State v. Omenai

• Docket Number: C. A. 30702
• Decision Date: 24 April 2024
• Citation: 2024 Ohio 1571
• Parties: STATE OF OHIO Appellee v. TYREE OMENAI Appellant
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

1

2024-Ohio-1571

STATE OF OHIO Appellee v. TYREE OMENAI Appellant

C. A. No. 30702

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit

April 24, 2024

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 20 02 0635(A)

KIMBERLY STOUT-SHERRER, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

ELLIOT KOLKOVICH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN R. DIMARTINO Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

SUTTON, JUDGE

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Tyree Omenai appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, this Court affirms.

I. Relevant Background Information

{¶2} On January 22, 2020, T.R., J.A., and their five-year old son were together in a vehicle when T.R. and J. A. attempted to purchase Percocet pills from Tyler Johnson, their regular drug dealer of several years. Mr. Johnson did not have Percocet pills that day, so he arranged for Mr. Omenai to meet T.R. and J.A. for the exchange. When T.R. and J.A. arrived at the agreed upon meeting location, Mr. Omenai entered the back seat of their vehicle and presented them with pills to purchase. T.R. and J.A. declined to purchase the pills and Mr. Omenai pulled out a gun and demanded money. T.R. ordered Mr. Omenai to leave the vehicle and exited the driver's seat to pull Mr. Omenai out of the vehicle. J.A. also exited the front passenger's seat of the vehicle and attempted to push Mr. Omenai out of the vehicle. T.R. and Mr. Omenai fell to the ground, and then, as Mr. Omenai was running away, Mr. Omenai fired his gun. T.R. was struck with a bullet and was bleeding. J.A. drove T.R. to a nearby hospital where she was taken into emergency surgery. T.R. succumbed to her injuries later that day.

{¶3} Mr. Omenai was indicted for one count of aggravated murder, in violation of R.C. 2903.01(B)/R.C. 2929.02(A), an unclassified felony with a firearm specification, as set forth in Count 1 of the indictment; one count of murder, in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A)/(D)/R.C. 2929.02(B), an unclassified felony with a firearm specification, as set forth in Count 2 of the indictment; one count of murder, in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B)/R.C. 2903.02(D)/R.C. 2929.02(B), an unclassified felony with a firearm specification, as set forth in Count 3 of the indictment; two counts of aggravated robbery, in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1)/R.C. 2911.01(C), felonies of the first degree with firearm specifications, as set forth in Counts 4 and 6 of the indictment; two counts of felonious assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2)/R.C. 2903.11(D)(1)(a), felonies of the second degree with firearm specifications, as set forth in Counts 5 and 7 of the indictment; and one count of having weapons while under disability, in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), a felony of the third degree, as set forth in Count 8 of the indictment. Mr. Omenai pleaded not guilty and the matter proceeded to jury trial.

{¶4} The jury found Mr. Omenai guilty of murder, in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B)/(D), an unclassified felony with a firearm specification, as set forth in Count 3 of the indictment; aggravated robbery, in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1)/(C), a felony of the first degree with a firearm specification, as set forth in Count 4 of the indictment; aggravated robbery, in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1)(C), a felony of the first degree with a firearm specification, as set forth in Count 6 of the indictment; and having weapons while under disability, in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), a felony of the third degree, as set forth in Count 8 of the indictment.

{¶5} Based upon the jury's verdicts, Mr. Omenai filed a motion for acquittal after the verdict which the State opposed. The trial court denied Mr. Omenai's motion and the matter proceeded to sentencing. The trial court sentenced Mr. Omenai to a total prison term of 21-years to life.

{¶6} Mr. Omenai now appeals raising two assignments of error for our review.

{¶7} As a preliminary matter, we note the trial court's journal entry contains a typographical error that states, in relevant part, "[o]n August 3, 2022, [Mr. Omenai] was found GUILTY by a Jury Trial of the following crimes in the Indictment: 1) Count 3, Murder-R.C. 2903.02(A)(D)[.]" The record, however, clearly indicates Mr. Omenai was found guilty of murder, pursuant to R.C. 2903.02(B)/(D), as stated in Count 3 of the indictment for causing the death of T.R. as a proximate result of Mr. Omenai committing or attempting to commit an offense of violence that is a felony of the first or second degree: aggravated robbery and/or felonious assault. Further, the jury verdict forms and sentencing transcript demonstrate Mr. Omenai was found guilty of murder, pursuant to R.C. 2903.02(B)/(D). Therefore, on remand, the trial court must issue a nunc pro tunc journal entry correcting this typographical error to indicate Mr. Omenai was found guilty of murder, pursuant to R.C. 2903.02(B)/(D), as set forth in Count 3 of the indictment.

II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING MR. [] OMENAI'S MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT; JUDGMENT NOT WITHSTANDING THE VERDICT; ACQUITTAL OR NEW TRIAL BASED ON CRIM.R. 29(C)[;] CRIM.R. 33(A)[;] AND INCONSISTENT VERDICTS.

{¶8} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Omenai argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial or acquittal based upon Crim.R. 29(C), Crim.R. 33(A), and inconsistent verdicts. Specifically, Mr. Omenai argues "if [he] did not commit aggravated robbery as a predicate offense for aggravated murder, murder or felonious assault, he cannot be responsible for felony [murder] without a complicity charge of instruction." Although Mr. Omenai's assignment of error refers to Crim.R. 29 and Crim.R. 33, Mr. Omenai's entire argument focuses on his claim that the jury reached inconsistent verdicts. We limit our discussion accordingly.

{¶9} "The Ohio Supreme Court has held that '[t]he several counts of an indictment containing more than one count are not interdependent and an inconsistency in a verdict does not arise out of inconsistent responses to different counts, but only arises out of inconsistent responses to the same count.'" State v. Inman, 9th Dist. Medina No. 13CA0074-M, 2014-Ohio-3538, ¶ 16, quoting State v. Lovejoy, 79 Ohio St.3d 440 (1997), paragraph one of the syllabus. "Consistency between verdicts on several counts of an indictment is unnecessary where the defendant is convicted on one or some counts and acquitted on others; the conviction generally will be upheld irrespective of its rational incompatibility with the acquittal." Id., quoting State v. Smith, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-194, 2014-Ohio-709, ¶ 23, quoting State v. Trewartha, 165 Ohio App.3d 91, 2005-Ohio-5697, ¶ 15 (10th Dist.)

{¶10} In United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 65, 67, the Supreme Court of the United States explained:

[Inconsistent verdicts-even verdicts that acquit on a predicate offense while convicting on the compound offense-should not necessarily be interpreted as a windfall to the Government at the defendant's expense. It is equally possible that the jury, convinced of guilt, properly reached its conclusion on the compound offense, and then through mistake, compromise, or lenity, arrived at an inconsistent conclusion on the lesser offense.

* * * Finally, we note that a criminal defendant already is afforded protection against jury irrationality or error by the independent review of the sufficiency of the evidence undertaken by the trial and appellate courts. This review should not be confused with the problems caused by inconsistent verdicts. Sufficiency-of-the evidence review involves assessment by the courts of whether the evidence adduced at trial could support any rational determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This review should be independent of the jury's determination that evidence on another count was insufficient. The Government must convince the jury with its proof, and must also satisfy the courts that given this proof the jury could rationally have reached a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not believe that further safeguards against jury irrationality are necessary.

(Internal citations omitted.)

{¶11} Here, the jury acquitted Mr. Omenai of Counts 1, 2, 5, and 7, as set forth in the indictment, and found him guilty of Counts 3, 4, 6, and 8, with the associated firearm specifications, as set forth in the indictment. Notably, the jury acquitted Mr. Omenai of the most serious crimes of aggravated murder, with the predicate offense of aggravated robbery, and murder, for purposely causing the death of T.R. Instead, the jury found Mr. Omenai guilty of felony murder based upon the commission of aggravated robbery. Prior to the jury's deliberation, the trial court explained:

The charges set forth in each count of the indictment constitute a separate and distinct matter. You must consider each count and the evidence applicable to each count separately and you must state your findings as to each count uninfluenced by your verdict as to any other count. [Mr. Omenai] may be found guilty or not guilty of any one or all of the offenses charged.

Thus, as indicated above, because the verdicts regarding murder, in Count 3, and aggravated robbery, in Counts 4 and 6, and the verdicts in Counts 1, 2, 5, and 7, arose out of distinct counts in the indictment, they are not inconsistent. See Inman at ¶ 17.

{¶12} Accordingly, Mr. Omenai's first assignment of error is overruled.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO ESTABLISH ON THE RECORD SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW AND AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES LEVIED AGAINST [MR.] OMENAI.

{¶13}...