State v. Miller

Decision Date27 December 2016
Docket NumberNo. 14 CO 0047.,14 CO 0047.
Citation79 N.E.3d 1,2016 Ohio 8544
Parties STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Christopher L. MILLER, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtD.C. Court of Appeals

Robert Herron, Columbiana County Prosecutor, John Gamble, Chief, Assistant Prosecutor, Lisbon, OH, for plaintiff-appellee.

Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, Katherine Ross–Kinzie, Assistant Public Defender, Columbus, OH, for defendant-appellant.

GENE DONOFRIO, P.J., MARY DeGENARO, CHERYL L. WAITE, JJ.

OPINION

DeGENARO, J.

{¶ 1} DefendantAppellant, Christopher L. Miller, appeals the judgment of the Columbiana County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of aggravated murder and sentencing him accordingly. On appeal, Miller asserts eight assignments of error. One concerns the trial court's failure to grant a continuance, five involve evidentiary rulings, and the final two challenge his aggravated murder conviction as being unsupported by sufficient evidence or against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the following reasons, all of Miller's assignments of error are meritless. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On October 26, 2013, Matthew Bailey was discovered bludgeoned to death near a remote oil well access road and cornfield off of Hartley Road, in Butler Township, Columbiana County. In connection with this homicide, in March 2014, a grand jury indicted Miller on one count each of aggravated murder, R.C. 2903.01(A) and murder, R.C. 2903.02, both unclassified felonies, along with one count of tampering with evidence, R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), a third-degree felony. The case was tried to a jury beginning June 18, 2014. The jury returned a guilty verdict on the tampering charge; however, the jury could not reach a unanimous decision on the aggravated murder and murder charges. Thus, the trial court declared a mistrial on the aggravated murder and murder counts only, and proceeded immediately to sentence Miller to 36 months in prison on the tampering charge and set a second jury trial for the aggravated murder and murder charges for November 3, 2014.

{¶ 3} Prior to the second trial, there was a flurry of motions by both sides. Among other things, the State filed a motion in limine to prohibit any testimony regarding misconduct of the victim outside of the scope of the indictment. The trial court granted the State's motion, notifying counsel that it would "tightly control any testimony about [the victim's misconduct]."

{¶ 4} The State also filed a motion in limine requesting permission to call Patti Colon, the defendant's girlfriend at the time of the alleged offenses, as an adverse witness pursuant to Evid.R. 611(C). The prosecutor alleged that during a recent trial preparation meeting, Colon admitted she had contact with Miller subsequent to the first trial, that she did speak with him but was "done cooperating," and that she refused to disclose the nature or substance of the conversation except to defense counsel.

{¶ 5} At trial, after arguments held outside of the presence of the jury, the trial court granted the State's motion to declare Colon as an adverse witness; and the State proceeded to question her accordingly.

{¶ 6} A final pre-trial hearing was held on November 3, 2014, the day before trial was scheduled to commence. At that hearing, Miller himself requested a continuance, alleging he had not had time to adequately prepare for trial with counsel. Upon further questioning by the trial court, it was revealed that Miller's main qualm about going forward with trial was that he believed evidence of the victim's prior misconduct or unrelated criminal investigations into the victim should be admissible at trial. Miller also voiced his belief that everything contained in the discovery packet from the State should be admissible at trial and it appeared he wanted time to convince his attorneys to adopt this position. The trial court attempted to explain to Miller that counsel and the court had a duty to follow the rules of evidence. Further, the trial court noted that since Miller had previously been tried on the same charges arising out of the same events, the second trial was "largely going to be the same or close" to the first. Accordingly, the trial court overruled Miller's request and ordered trial to begin the next day, as scheduled.

{¶ 7} Following jury selection, a jury view of the area where the body was found took place. The following pertinent evidence was adduced at trial. On the afternoon of October 26, 2013, residents of Butler Township discovered a body lying in a ditch off of an oil access road off of Hartley Road. Neighboring property owner, Charles Smith, testified that Miller was familiar with the area around that access road from working on cars on his property, which used to contain a salvage yard and auto repair shop.

{¶ 8} Law enforcement responded to the location and, later, identified the body as Matthew Bailey. Officers observed severe trauma to Bailey's head and face, and blood spatter in the trees and tall grass near the location of the body.

{¶ 9} Detectives investigating at Bailey's apartment spoke with Jonathon Phillips, who testified he observed Bailey and Miller drive away from Bailey's apartment in a black Ford SUV at approximately 8:45 a.m. on the morning of October, 26, 2013. He said Miller was wearing a pair of jeans with a western-style belt.

{¶ 10} Colon testified Miller arrived at the mobile home where she and Miller resided between 10:15 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. that day. She said Miller was wearing a pair of black bib overalls, a thermal shirt and a pair of boots. Colon was upset because Miller, who had been driving Colon's Ford Escape SUV the previous night, was supposed to be home with the vehicle much earlier that morning so that Colon could prepare for a party she was planning for her daughter that day. Miller had also promised to return with money for party supplies; Colon had saved money for the occasion, but Miller, who had a drug problem, had spent it. Colon sent several text messages to Miller asking him why he was not home yet. At 6:42 a.m., Miller responded: "I'm fine. I drank too much. I passed out." And shortly thereafter, she received another message from Miller stating "I'll be home after a bit." Miller did not have a cellular service plan on his phones and could only use messaging applications to communicate where he had access to Wi–Fi.

{¶ 11} Miller also texted Colon using the victim Matthew Bailey's cell phone at 9:40 a.m. and 9:42 a.m., which is around the time it is believed that Bailey was killed. In those texts, Miller asked Colon what time she needed to pick up her daughter and told Colon he was getting cash and coming home.

{¶ 12} When Miller finally returned home, Colon observed a fresh injury on the back of Miller's head. He said he had tripped and fallen while drunk, but was evasive about it. Miller did not have the money he owed Colon, but Colon was able to find some money she had forgotten about to buy some of the supplies for her daughter's party. On the way to the store to purchase them, Miller, who was driving her in the Ford SUV, reached across her and attempted to wipe blood off the passenger window only to realize it was on the outside of the window. Miller explained that it was probably his blood. While they were driving, Colon received a phone call from Miller's cousin, Ronny Lacey, who told Miller that Bailey's body had been found that morning. Thereafter, Miller became agitated and upset. Colon believed this agitation was more drug-related; she thought that Miller needed a "fix."

{¶ 13} That day, after dropping Colon off at the party, Miller contacted Wanda Bender by telephone to ask if her husband had any work for him; and visited the homes of Mark Menough and Mervin and Gayle Hilliard. At the Hilliards' home, Miller borrowed a router, which is a wood-working tool. The Hilliards testified that Miller was wearing a long-sleeved shirt and black coveralls and work boots. Miller said he was cold and sat by the wood burner. The Hilliards could not tell whether Miller was wearing jeans under the coveralls.

{¶ 14} A forensic evaluation of Miller's smart phone showed internet searches for local news stations at around 5:20 p.m. that day.

{¶ 15} That evening, Miller picked up Colon from the party and the two drove back to their mobile home. Not long after their arrival, officers arrived, having determined by then that the black Ford SUV seen by Phillips at Bailey's apartment was registered to Colon. Knowing that Miller had an active arrest warrant for a failure to appear charge, police approached the mobile home to execute the warrant. As police knocked on the front door, Miller attempted to escape out of the back door, but ran back inside when confronted by officers and was ultimately found hiding in a bedroom. Officers took Miller into custody, but did not mention the Bailey homicide. At this time it was discovered that Miller had two cell phones in his possession, one of which had a micro-SD cell phone card containing self-portrait photos ("selfies") of Matthew Bailey.

{¶ 16} Colon consented to a search of the mobile home. During the search, police discovered a white thermal shirt belonging to Miller with blood stains. Police also observed blood stains on the front window of the black Ford SUV, which was parked in front of the mobile home. Agent Carlini later determined that the blood spatter on the outside of the vehicle, like that found in the trees, was "castoff."

{¶ 17} Inside the vehicle, there was evidence of bloodstaining in the front passenger seat area. Blood stain spots were also found on Miller's boots. DNA testing determined that some of the blood stains in the SUV and on Miller's clothing matched the DNA of Matthew Bailey.

{¶ 18} Based on the forensic evidence as a whole, Agent Carlini concluded that Bailey bled inside of the Ford SUV; was likely dumped outside near the oil well; and then...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
1 books & journal articles
  • Introduction
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Trial Objections
    • May 5, 2022
    ...to such evidence, in prosecution for involuntary manslaughter, corrupting another with drugs, and trafficking in heroin. State v. Miller , 79 N.E.3d 1, 14 (Ohio Ct. App 2016). Neither State nor its witnesses opened door to questions regarding police investigation into victim as suspect in u......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT