State v. Jones, 2008 Ohio 1068 (Ohio App. 3/10/2008), 2007-CA-00041.
| Decision Date | 10 March 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2007-CA-00077.,No. 2007-CA-00041.,2007-CA-00041.,2007-CA-00077. |
| Citation | 2008 Ohio 1068 |
| Parties | State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie E. Jones, IV., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
John D. Ferrero, Prosecuting Attorney, By: Ronald Mark Caldwell, 110 Central Plaza South, Ste 510, Canton, OH 44702, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
George Urban, 111 Second Street N.W., Suite 302, Canton, Oh 44702, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J., Hon. John W. Wise, J., Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Willie E. Jones, IV, was indicted by the Stark County Grand Jury and charged with one count of murder, in violation of R.C. §2903.02(A) for the shooting death of Jackie Stallings, Jr. The grand jury included a firearm specification in the indictment. A jury found appellant guilty of the murder and the firearm specification as charged in the indictment. The trial court sentenced Mr. Jones to a prison term of fifteen years to life, with an additional mandatory three-year term for the firearm specification.
{¶2} On July 27, 2006, Theressa McCord was hosting an informal party in the unattached single-car garage at her residence. One of the invited guests was Jacky Stallings, Jr. Also in attendance were Victoria Umbles and another woman named Shanelle.
{¶3} During the early part of the evening, Stallings and Umbles left the party to get some more beer from a store located two blocks away. The pair left in Stallings' green Bonneville.
{¶4} The appellant was walking to the Lemonhead Market, also known as Meze Market with Amanda Murphy and Anthony Perez. Jackie Stallings pulled up to them in a green vehicle. He attempted to converse with Ms. Murphy; however, she was not receptive to his advances. When he persisted, Ms. Murphy informed him, "ain't nothing happening, keep moving." Ms. Murphy observed a passenger in the vehicle later identified as Victoria Umbles.
{¶5} Ms. Murphy, Mr. Perez and the appellant arrived at the store; however the door was locked. While they waited for an employee to open the door, Stallings pulled his vehicle between the street and the steps of the store and pointed a gun at all three. With gun in hand, Stallings demanded to know personal information about Ms. Murphy, specifically her name and age. The appellant instructed Ms. Murphy to give Stallings the information. Ms. Murphy then entered the store while the appellant and Mr. Perez waited outside. When Ms. Murphy walked out of the store, Stallings and Umbles entered it. Ms. Murphy, Mr. Perez and the appellant then left the market and walked to Ali Olmeda's residence.
{¶6} A short time later, the appellant returned to Lemonhead Market to purchase more beer. He walked back to Mr. Olmeda's residence by way of an alley. The appellant testified that he observed some people in a garage along the alleyway. One of the individuals, Mr. Stallings, made a statement to him. When he entered the garage to hear what Stallings was saying, Stallings approached him. Feeling threatened, appellant pulled his gun, cocked it, and pointed it at Stallings, telling him to stop. Stallings initially stopped, but then rushed appellant. A struggle over control of the firearm ensued. When it appeared to the appellant that Stallings would gain control over the gun, the appellant pushed him. Both fell to the ground. Stallings reached behind himself. The appellant testified that he believed that Stallings was reaching for his firearm. The appellant began firing his weapon as he was getting up from the ground. The appellant testified that if he had not fired his weapon and attempted to run away Stallings would have shot him. The appellant threw his firearm in the dumpster behind Goodtimes bar. The next morning he took a bus to Virginia.
{¶7} Theressa McCord testified that she was in the garage when the appellant entered. While talking on the phone, she looked back into the garage and noticed a scuffle over a firearm taking place. She observed only one gun and that the appellant had possession of it. Ms. McCord testified that Stallings did not have a firearm. She did not know the appellant, but did pick him out of a photo identification lineup. She did not know who started the altercation or who pulled out the firearm. Ms. McCord testified that Victoria Umbles was Stallings' girlfriend. Ms. McCord did not know if Ms. Umbles or the other woman present in the garage at the time had hidden a gun.
{¶8} Ms. Umbles testified that after leaving the market she and Mr. Stallings returned to the garage. She went inside the residence to use the restroom. She then heard shots fired. When she returned to the garage, she observed Stallings lying in the alley adjacent to the garage. She also observed Stalling's firearm on the ground beside him. She kicked the gun out of the way in the direction of the garage. Ms. Umbles testified that she did not inform the police of the incident at Lemonhead Market or that Stallings had a firearm lying next to him. Ms. Umbles was "highly intoxicated." Ms. Umbles did not know the appellant.
{¶9} Sidney Pride testified that the appellant told him that Stallings invited the appellant to meet him on 16th Street. Mr. Pride also testified that the appellant stated that he was "trying to rob the dude and the dude grabbed the gun." The appellant told him that he shot Stallings. Mr. Pride did not tell police that the appellant stated he was attempting to rob Stallings. Mr. Pride further admitted that he had not informed the police that he had taken appellant to the bus station the next morning.
{¶10} Stallings was shot five times — in the right chin, the left wrist, a grazing gunshot wound to the scalp that caused non-fatal brain hemorrhaging, in the right mid-back, and in the mid-abdomen area. These last two gunshot wounds caused extensive damage to Stallings internal organs, which produced massive bleeding. Stallings eventually died from this massive blood loss. A criminalist with the Stark County Crime Lab, after examining Stallings' shirt and the gunpowder residue on it from two bullet holes, concluded that Stallings had been shot at close range, between six and twenty feet, with an operable firearm. The criminalist also examined the five spent shell casings recovered at the crime scene, concluding that they were 9-millimeter Winchester cartridge casings.
{¶11} The police were unable to locate any other firearm in spite of a search of the vehicle belonging to Stallings, the purse belonging to Victoria Umbles, the garage and the surrounding area.
{¶12} In August of 2006, Sergeant Dan McCartney received information that appellant had fled to Virginia. He notified the FBI fugitive task force for assistance in locating him. After tracking phone calls that appellant had apparently been making, they were able to trace him to the Newport News area of Virginia. In October, appellant turned himself in, and he was transported back to Canton. At the Canton Police Department, appellant waived his rights and gave a taped statement to Sergeant McCartney. The appellant's statement was consistent with his testimony at trial.
{¶13} Appellant has timely appealed, raising the following three assignments of error:
{¶14} "I. THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDING OF GUILT IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶15} "II. THE APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW BECAUSE OF MISCONDUCT OF THE PROSECUTOR.
{¶16}
{¶17} In his First Assignment of Error, appellant maintains that his conviction for Murder is against the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. We disagree.
{¶18} Our standard of reviewing a claim a verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence is to examine the evidence presented at trial to determine whether the evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in the 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 (1991), 61 Ohio St. 3d 259.
{¶19} The Supreme Court has explained the distinction between claims of sufficiency of the evidence and manifest weight. Sufficiency of the evidence is a question for the trial court to determine whether the State has met its burden to produce evidence on each element of the crime charged, sufficient for the matter to be submitted to the jury.
{¶20} Because the trier of fact is in a better position to observe the witnesses' demeanor and weigh their credibility, the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are primarily for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, syllabus 1.
{¶21} In State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541, the Ohio Supreme Court held "[t]o reverse a judgment of a trial court on the basis that the judgment is not sustained by sufficient evidence, only a concurring majority of a panel of a court of appeals reviewing the judgment is necessary." Id., paragraph three of the syllabus. However, to "reverse a judgment of a trial court on the weight of the evidence, when the judgment results from a trial by jury, a unanimous concurrence of all three judges on the court of appeals panel reviewing the case is required." Id., paragraph four of the syllabus; State v. Miller (2002), 96 Ohio St.3d 384, 2002-Ohio4-931 at ¶38, 775 N.E.2d 498.
{¶22} In the case at bar, appellant was convicted of the offense of murder in violation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial