State v. Ruetz
| Decision Date | 10 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | WM-22-001 |
| Parties | State of Ohio Appellee v. David L. Ruetz Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Katherine J. Zartman, Williams County Prosecuting Attorney for appellee.
Karin L. Coble, for appellant.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on appeal of the judgment of the Williams County Court of Common Pleas sentencing appellant, David L. Ruetz, to an aggregate prison term of 58 months, after a jury found him guilty of unlawful possession of a dangerous ordnance and inducing panic with a gun specification. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On November 17, 2020, appellant was taken into custody as he sat on the sidewalk between the municipal court building and a daycare, holding a sawed-off shotgun and making comments that he would 'be in the news' and it 'was a good day to die.' The court and daycare each initiated lock-down procedures and, initially, officers attempted to convince appellant to surrender, but eventually used a taser to subdue and disarm him. Once in custody, appellant expressed his desire to die and his disappointment that officers had not shot him in response to his conduct on the sidewalk.
{¶ 3} The state of Ohio charged appellant with possession of a dangerous ordnance in violation of R.C. 2923.17(A) and inducing panic in violation of R.C. 2917.31(A)(3) and (C)(1)(4)(a), each a felony of the fifth degree. The indictment included a three-year firearm specification, attached to the inducing panic charge.
{¶ 4} At his first court appearance, appellant disputed that his muzzleloader was a firearm, informing the trial court it is "a black powder muzzleloader, it's not a firearm." Appellant initially entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. After examination by court diagnostics and a hearing, the trial court found him competent, appellant withdrew his insanity plea, and he entered a not guilty plea to both charges. He sought a change of venue for his trial, citing the publicity, which the trial court denied.
{¶ 5} In the months leading up to trial, appellant fired his first court-appointed counsel, the trial court appointed new counsel, and appellant requested time to hire his own attorney to replace his second court-appointed counsel. After he failed to raise sufficient funds to hire his own attorney, and after more than a year held in custody, the trial court appointed a third attorney and the matter proceeded to trial on February 28-March 1, 2022.
{¶ 6} The testimony at trial demonstrated the following:
{¶ 7} The city of Bryan fire chief, Bruce Siders, was the first to approach appellant as he walked toward the municipal court building, which housed several city offices. He noticed appellant on the ground, and noted appellant had a prosthetic leg. Believing appellant had fallen on the sidewalk, he asked appellant if he needed help. In response, appellant cautioned Siders, "you don't want any part of this." Chief Siders then saw the firearm in appellant's hands and backed away. Siders testified that the firearm "looked like a homemade sawed off shotgun."
{¶ 8} Chief Siders entered the courthouse and notified the bailiff of the situation, then made sure the offices inside the building had initiated lockdown procedures. Siders contacted his office and gave the order to deploy the department's engines to block traffic, creating a perimeter around the courthouse. Based on the deployment of fire department personnel and resources for approximately one hour, Siders testified that his office incurred expenses in responding to appellant's conduct in the amount of $357.61.
{¶ 9} Dennis Manley, the Bryan Municipal Court security officer, noticed appellant as he approached and sat down on the sidewalk. He saw something in appellant's hands and testified that appellant "just sat down and then stared at the door," which Manley deemed suspicious. Because Manley recognized appellant, he called appellant's probation officer, who worked inside the building, and asked the probation officer to watch him.
{¶ 10} Soon after, Chief Siders entered the building and informed Manley that appellant had a gun, prompting Manley to lock the building down, move the people inside to safety, and secure the doors. Manley testified that the building housed the court, the prosecutor's office, the city engineer and mayor, the parks and recreation department, the city clerk, the probation department, and the health department. After securing the building, Manley attempted to observe the scene outside. From the second floor of the building, Manley used binoculars to view events, and he recognized appellant's firearm as a "sawed off gun of some type." He believed it was an "inline muzzleloader of some type." Manley testified that he did not participate in confronting appellant, but focused on keeping the people inside his building calm and safe.
{¶ 11} The city clerk/treasurer for the city of Bryan, Laura Rode, was working in her office when she heard a page on the phone intercom system, alerting personnel of a gunman outside the building. Rode supervised nine in her office, and pursuant to the city's active shooter training and protocol, she accounted for her staff, checked for citizens in her area, and initiated lockdown procedures. Rode and her staff moved away from the windows after closing the blinds and they turned off the lights, sheltering in place for about an hour. Based on the cessation of business in her own office and other city offices during that period of lockdown, Rode calculated the dollar amount of work lost at about $1,177.00.
{¶ 12} In addition to lockdown procedures, first responders reported to the scene from several agencies: Bryan police department, Williams County sheriffs department, state highway patrol, the fire department, and EMS. On the date of the incident, Officer Christopher Chapa was the chief of police for the city of Bryan. Chapa testified that he responded to a call regarding a person with a gun outside the municipal court. He was advised that two officers were already at the scene. He arrived and entered the courthouse, and immediately notified the judge of the situation. Chapa then spoke with a probation officer, who explained that appellant was unhappy and having legal and marital problems.
{¶ 13} With that information, Chapa exited the building, approached appellant, and "[asked] him what's going on?" Appellant informed Chapa that "he's here to get me some headlines" and added "it was a good day to die." Chapa testified that appellant was holding the gun in his hands the entire time, and it looked like "an old, junk piece of gun." After speaking with appellant and trying to persuade him to surrender his weapon, Chapa believed appellant was suicidal, and that appellant "wanted me to shoot him."
{¶ 14} Chapa returned to the courthouse and radioed to one of the officers on scene, Officer Tracy Williamson, to instruct her to "switch over to her taser." Chapa also called for a hostage negotiator, but learned it would take a negotiator at least 20 minutes to arrive at the scene. Chapa returned to appellant, and while Officer Derek Beardsley kept a rifle trained on appellant, Chapa resumed speaking with him in the hopes appellant would surrender. As Chapa kept appellant's attention, Officer Williamson approached from the rear with the taser, and once in range, "she tased him and he went down." Officer Beardsley secured appellant's firearm, and the weapon was ultimately sent for testing.
{¶ 15} Officer Tracy Williamson's account was consistent with Chapa's testimony. Williamson arrived on scene with her rifle, based on reports that appellant had a sawed-off shotgun, "a more powerful weapon" that required officers to "match the amount of force" in response. She and other officers provided cover for Chapa as he spoke with appellant, unarmed. Williamson observed appellant, and realized he was watching everyone in the reflection from the courthouse windows and could see the officers' movement behind him. After Chapa reentered the courthouse, he contacted her on her radio and authorized her to use the larger of the police tasers. Williamson signaled to the other officers that she was switching to her taser and also that appellant was "watching in the glass."
{¶ 16} Once Williamson was within range, she deployed the taser, incapacitating appellant. She then photographed appellant's back, to record the placement of the taser darts in his back, "which were pretty textbook where they landed[.]" She indicated that Beardsley secured the weapon while appellant received medical attention. Williamson photographed Beardsley as he disassembled and packaged the firearm as evidence. The cost incurred in responding to appellant's actions, Williamson testified, was itemized in a bill she submitted for the prosecution, totaling $919.60.
{¶ 17} As to appellant's weapon, Williamson described the firearm used by appellant as:
{¶ 18} Officer Derek Beardsley, who took custody of the weapon and made it safe for transport, provided a more detailed description of the firearm, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial