State v. Pulley
| Docket Number | C. A. 29501 |
| Decision Date | 15 September 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 Ohio 3277 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO Appellee v. CHARLES F. PULLEY Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
(Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Trial Court Case No. 2021 CR 00303
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by ELIZABETH A. ELLIS, Attorney for Appellee
CHARLES M. BLUE, Attorney for Appellant
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Charles F. Pulley appeals from his convictions for murder and endangering children after being found guilty by a jury of two counts of murder, felonious assault, two counts of endangering children, and involuntary manslaughter. The trial court merged some offenses and sentenced Pulley to a total of 18 years to life in prison.
{¶ 2} On appeal, Pulley raises nine assignments of alleged trial court error, including: denying funds for a false confession expert; overruling a motion to suppress; finding that Pulley knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to assistance of counsel; excluding relevant evidence; charging the jury with an incorrect statement of law; and sentencing Pulley for allied offenses of similar import. Pulley also contends that the verdicts were based on insufficient evidence, that the verdicts were against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that cumulative errors occurred, requiring reversal.
{¶ 3} After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err in rejecting funding for a false confession expert. No reasonable probability existed that an expert would have aided Pulley's defense, and Pulley did not receive an unfair trial because he lacked assistance of such an expert. The trial court also did not err in overruling Pulley's motion to suppress, as Pulley knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily spoke with police and there was no evidence of coercion. Furthermore, no error occurred concerning Pulley's waiver of assistance of counsel. The trial court thoroughly explained the dangers associated with this decision and held many status hearings to discuss Pulley's situation. Moreover, Pulley waived or abandoned his request for self-representation by asking standby counsel to assume representation after opening statements ended.
{¶ 4} We further find that the trial court did not commit error in refusing to admit text messages between Pulley and the murdered child's mother. Pulley invited any error because he knew of these texts when they occurred but failed to mention them until the State had nearly finished its case. Pulley's complaint about jury instructions defining "acting recklessly" lacks merit as well. While the court used an outdated instruction reflecting the law before an amendment, the prior law actually imposed a higher burden on the prosecution. Pulley, therefore, was not prejudiced.
{¶ 5} The trial court also did not err in refusing to merge one charge of child endangering with the other offenses as an allied offense of similar import. The offenses were not allied, as they were committed during separate events and the harm caused was separate and identifiable. In addition, Pulley's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Two prosecution experts testified as to the injuries and cause of the victim's death, and Pulley admitted that he had injured the victim. The State did not have to identify the precise way in which Pulley injured the child; instead, it could rely on circumstantial evidence, which was abundant.
{¶ 6} Trial counsel also did not render ineffective assistance by failing to subpoena the victim's mother or to call others to authenticate the text messages. Again, Pulley invited the situation by failing to disclose information to his attorney until the trial had nearly ended. Further, the record lacks any evidence about the basis of the decisions whether to recall the mother or to call other witnesses. Such decisions could have been based on trial strategy, which appellate courts will not second-guess. Finally, because no error occurred, there is no basis for finding cumulative error. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
{¶ 7} The charges against Pulley arose from the death of a six-week-old child, A.G., who allegedly sustained injuries while Pulley babysat her on August 19 and 20, 2020. At the time, A.G.'s mother ("Mother") was dating Pulley, who was not A.G.'s father.
{¶ 8} Mother gave birth to A.G. on July 20, 2020, and the baby was healthy at birth. At the time, Mother was nearly 18 years old, and A.G.'s biological father chose not to be involved with the child. When A.G. was four or five weeks old, Mother needed to return to work for financial reasons, and Pulley offered to care for A.G. Transcript of Proceedings (Jury Trial) ("Trial Tr."), p. 373, 377, 379, 382, 392, 394-395, 396, and 397. Pulley lived in West Carrollton, Ohio, with his mother, had been around A.G. frequently, and had fed and cared for A.G. often at Mother's house. As a result, Mother felt comfortable leaving A.G. with Pulley. Pulley's house was only five or six miles away from the Kroger where Mother worked, so Mother would be available if Pulley needed anything. Id. at 374, 391-393, 397, and 399.
{¶ 9} On August 19, 2020, Mother and A.G. rode the bus to McDonald's and Pulley picked them up there. They went to his apartment and then to GameStop so Pulley could pick up a new video game. Pulley dropped Mother off at work around 2:00 p.m. He was going to watch A.G. from 2:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. that day. Id. at 398-399.
{¶ 10} When Mother left A.G. with Pulley, A.G. was perfectly fine. A.G. had no injuries, bruises, lacerations, or contusions. If Mother had any concerns, she would have told Pulley. Id. at 399-400. During the day, Mother texted with Pulley about how A.G. was doing. Her impression from this was that nothing had occurred; she was not led to believe A.G. needed help or that she needed to help Pulley with A.G.'s care. Id. at 403-404. That evening, Pulley dropped A.G. off at Kroger because Mother's step-father was going to pick her up from work. Mother did not look in the car seat since A.G. was sleeping. It was also dark outside. When Mother got home, took A.G. out of the seat, and went to bathe her, she saw bruises on both sides of A.G.'s head. Id. at 405-406. The bruises were long, across A.G.'s whole forehead to her temple. Mother called Pulley and asked if he had dropped something on A.G.'s head or had dropped her. However, Pulley said that nothing had happened; he stated that maybe A.G. had hit her head on the car seat while Mother was on her way home. Mother was not aware that anything like that had happened. Id. at 406.
{¶ 11} When Mother got A.G. out of her bath, A.G. was a little bit fussy. Mother just thought A.G. had a headache, and A.G. wasn't showing any signs of being really hurt. Mother gave A.G. some Children's Tylenol and fed her. A.G. ate fine and slept well all night. Trial Tr. at 407-408. The bruises worried Mother a little bit. Id. at 409. On the morning of August 20, 2020, A.G. woke up well and ate fine. Mother was getting ready for work and had to be there at 1:00 p.m. Pulley offered to watch A.G. again. Id. at 421. Everything was normal with A.G. that morning, and she was not fussy. Mother still observed the bruises on A.G. At the time, Mother felt comfortable taking A.G. back to Pulley, because she thought the car seat had to have caused the injury. Id. at 422.
{¶ 12} That day, Mother had her car, so she drove A.G. to Pulley's house. She left A.G. there, ran to get diapers and food from McDonald's, and came back. Mother was supposed to work that day from 1:00 to 9:00 p.m. When Mother left for work, A.G. was eating and sleeping fine. Id. at 423-425. Pulley was the only one Mother saw at the apartment either day; Pulley's mother was not home. Id. at 424. After Mother had been at work for only four or five hours, Pulley texted her and said A.G. was "out of it." Id. at 425. Pulley then sent Mother a picture, and she rushed over to pick up A.G. and take her to the hospital. Before that, Mother and Pulley had texted; they communicated less than the day before, but the conversation was normal. Id.
{¶ 13} When Mother arrived, Pulley was holding A.G., and A.G.'s arms were straight out and would not stay down. Id. at 427. Mother had never seen A.G. like that before. Id. at 429. No one else was there other than Pulley and A.G., and A.G. was not really responsive. Id. at 430. Mother then rushed A.G. to the hospital, which took about 10 minutes. When Mother walked into the hospital, A.G. was actively seizing. Id. at 431.
{¶ 14} Hospital personnel rushed A.G. away and intubated her. When they finished, they took Mother to another room to talk to a social worker. Mother did not see A.G. from around 6:00 p.m. until around 3:00 a.m. Trial Tr. at 432-433. Pulley texted her to see how A.G. was, and she asked him what had happened. Pulley did not tell her anything; he said he did not know. Id. at 433. Mother stayed at the hospital until A.G. died on August 23, 2020. Id. at 434-435.
{¶ 15} A day or two before A.G. died, Pulley told Mother that the bruises on A.G.'s head on August 19 2020, had been caused by him dropping his phone on her head; he also said A.G. had rolled off the couch. Furthermore, Pulley told Mother that on August 20, 2020, he had been dancing with A.G. and had tripped and hit her head on the doorframe. Mother reported that to the police. Id. at 435-436. On Saturday, August 22, 2020, Pulley came to the hospital to apologize. All he said was that he was sorry and that it was not supposed to happen. Id. at 437. After that, Mother blocked Pulley from contacting her because she did not want to talk...
To continue reading
Request your trial