State v. Jones
| Decision Date | 07 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2021-P-0098 |
| Citation | 200 N.E.3d 585 |
| Parties | STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lynden A. JONES, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Pamela J. Holder, Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Sean P. Martin, 113 North Chestnut Street, Suite A, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Defendant-Appellant).
{¶1} Appellant, Lynden A. Jones ("Mr. Jones"), appeals from the judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, which sentenced him to an aggregate nine-year prison sentence after a jury found him guilty of reckless homicide with a firearm specification and tampering with evidence.
{¶2} Mr. Jones raises seven assignments of error on appeal, in which he contends: (1) the state failed to produce sufficient evidence to sustain his convictions for reckless homicide and tampering with the evidence; (2) the state committed prosecutorial misconduct when it referred to witness intimidation he did not commit; (3) the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the admission of testimony that he discarded clothing after the shooting, which led the jury astray in finding that he tampered with evidence; (4, 5) defense counsel was ineffective for failing to articulate any argument to sustain his Crim.R. 29(A) and (C) motions for acquittal; (6) the trial court abused its discretion by overruling defense counsel's Crim.R. 29 motions without entertaining arguments; and (7) the prosecutor impermissibly and prejudicially commented on his post-arrest silence during closing arguments.
{¶3} After a careful review of the record and pertinent law, we find Mr. Jones’ assignments of error to be without merit.
{¶4} Firstly, a review of the state's evidence reveals more than sufficient evidence from which a jury could find Mr. Jones guilty of reckless homicide and tampering with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Jones perversely disregarded the risks associated with playing with a deadly weapon by pointing and dry firing a gun with its magazine attached at another person standing in close proximity, i.e., 2-3 feet away. Further, the state introduced evidence that Mr. Jones attempted to remove all traces of himself at the scene by removing his personal handguns, plotting to report the shooting as self-inflicted, and fleeing the scene, possibly discarding his clothing on an interstate as he drove away. Additionally, the handgun left at the scene that was linked to the bullet that tore through the victim did not have any traces of fingerprints or any DNA evidence.
{¶5} Secondly, because we find the underlying grounds of Mr. Jones’ fourth, fifth, and sixth assignments of error, i.e., the sufficiency of the evidence, to be without merit, we necessarily find these assignments of error are without merit and/or moot.
{¶6} Thirdly, as to the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in Mr. Jones’ second assignment of error, we determine that the prosecutor legitimately questioned one of the eyewitnesses, Mr. Dickerson, who was reluctant to answer the state's subpoena, in an effort to bolster his credibility. The eyewitnesses to the shooting did not come forward until the investigation was already underway; several reported the victim shot himself; and the trial itself was emotionally charged with family and friends allegedly waiting outside of the courtroom threatening the witness. Mr. Dickerson reported being threatened by his peers the night before he testified. Even if we did find the prosecutor's questioning about what was transpiring outside the courtroom improper and confusing for the jury, Mr. Jones failed to demonstrate any prejudice, substantial or otherwise.
{¶7} Regarding his seventh assignment of error, we agree with Mr. Jones that the prosecutor's remark regarding Mr. Jones’ post-arrest silence was highly improper and find it troubling that the trial court overruled defense counsel's objection and did not give a curative instruction to the jury. We determine, however, that any error is harmless since the record amply supports Mr. Jones’ convictions.
{¶8} Lastly, we find Mr. Jones’ third assignment of error to be without merit since the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing one of the detectives to testify that Mr. Jones allegedly discarded clothing on the interstate after the incident, which was never recovered, because it was neither more prejudicial nor less relevant than the testimony regarding the missing handguns and was more probative than not in determining whether Mr. Jones tampered with evidence to remove any traces of himself from the scene. Moreover, the hearsay rule does not apply when an out-of-court statement is introduced to explain the subsequent actions of a witness. See , e.g. , State v. Lewis , 22 Ohio St.2d 125, 132, 258 N.E.2d 445 (1970). Thus, the detective's testimony that he was prompted to search for the clothing along the interstate because of comments from witnesses during his investigation was not inadmissible hearsay; rather, it explained his course of action. Further, the jury was well aware that the discarded clothing was never found, and any evidentiary value it had as far as linking Mr. Jones to the shooting was speculative. Thus, the jury was free to weigh the credibility of such evidence.
{¶9} Finding Mr. Jones’ assignment of error to be without merit, the judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
{¶10} In May 2021, a Portage County Grand Jury indicted Mr. Jones on four counts: reckless homicide, a third-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2903.041 ; using weapons while intoxicated, a first-degree misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 2923.15 ; involuntary manslaughter, a third-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2903.04 ; and tampering with evidence, a third-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2921.12. The indictment was amended a few days later to include a firearm specification on the counts of reckless homicide and involuntary manslaughter pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(D) and R.C. 2941.145.
{¶11} The indictment arose out of a small get together of high schoolers who gathered at an apartment following a high school basketball game. They were smoking marijuana and several of them were dry firing handguns. The nine-millimeter handgun Mr. Jones was handling fired a live round, which struck and killed the 17-year-old victim, Dominick Anthony Diaz-Francis ("Mr. Diaz-Francis").
{¶12} Mr. Jones pleaded not guilty at his arraignment, and the case proceeded to a three-day jury trial.
{¶13} The state presented the testimony of twelve witnesses, including Mr. Jones’ friends that were present on the night of the shooting (with the exception of the lessee of the apartment, Dajon Rovelle Buchanan a.k.a. "DJ" ("Mr. Buchanan")): Dalvin Dickerson ("Mr. Dickerson"); Mr. Jones’ cousin, Josiah Mercury aka "Joe Joe" ("Mr. Mercury"); and Anthony Clark a.k.a. "Barry" ("Mr. Clark").
{¶14} Mr. Dickerson, Mr. Mercury, and Mr. Clark gave similar accounts of the night of the incident. The group had congregated at Mr. Buchanan's apartment to "hang out," which included playing videogames, smoking marijuana, and playing with handguns. Three handguns were brought out shortly after they arrived; two belonged to Mr. Jones, and one belonged to Mr. Diaz-Francis. According to Mr. Dickerson, Mr. Jones and Mr. Diaz-Francis were "cocking them back" to see which gun was the loudest and/or easiest to fire. Mr. Mercury and Mr. Clark both testified that dry firing handguns was something they did often. Dry firing a gun was described during the trial as pulling the trigger of an unloaded gun. A click is heard when the hammer of the gun falls, which in a loaded gun expels the bullet from the gun's chamber.
{¶15} Mr. Jones was dry firing the nine-millimeter handgun that belonged to Mr. Diaz-Francis. He pointed it at the victim, who was standing only a few feet away, and pulled the trigger, expelling a live round. As the chief forensic investigator for the Portage County Coroner's office testified, the bullet struck Mr. Diaz-Francis mid-chest and exited out of his upper back/right shoulder. An officer later retrieved the bullet, which was located lodged into one of the ceiling tiles.
{¶16} Mr. Diaz-Francis collapsed in the doorway leading into the apartment bedroom. Believing they could drive him to the hospital, Mr. Dickerson and Mr. Jones assisted the victim as far as the door of the apartment hallway.
{¶17} The group discussed reporting the shooting as self-inflicted, and Mr. Buchanan called 911 on Mr. Clark's cell phone, reporting that the victim shot himself. No one knew what happened to Mr. Jones’ guns, but everyone except the victim and Mr. Buchanan fled the scene before emergency personnel arrived.
{¶18} The officers who responded to the scene smelled marijuana emanating from the apartment before they entered. They found Mr. Buchanan standing over the victim, who was lying on the floor, unresponsive, and gasping and swallowing for air. Mr. Diaz-Francis was transported to the hospital by emergency personnel where he later died due to blood loss.
{¶19} The only handgun recovered from the scene was Mr. Diaz-Francis’ nine-millimeter handgun with the magazine still attached. At the time, the officers were unaware other handguns had been present since they began the investigation under the assumption that Mr. Diaz-Francis shot himself. A forensic investigator with the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation examined the gun, found it operable, and confirmed that that the gun and the bullet that shot the victim had the same class characteristics.
{¶20} Mr. Buchanan was taken into custody by Detective Duane Kaley ("Det. Kaley"). Mr. Buchanan filled out four different statement forms, reporting the shot as self-inflicted in various versions, which indicated to Det. Kaley that there...
To continue reading
Request your trial