance video from the gas station, because he had spilled some liquor on them and decided to get new ones. Coates's clothing from the night of the shooting was recovered and tested positive for gunshot residue. There is no dispute that Coates entered the drug house to retrieve the murder weapon.
{¶6} Franks timely appealed his conviction and advanced ten assignments of error. Most of the assigned errors will be addressed together where relevant, but none have merit.2
{¶7} In the first three assignments of error, Franks argues that the admission of his video-recorded interview with police officers was erroneous for a variety of reasons, including for failing to redact portions of the police officer's questions that impugned Franks's veracity, and all of which ignore the fact that trial counsel (1) stipulated to the admissibility of the recorded interview, and (2) had redacted at least portions of the video before playing the evidence at trial. In light of the stipulation, the more pertinent question is whether the alleged error in admitting the recorded interview of Franks, plain or otherwise, was invited. It was.
{¶8} The invited error doctrine provides that "a party will not be permitted to take advantage of an error that he himself invited or induced the trial court to make." State ex rel. The V Cos. v. Marshall, 81 Ohio St.3d 467, 471, 1998-Ohio-329, 692 N.E.2d 198.Invited error occurs when defense counsel "was actively responsible for the trial court's error" or "when a party has asked the court to take some action later claimed to be erroneous." State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320, 324, 2000-Ohio-183, 738 N.E.2d 1178, quoting State v. Kollar, 93 Ohio St. 89, 91, 112 N.E. 196 (1915). Invited error extends to stipulations. State v. McClendon, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 11AP-354, 2011-Ohio-6235, ¶ 37 ().
{¶9} In the midst of playing Franks's recorded statement for the jury, during the investigating police officer's testimony, the court notified the jury that the parties had stipulated to admitting the video into evidence for the jury's use during deliberations. Tr. 838:5-16. Further, and based on the trial record, it appears that trial counsel's decision to introduce the video was strategic. At the end of that officer's testimony, one of the jurors inquired as to a period of silence noticed in the video. The trial court explained that the parties believed that portion of the video to be irrelevant, and therefore, the parties jointly agreed to mute that portion of the video. Tr. 850:23-851:6. Trial counsel was demonstrably aware of the need to limit the jury's access to irrelevant portions of the video. It can only be presumed that trial counsel's decision to allow the jury to consider the remaining portions of the video fell into the defense's trial strategy.3 As a result,Franks's first three assignments of error challenging any error with the admissibility of the video-recorded statement in its entirety are, at best, invited error. The parties stipulated to the introduction of the recorded interview into evidence, and Franks cannot now challenge the admissibility of that recording because he invited the alleged error. The first three assigned errors are overruled.
{¶10} In his next two assignments of error,4 Franks argues that the state failed to present sufficient evidence of complicity to substantiate the state's theory that he aided and abetted Coates with the shooting. This argument overlooks the fact that the state presented two theories for the jury's consideration: that Franks in fact was the shooter, as established by Franks's after-the-fact admissions of guilt to Coates; or that Coates was the shooter, but Franks was complicit in the plan to rob and murder the victim. On the former theory, Franks's entire sufficiency of the evidence argument is that "there is a total absence of constitutionally sufficient evidence that Franks himself killed the victim."
{¶11} A claim of insufficient evidence raises the question whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict as a matter of law. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541. In reviewing a sufficiency challenge,"[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. In order to convict Franks, the state needed to establish that Franks either purposely caused the death of another while committing, or attempting to commit, an aggravated robbery or was complicit with Coates who did the nefarious deed. R.C. 2903.01(B).
{¶12} Without considering the credibility of the state's witness, any rational trier of fact could have determined that Franks's willingness to take responsibility and share equal culpability with Coates for the murder was a concession of being the primary offender, the shooter, in the purposeful killing of the victim. Franks attempts to downplay his statement by claiming it to be "little more than street bravado of a 20-year-old kid"; however, whether the admission was meant to boost his street reputation weighs on the credibility of Franks, a factor not considered under the sufficiency of the evidence review. The state, having presented evidence of Franks being the primary offender and sharing equal culpability for the murder, presented sufficient evidence substantiating Franks's conviction under the theory that Franks was the primary offender.
{¶13} Further, even if the jury believed that Franks was not the shooter, there is sufficient evidence demonstrating that Franks was complicit in the purposeful killing of the victim. In order to be found guilty of complicity to commit an underlying crime, thedefendant must have taken some role in causing the commission of the offense. State v. Lett, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial