State v. Jones

• Citation: 151 N.E.3d 1059,2020 Ohio 281
• Decision Date: 31 January 2020
• Docket Number: NO. C-170647,C-170647
• Parties: STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Earl JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)

151 N.E.3d 1059

2020 Ohio 281

STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Earl JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

NO. C-170647

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County.

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: January 31, 2020

OPINION.

Crouse, Judge.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Earl Jones appeals his convictions for aggravated murder and carrying a concealed weapon. In his appeal, Jones raises nine assignments of error for our review. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.

Facts and Procedure

{¶2} In 2012, defendant-appellant Earl Jones fathered a child with Cyerra Prather. Jones and Prather dated for the next three years and eventually ended their relationship in October 2015. Approximately two months later, in December 2015, Prather began dating Kevin Neri. From January 2016 to May 2016, Neri lived with Prather and her family.

{¶3} There was instant animosity between Jones and Neri. Jones regularly referred to Neri through racial epithets and directed vulgar insults at both Neri and Prather. Because of the relationship between Jones and Neri, Prather's family took various steps to reduce the chances for confrontation. For example, Prather's mother acted as an intermediary for the pick-up and drop-off of Jones and Prather's son. Prather's mother would drop their son off at Jones's apartment and she would meet Jones outside when he returned their son to Prather's house. In addition, Prather's family attempted to make transfers of the child quick. Prather's family wanted to reduce the time Jones had to wait at Prather's house and reduce the chances of Jones and Neri seeing each other.

{¶4} Jones and Neri also had a history of arranging fist fights that never occurred. Jones would tell Neri to meet him at a specific location, Neri would go to that location, and Jones would not be there. A similar set of circumstances occurred on May 16, 2016. Throughout the morning and early afternoon of May 16, Jones and Neri exchanged several taunting and derogatory text messages. During the exchange, Neri asked Jones if Jones wanted to fight. Jones replied in the affirmative, stating that he would be in the area the following day to pick up his and Prather's son.

{¶5} Around 4:00 p.m., Jones asked Prather if he could get their son that night instead of the following day. Prather agreed and Jones asked that Prather bring their son to his apartment. Prather stated that her sister would drop the child off at Jones's apartment. However, Prather's sister refused when she found out that Jones had posted half-naked pictures of Prather on social media earlier in the day. Prather instead offered Jones to pick their son up from her house at 8:00 p.m. Jones agreed and immediately texted Neri to reschedule the previously-arranged fight to occur at the same time Jones would be at Prather's house. Neri agreed to meet Jones at the end of the street.

{¶6} At 7:29 p.m., Jones messaged Prather to ask when he should leave. Prather responded, "I thought you were gonna be here by 8." Jones replied, "Making sure you'll still be home by 8." At 7:55 p.m., Jones again messaged Prather stating, "Im stopping by my friend ruths house first he lives around the corner from you." Jones then called Prather at 8:09 p.m. to confirm that he had left his friend's house and was on his way to Prather's house.

{¶7} Jones arrived at Prather's house around 8:10 p.m. Jones parked his car on the right side of the street in front of Prather's mailbox, an area designated as a no-parking zone. According to the state's witnesses, Neri was outside standing in the yard when Jones arrived. Jones pocketed a loaded firearm and got out of the car, leaving the engine running and the driver's side door open. The two men began walking towards each other. Jones then pulled the firearm out of his pocket and shot Neri three times. Jones immediately returned to his car, called 9-1-1 to report the shooting, and turned himself in to the local sheriff's station.

{¶8} Jones was subsequently indicted on one count of aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A), one count of murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A), one count of felony murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B), and one count of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2). Despite his claims of self-defense, a jury found Jones guilty of all counts and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Jones timely filed this appeal and raised the following assignments of error:

1. Earl Jones's Conviction for Aggravated Murder Under R.C. 2903.01(A) is Not Supported by Sufficient Evidence, and the Trial Court Erred When it Denied his Crim.R. 29 Motion.

2. Earl Jones's Conviction for Aggravated Murder is Not Supported by the Manifest Weight of the Evidence.

3. The Trial Court Violated Earl Jones's Constitutional Right to Present a Complete Defense.

4. The Trial Court Erred When it Admitted Photographs That Were Both Misleading and Substantially More Prejudicial than Probative.

5. Earl Jones's Defense Counsel Was Constitutionally Ineffective.

6. The Trial Court Erred When it Denied Earl Jones's Mistrial Request.

7. The Trial Court Erred When it Admitted Prejudicial Photographs.

8. The Trial Court Erred When it Sentenced Earl Jones to Life Without the Possibility of Parole Despite the Fact that the Record Clearly and Convincingly Did Not Support Such a Punitive Sentence, and R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) is Unconstitutional if it Prohibits Appellate Review of Earl's Sentence.

9. The Cumulative Effect of the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Assignments of Error Denied Earl Jones a Fair Trial.

We find the first, third, fourth, seventh, and ninth assignments of error dispositive of this appeal, and therefore, the other five assignments of error are rendered moot.

Law and Analysis

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

{¶9} In his first assignment of error, Jones argues that his conviction for aggravated murder was based upon insufficient evidence. Jones contends that he did not act with the requisite "prior calculation and design."

{¶10} To determine whether a conviction is supported by sufficient evidence, "[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, 274, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991).

{¶11} Jones was convicted of aggravated murder under R.C. 2903.01(A), which states: "No person shall purposely, and with prior calculation and design, cause the death of another." " ‘[P]rior calculation and design’ is a more stringent element than the ‘deliberate and premeditated malice’ which was required under prior law." State v. Cotton , 56 Ohio St.2d 8, 381 N.E.2d 190 (1978), paragraph one of the syllabus. As noted by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Taylor , 78 Ohio St.3d 15, 19, 676 N.E.2d 82 (1997), "the phrase ‘prior calculation and design’ [was employed] to indicate studied care in planning or analyzing the means of the crime as well as a scheme encompassing the death of the victim." "All prior calculation and design offenses will necessarily include purposeful homicides; not all purposeful homicides have an element of prior calculation and design." State v. Walker , 150 Ohio St.3d 409, 2016-Ohio-8295, 82 N.E.3d 1124, ¶ 18.

{¶12} In this case, the state does not argue that Jones, with prior calculation and design, decided to shoot Neri after Jones pulled up in his car and saw Neri in the front yard. And the evidence would be insufficient to prove prior calculation and design under those circumstances. See id. ("Evidence of an act committed on the spur of the moment or after momentary consideration is not evidence of * * * a studied consideration of the method and the means to cause a death."). Rather, the state contends that Jones went to Prather's home with prior calculation and design to kill Neri, having formed the intent to kill earlier that day.

{¶13} The Ohio Supreme Court has repeatedly held that "it is not possible to formulate a bright-line test that emphatically distinguishes between the presence or absence of ‘prior calculation and design.’ Instead, each case turns on the particular facts and evidence presented at trial." Taylor at 20, 676 N.E.2d 82. In determining whether prior calculation and design exists, courts are guided by three factors: "(1) Did the accused and victim know each other, and if so, was that relationship strained? (2) Did the accused give thought or preparation to choosing the murder weapon or murder site? and (3) Was the act drawn out or ‘an almost instantaneous eruption of events’?" Id. at 19, 676 N.E.2d 82, quoting State v. Jenkins , 48 Ohio App.2d 99, 102, 355 N.E.2d 825 (8th Dist. 1976).

{¶14} In light of the Taylor factors, we find that the evidence does not support the jury's determination of prior calculation and design. It is undisputed that Jones and Neri knew each other and that the relationship was severely strained. However, a strained relationship alone is not enough to support a conviction for aggravated murder. Rather, the existence of a strained relationship must be considered in light of the other Taylor factors.

{¶15} In support of its argument that Jones went to Prather's house with the prior calculation and design to kill Neri, the state points to evidence that Jones engaged in what Prather described at trial as "weird" behavior of repeatedly verifying when he was to pick up his son. The state contends that parking his car on the "wrong" side of the street, leaving the car engine running, and pocketing a loaded firearm that he had in the car is evidence of prior calculation and design. In addition, the state emphasizes the fact that Jones shot Neri three times while advancing on him, including after Neri tried to flee. The state lastly points to the testimony of one of the witnesses who...