State v. Smith
| Decision Date | 08 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 109221,109221 |
| Parties | STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tatia SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kristin M. Karkutt, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Joseph V. Pagano, Akron, for appellant.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
{¶ 1} Tatia Smith appeals her conviction for aggravated murder, entered following a bench trial in which the trial court rejected Smith's claims of self-defense and found that the state proved prior calculation beyond a reasonable doubt. Smith was sentenced to serve a life sentence with parole eligibility after 20 years. For the following reasons, we affirm the conviction.
{¶ 2} The victim in this case, Lisa Bradley, was stabbed twice by Smith in an early morning altercation outside a convenience store known as the American Food Market, located at 2603 Woodhill Road, near Smith's home. Smith resided in the Woodhill Home Estates in apartment B, 2529 Woodhill Road. Smith is middle-aged and has respiratory issues. The events started the evening before. Smith was speaking with her friend outside an apartment building across from Woodhill Home Estates. The apartment building is located at 10518 Woodland Avenue. Others were present and passing a bottle of liquor. Smith admits to being intoxicated. At some point in the evening, the victim, while loudly arguing with another, approached Smith's group. Smith asked the victim to be quiet, which angered the victim. The two began fighting, with the victim "getting the better" of Smith. While Smith was on the ground, the victim kicked Smith in the head, and at one point used a knife described as a box cutter to superficially cut Smith across the cheek. The trial court, in rendering its verdict, described the incident as the victim "slashing" Smith in the face. Members of the group separated the combatants, both of whom went their separate ways. Smith refused offers to seek medical attention for the laceration, which produced a fair amount of blood. Smith was taken home.
{¶ 3} At about 4:00 a.m., Smith awoke and realized she was out of cigarettes. Still admittedly intoxicated, Smith armed herself with a knife in light of the earlier events. Smith claims she proceeded to the convenience store to purchase cigarettes, and while she was completing the transaction with the clerk, the victim entered the store and stood behind Smith. Smith testified to that being her first interaction with the victim since the earlier fight and to being terrified of the victim. Her terror was not communicated or apparent to the clerk. Video footage from the store's camera shows Smith holding something under a white napkin, which appears to be the knife she brought with her, when she first entered the store and before completing her transaction with the clerk. After completing the transaction, Smith transferred the white napkin to her right hand and exited the store. She can be seen turning immediately behind the door, out of the view of the clerk. Smith appears to have the napkin and knife in her right hand while standing outside and made no other movements other than hiding herself behind the wall until attacking the victim. According to Smith, she felt incapable of walking back to her home in light of her respiratory issues, which prevented her from escaping the younger victim.
{¶ 4} The victim, without purchasing anything, followed Smith out the door. According to the video evidence, and that of the responding officers, the victim's knife remained in her pocket. As soon as the victim stepped outside the door, Smith can be seen swinging her right hand two times into the victim's neck and upper chest. The first wound was superficial, but the second proved fatal. The knife itself is not visible during the attack, but the second blow caused a significant amount of blood spatter across the glass door. Smith fled and threw the knife she used into a storm drain on her way home. The victim reentered the store holding her neck but immediately collapsed. The clerk called emergency services and attempted to provide aid, but the victim died shortly after being transported to the hospital. Police officers arrested Smith later that morning.
{¶ 5} In her interviews with police officers, Smith mentioned that she had seen the victim on her way into the convenience store — a fact she disowned at trial. Smith mentioned in her initial interview that the victim was looking for her phone, presumably lost in the earlier scuffle. Further of importance, at no time during the interview did she claim that the victim threatened her outside the store. At the time, Smith stated that when the victim exited the store, Smith went for "the jugular." At trial, Smith claimed that the victim exited the store, threatened to kill her, and began reaching for the box cutter clipped to her front pocket. It was only then that Smith retrieved her knife and swung at the victim in the claimed attempt to prevent the victim from grabbing and wielding her own weapon.
{¶ 6} The trial court noted, in rendering its verdict, that the video evidence did not support Smith's claim. The time frame was limited. From Smith walking into the store until she fled after the attack, approximately three minutes transpired. The trial court concluded that the state disproved self-defense, heavily relying on the video evidence of the deadly encounter, and the state also demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Smith murdered the victim with prior calculation and design.
{¶ 7} In this timely appeal, albeit separated into three assignments of error, Smith claims that her conviction for aggravated murder was against the weight of the evidence because the state failed to disprove the affirmative defense of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt and, in the alternative, that there was insufficient evidence of prior calculation and design. Neither argument has merit.
{¶ 8} A claim of insufficient evidence raises the question whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict as a matter of law. State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). In reviewing a sufficiency challenge, "[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Jenks , 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶ 9} Smith was convicted of aggravated murder, which includes an element of purposefully killing another with prior calculation and design. "Whether a defendant acted with prior calculation and design is determined on a case-by-case basis, following an analysis of the specific facts and evidence presented at trial." State v. Hicks , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102206, 2015-Ohio-4978, 2015 WL 7777272, ¶ 41, citing State v. Orr , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100841, 2014-Ohio-4680, 2014 WL 5387748, ¶ 77. "Prior calculation and design" has been interpreted to mean more than a momentary deliberation; it requires a "scheme designed to implement the calculated decision to kill." State v. Conway , 108 Ohio St.3d 214, 2006-Ohio-791, 842 N.E.2d 996, ¶ 38-39, quoting State v. Cotton , 56 Ohio St.2d 8, 11, 381 N.E.2d 190 (1978). "While ‘[n]either the degree of care nor the length of time the offender takes to ponder the crime beforehand are critical factors in themselves,’ ‘momentary [or immediate] deliberation is insufficient.’ " Id. , quoting State v. D'Ambrosio , 67 Ohio St.3d 185, 196, 616 N.E.2d 909 (1993), and the 1973 Legislative Service Commission Comment to R.C. 2903.01.
The apparent intention of the General Assembly in employing the phrase "prior calculation and design" was to require more than the few moments of deliberation permitted in common law interpretations of the former murder statute, and to require a scheme designed to implement the calculated decision to kill.
Id. If the defendant had sufficient time and opportunity for the planning of an act of homicide, and "the circumstances surrounding the homicide show a scheme designed to implement the calculated decision to kill, a finding by the trier of fact of prior calculation and design is justified." Hicks at ¶ 41, citing Cotton , paragraph three of the syllabus.
Hicks at ¶ 40, citing Orr at ¶ 75, and State v. Dunford , 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2009-A-0027, 2010-Ohio-1272, 2010 WL 1176581, ¶ 53 ; State v. Trewartha , 165 Ohio App.3d 91, 2005-Ohio-5697, 844 N.E.2d 1218 (10th Dist.). Some other factors that may be considered include "whether the defendant and the victim knew each other and, if so, whether the relationship was strained; whether there was thought or preparation in choosing the murder weapon or murder site; and whether the act was ‘drawn out’ or ‘an almost instantaneous eruption of events.’ " Hicks at ¶ 41, citing State v. Taylor , 78 Ohio St.3d 15, 19, 676 N.E.2d 82 (1997). These factors are not exhaustive. State v. Walker , 150 Ohio St.3d 409, 2016-Ohio-8295, 82 N.E.3d 1124, ¶ 40 (O'Donnell, J., dissenting); State v. Truss , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 18AP-147, 2019-Ohio-3579, 2019 WL 4200647, ¶ 36 ().
{¶ 11} This distinction...
To continue reading
Request your trial