State v. Larry Stephen Metz

• Decision Date: 21 April 1998
• Docket Number: 96 CA 48,98-LW-1098
• Citation: State v. Larry Stephen Metz, 96 CA 48, 98-LW-1098 (Ohio App. Apr 21, 1998)
• Parties: STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee v. LARRY STEPHEN METZ, Defendant-Appellant Case
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee v. LARRY STEPHEN METZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 96 CA 48.

98-LW-1098 (4th)

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District Washington

April 21, 1998

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Gary W. Smith, 316 South Main Street, P.O. Box 599, Woodsfield, Ohio 43793-0599.

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Alison L. Cauthorn, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 205 Putnam Street, Marietta, Ohio 45750.

DECISION

ABELE J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the Washington County Common Pleas Court.The jury found Larry Stephen Metz, defendant below and appellant herein, guilty of one count of involuntary manslaughter with a firearm specification in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A) and one count of insurance fraud in violation of R.C 2913.47(B)(1) and (C).

Appellant assigns the following errors:

FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

"THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN THIS CASE BY NOT GRANTING THE MOTION OF THE DEFENDANT, LARRY STEPHEN METZ, FOR CHANGE OF VENUE."

SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

"THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN THIS CASE BY NOT GRANTING THE MOTION OF THE DEFENDANT, LARRY STEPHEN METZ, TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS MADE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN MAY, 1995."

THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

"DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S CONVICTION SHOULD BE REVERSED DUE TO THE STATE'S FAILURE TO TIMELY PROSECUTE THIS CASE."

FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

"DEFENDANT-APPELLANTLARRY STEPHEN METZ ASSERTS THAT THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION SHOULD BE REVERSED ON THE BASIS THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE JURY VERDICT AS MATTER OF LAW."

FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO LIMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF ANY TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S SEXUAL ACTIVITY FOLLOWING THE DEATH OF THIS [sic] WIFE."

SIXTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

"THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO APPLY THE NEW SENTENCING PROVISIONS ACCORDING TOAM. SUB. SENATE BILL NO. 2 TO THIS CASE WHERE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WAS ARRESTED AND CHARGED PRIOR TO JULY 1 1996, BUT WAS NOT CONVICTED OR SENTENCED UNTIL AFTER JULY 1, 1996 AT WHICH TIME THE NEW LAW WAS IN EFFECT."

Our review of the record discloses the following facts relevant to the instant appeal.On July 7, 1994, shortly after 6:00 in the morning, members of the Beverly/Waterford Emergency Rescue Squad responded to an apparent suicide at appellant's home.When the squad members arrived, appellant directed them to his bedroom where the squad members found his wife, Dawn Denise Metz("Denise").Squad member Anita Ginther testified that Denise had blood flowing from her nose and ear and that a red handkerchief was placed above her right ear.Upon closer examination, Ginther discovered a gunshot wound to her right temple.Ginther testified that Denise was still breathing and had a pulse.

Squad member Dawn Close testified that Denise was lying on the right side of the bed, on her stomach and with her head to the right side.Squad member Close stated that she thought it looked like Denise's body was in sleeping position.The emergency squad members subsequently arranged for paramedics to transport Denise to Marietta Memorial Hospital where efforts to save her life failed.

Dr. Richard D. Clark examined Denise, post-mortem.The emergency room physician had said Dr. Clark that Denise had died as a result of a self-inflicted wound or suicide.Dr. Clark, however, after examining Denise, did not believe Denise had died as a result of a suicide.Two issues concerned the doctor about classifying Denise's death as a suicide.First, he stated that the time of the alleged suicide, 6:00 in the morning, is an unusual time to commit suicide.Second, he noted that women rarely use guns to commit suicide.

Law enforcement officials questioned appellant about the events leading up to his wife's alleged suicide.Washington County Sheriff's Detective Brian Schuck interviewed appellant approximately two hours after Denise allegedly had shot herself.Appellant told the detective that appellant had been at home with his wife and child the evening of July 6, 1994.During the night, he became hot.He left the bed where his wife was sleeping and went to die on the conch in the living room where there was a ceiling fan.Early in the morning, a "pop" awoke him.He went to the bedroom and discovered his wife lying in bed with a gunshot wound to the head.Appellant told the detective that Denise's right hand had held the gun.Appellant stated that he removed the weapon from her hand and placed it on the dresser.In an effort to minimize the bleeding from his wife's head, appellant placed a red bandanna or handkerchief on the wound.Appellant then told the detective that appellant phoned for emergency help.

Detective Schuck asked appellant why appellant thought his wife had committed suicide.Appellant stated that she had been depressed because she did not have many friends in the area and because she missed her family.

On October 26, 1994, Detective Schuck met with appellant again to discuss his wife's alleged suicide.By that point, Detective Schuck had received the results of gunshot residue tests that the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation (BCI) had conducted.The tests revealed the presence of gunshot residue on appellant's hands, but not on his wife's hands.When Detective Schuck questioned appellant about how gunshot residue got on appellant's hands, appellant stated that he had no idea.

On May 12, 1995, Detective Schuck interviewed appellant a third time in an effort to finally resolve the case.At this time, Detective Schuck had gathered further information which led him to believe that Denise had died at the hands of someone else and not as the result of a suicide.Detective Schuck called in Belmont County Sheriff's Special Deputy John Brown to help with the interview.^[1] Detective Schuck explained the factors to Deputy Brown which led him to believe that Denise had not killed herself.First, gunpowder residue was detected on appellant's hands, but not on his wife's hands.Second, his experience did not lead him to believe that a female would shoot herself in the head during the early morning honors.Third, Denise's friends and family had told the detective that she was greatly devoted to caring for her child and that they did not believe that she would kill herself, leaving her son without a mother.Finally, appellant had stated that he left the bedroom so that he could "cool off" in the living room under a ceiling fan; however, the bedroom also had an operational ceiling fan.

Deputy Brown interviewed appellant first, while Detective Schuck watched from an observation room.Prior to the interview, Deputy Brown read appellant his Miranda rights, and appellant signed a waiver form.At first appellant adhered to the original story that he told Detective Schuck.When Deputy Brown conveyed his belief that appellant was not in the living room when the gun went off, appellant began changing his story.Appellant's final version indicated that both he and his wife were sitting on the bed in an embrace.Denise tried to grab the gun from his hand and in the process, the gun accidentally discharged.Once appellant gave Deputy Brown his final version of the events surrounding his wife's death, Deputy Brown called in Detective Schuck to continue the interview.

Detective Schuck confronted appellant with information the detective had obtained from the coroner's report.In the coroner's opinion, Denise had suffered a contact gunshot wound, meaning that when the gun discharged, the gun was pressed up against her head.When Detective Schuck confronted appellant with this information, appellant was unable to give an explanation.Appellant maintains that the weapon was no more than six to twelve inches from Denise's head when it discharged.Detective Schuck expressed to appellant his disbelief of appellant's story.The detective repeatedly asked appellant for a satisfactory explanation as to how Denise suffered a contact wound from a gun that, as appellant maintained, was six to twelve inches away from her head.Finally, appellant stated that he and Denise had been struggling for the gun.Both of them were pulling back and forth, and appellant eventually fell on top of her, rolled over, and landed or the left side of the bed.Appellant stated that the gun Trust have discharged when he fell to the other side of the bed.Appellant told the detective that the gun must have been pressed against Denise's head when he fell.

On December 13, 1995, the Washington County Grand Jury returned a two-count indictment against appellant.The indictment alleged that appellant had committed murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A) and insurance fraud in violation of R.C. 2913.47(B)(1) and (C).^[2]

On January 12, 1996, appellant filed a motion for a change of venueAppellant asserted that he would be unable to receive a panel of twelve fair and impartial jurors due to extensive pretrial publicity.

On July 8, 1996, appellant filed a motion to suppress the statements he made to Deputy Brown and Detective Schuck.Appellant asserted that he told this law enforcement officers that "maybe I should talk to an attorney."^[3]Appellant argued that his statement was an unequivocal request for an attorney and that the interview should have ceased upon the uttering of this statement.

On July 12, 1996, the trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress.The trial court found that appellant had knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights prior to speaking with the law enforcement officers, and that during the course of the interview, appellant did not make an unequivocal...