State v. Johnson

• Docket Number: 22 MA 0068
• Decision Date: 20 December 2023
• Citation: 2023 Ohio 4734
• Parties: STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUIS JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

1

2023-Ohio-4734

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LUIS JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 22 MA 0068

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning

December 20, 2023

Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio Case No. 20 CR 664

Atty. Gina DeGenova, Mahoning County Prosecutor and Atty. Edward A. Czopur, Assistant Prosecutor,, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Atty. Rhys B. Cartwright-Jones, for Defendant-Appellant

BEFORE: Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Mark A. Hanni, Judges.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

2

WAITE, J.

{¶1} Appellant Luis Johnson appeals a June 3, 2022 Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas judgment entry convicting him of attempted murder, felonious assaults, and multiple firearm specifications. Appellant argues that the trial court improperly allowed the state to treat two of their witnesses as hostile without satisfying the statutory requirements. Appellant also challenges his convictions under a manifest weight of the evidence standard. For the reasons that follow, Appellant's arguments are without merit and are overruled.

Factual and Procedural History

{¶2} Appellant and his co-defendant at trial, Tyree Robinson, met through Appellant's brother, Eric. Appellant lived with his mother, Elena Colon. Appellant had previously dated Starla Clark and had one child with Ms. Clark. The child is approximately four or five years old. After Appellant and Ms. Clark ended their relationship, she began dating Tevin Gregory, the victim in this case. Appellant began a relationship with a woman named Payton Mraz.

{¶3} Appellant and Ms. Clark dated for approximately four and one-half years, living together for roughly half of that time. They ended their relationship after an argument. Appellant had found several dating apps on her phone, where she apparently had romantically messaged other men. Appellant was also upset at his belief she had a romantic relationship with her manager at a local Taco Bell restaurant. When Appellant confronted Ms. Clark her about this, she ended her relationship with Appellant.

{¶4} Appellant became what several people close to him describe as "unhinged" after the breakup. Appellant showed the jury a large tattoo bearing the name "Starla" on

3

his neck. He explained that he was tattooed with her name and their daughter's name sometime after the breakup. Ms. Clark testified that she eventually blocked his number in her cell phone, as he continually texted her attempting to get her to resume their relationship. At one point, Ms. Clark and Appellant's mother became concerned that he was suicidal, particularly after his mother found what she believed to be a suicide note. Ms. Clark called the police, who took Appellant to a hospital for mental health treatment.

{¶5} When their relationship ended, Ms. Clark entered a relationship with the victim, which progressed quickly. Her new relationship upset Appellant. At some point Appellant sent the victim a video apparently depicting a sex act between Ms. Clark and Appellant. This was to persuade the victim that Ms. Clark was dating both men at the same time. Ms. Clark became angry and refused to speak to Appellant, stating that Appellant's constant attempts to resume their relationship had angered her to the point that she decided to limit their communication solely to issues regarding their daughter.

{¶6} In the weeks before the shooting, Ms. Clark and the victim spent most nights together at her parent's residence, where she lived. On at least one occasion, Ms. Clark saw Appellant drive past the house. She informed the victim, who thought this was odd.

{¶7} Both Appellant's mother and Appellant's friend, Ms. Mraz, told police that Appellant knew the victim often stayed at Ms. Clark's house. He also knew the victim had a distinct routine every morning to allow him to get to work on time. Ms. Mraz told police that Appellant was a "stalker" who had been tracking the victim and Ms. Clark. (Trial Tr., p. 453) Appellant's mother made several similar statements to police regarding Appellant's knowledge of where and when he could find the victim.

4

{¶8} Eric, Appellant's brother, voluntarily contacted police and informed them that after Appellant returned from his mental health related hospital stay, Appellant said he wanted to kill the victim.

{¶9} On October 12, 2020, the victim woke up and exited Ms. Clark's residence around 5:40 a.m. as was his typical routine. He walked to his car, which was parked on the street about halfway between Ms. Clark's residence and the neighbor's. As the victim checked his phone for the time he noticed a burgundy vehicle pull around a bus and drive towards him. Shortly thereafter, shots were fired from the vehicle, striking the victim several times. The next-door neighbor, Juan Salinas, heard the gunshots as he was getting into his own car. He observed a four door burgundy car drive away and testified that he could see only one person in the car, the driver, who was ducking down. (Trial Tr., p. 252.)

{¶10} Ms. Clark heard the shots and phoned the victim to check on him. He was able to answer her call and informed Ms. Clark that he had been shot and needed help. Ms. Clark called 911 and police arrived at the residence. Sergeant Michael Marciano was the first to arrive at the scene. Although the injuries were so severe Sgt. Marciano was concerned for the victim's life, the victim was transported to the hospital where, after multiple surgeries, he survived. Ms. Clark told the responding officers she believed Appellant was involved. She showed the neighbor, Mr. Salinas, a photograph of a burgundy Lincoln owned by Appellant's friend and co-defendant, Robinson. Mr. Salinas agreed it was the vehicle he saw at the scene. Ms. Clark then called Appellant's mother and said her son and Robinson had shot her boyfriend. Appellant's mother ran into Appellant's room, where he appeared to be sleeping. When she asked him about Ms.

5

Clark's claims, he denied involvement and made a joke. Appellant later said that he and his mother did not have a good relationship and she forced him out of her house.

{¶11} Cell phone records introduced at trial indicated that Appellant made a series of phone calls to Robinson's phone the morning of the shooting. The shooting occurred at approximately 4:50 a.m. and the first group of calls occurred prior to the shooting: 1:09 a.m., 1:10 a.m., 1:29 a.m., 1:38 a.m., 1:45 a.m., 4:05 a.m., and 4:20 a.m. The next call occurred at 6:54 a.m., an hour after the shooting and twenty minutes after Ms. Clark's phone call to Appellant's mother in which she accused Appellant and Robinson of being involved in the shooting. (Trial Tr., p. 605.)

{¶12} In the days after the shooting, several witnesses were interviewed by police. Some came to the police station voluntarily without being asked. Others were asked to visit the police station. Appellant's mother voluntarily appeared at the police station two days after the shooting. Sergeant Michael Cox and Detective David Sweeney were present and she gave them a statement which was videotaped. According to the officers, during her statement, Appellant's mother was "- very, very much crying, very upset. She basically explained that, you know, she couldn't really believe that she was there and that she was doing what she was doing but she had to protect her son and that the boy -- or the male I think she referred to his as -- the boy didn't deserve what happened to him." (Trial Tr., p. 496.) Although Appellant had initially denied involvement to his mother, she told police that he later confessed he was involved in the shooting. He told her that an unnamed woman had helped he and Robinson by washing their clothes and Robinson had wiped the vehicle clean.

6

{¶13} Appellant's mother expressed concern for his mental state, explaining that he had been devastated by the breakup and Ms. Clark's new relationship, had lost his job, left a suicide note weeks earlier, and had been hospitalized due to mental illness. She informed officers that Appellant had spent an increasing amount of time with Robinson. During her statement, Appellant's mother told the officers that she had taken a prescribed medication but had just driven from work, showed no impairment, and coherently answered questions. (Trial Tr., p. 499.)

{¶14} Investigators also talked to Ms. Clark and Ms. Mraz. Ms. Clark informed police that Appellant repeatedly sent her text messages attempting to get her to resume their relationship and that she eventually was forced to block his cell phone number. While she allowed him to pick up their child for visitation, she did not otherwise maintain contact with him. She knew Appellant, Robinson, and Eric to possess guns, and knew Robinson drove a burgundy vehicle.

{¶15} Ms. Mraz also provided a statement to police. In her statement, she described her relationship with Appellant as "best friends" with "benefits." She initially told police that Appellant spent the night with her and that she dropped him off at this mother's house at 6:30 a.m. Later, she admitted that he did not actually stay with her, but he had asked her to lie to police and provide him with an alibi. She then told police that Appellant was involved in the shooting and his friend Robinson drove him to Ms. Clark's residence and shot the victim. When asked how Appellant knew the victim would be there, she replied "he's a stalker. That's what he's been doing. He's been tracking. He asked his friends late at night to see where [the victim] is at." (Trial Tr., pp. 453-454.)

7

{¶16} However, at trial both she and Appellant's mother changed their statements. Ms. Mraz recanted, and claimed that police pressured her into lying and implicating Appellant. When asked if watching her video statement would help her memory, she said that she did not want to watch the video, regardless.

{¶17} We note that this...