State v. Snowden
| Decision Date | 26 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 28096,28096 |
| Citation | 140 N.E.3d 1112,2019 Ohio 3006 |
| Parties | STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Deonte D. SNOWDEN, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Deonte D. Snowden appeals his conviction and sentence for two counts of murder (proximate result), in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B), both unclassified felonies, both counts accompanied by a three-year firearm specification; one count of felonious assault (serious physical harm), in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), a felony of the second degree, accompanied by a three-year firearm specification; one count of felonious assault (deadly weapon), in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), a felony of the second degree, accompanied by a three-year firearm specification; one count of having weapons while under disability (prior drug conviction), in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3), a felony of the third degree; and one count of bribery (corrupt witness), in violation of R.C. 2921.02(C), a felony of the third degree. After some of the offenses were merged, the court imposed an aggregate sentence of 21 years to life. Snowden filed a timely notice of appeal with this Court on August 21, 2018.
{¶ 2} Shortly after 11:00 p.m. on the night of June 6, 2016, Theodora Watson and her three grandsons, "D.O." (16 years old at the time), "D.E." (13), and "D.S." (10), were getting into her car outside her home in order to drive to a restaurant. Watson and D.E. testified that, just as they were about to leave, the victim, William Sarver, walked up to the driver's side of the vehicle and began a conversation with Watson. Watson testified that Sarver had lived in her neighborhood for several years, and the two were well acquainted. In fact, Sarver, whose nickname in the neighborhood was "Carl Lewis," would routinely shovel the snow at Watson's residence and go to the store for her.
{¶ 3} Watson testified that when Sarver learned that Warner was going to buy food, he handed her a $20 bill to pay for dinner. While she was speaking to Sarver, defendant-appellant Snowden walked up her driveway talking on a cell phone. Snowden was Watson's husband's nephew, and she had known him for his entire life. Snowden's nickname around the neighborhood was "DeeDot." D.E. also testified that he observed Snowden walking up the driveway toward the vehicle after Sarver had already approached the vehicle and begun speaking with Watson. Unlike Watson and D.E., D.S. testified that he observed Snowden walk up to Watson's vehicle before Sarver arrived. Nevertheless, Watson, D.E., and D.S. all testified that, after a short time, Snowden and Sarver got into an argument while they were standing near Watson's vehicle.
{¶ 4} Watson testified that Snowden initially slapped Sarver in the face with an open hand, knocking Sarver backwards. Sarver then slapped Snowden in the same manner. Watson, D.S., and D.E. testified that Snowden then pulled a handgun from the waistband of his pants and fired a single shot, striking Sarver in the abdomen. Watson and D.S. testified that, because it was dark, they never saw the handgun with which Snowden shot Sarver. D.E. testified, however, that from his vantage point inside the vehicle, he was able to see the handgun in Snowden's hand as Snowden shot Sarver.
{¶ 5} Watson, D.S., and D.E. testified that there were no other individuals standing close to Watson's vehicle when Snowden shot Sarver. Specifically, Watson, D.S., and D.E. each testified that Derrick Watson, Theodora's adult son and the boys' father, was not present when Snowden shot Sarver. In fact, they each testified that Derrick did not appear at the scene of the shooting until after the paramedics and police had arrived. Watson testified that there were some people standing in the street talking, but when the shot was fired, they all ran away. Watson, D.S., and D.E. all testified that after shooting Sarver, Snowden ran to a black sedan and drove away. D.S. and D.E. testified that the vehicle was a black Chevrolet Impala. All three witnesses had observed Snowden in the same vehicle in the past.
{¶ 6} Watson, D.S., and D.E. immediately got out and attempted to help Sarver, who had fallen over into the open rear driver's-side door of Watson's vehicle. Watson called 911 using her cordless home phone, which she had taken with her when they initially left the house for food. We note that the record establishes that, while on the phone with the 911 operator, Watson stated that she was unable to identify the perpetrator. At trial, Watson testified that she told the operator that she could not provide the name of the perpetrator because she was scared and nervous immediately after the shooting occurred. Watson testified that she had no doubt that Snowden shot Sarver. When the paramedics arrived at the scene, Sarver was put in an ambulance and transported to Miami Valley Hospital, where he was later pronounced dead as a result of the gunshot wound
.
{¶ 7} Upon arriving at the scene, police officers placed Watson, D.S., and D.E. in separate cruisers to await questioning by detectives. The record establishes that they each separately identified Snowden as the perpetrator and provided a description of his vehicle. Police also discovered a spent .40 caliber shell casing on the ground near Watson's vehicle. We note that no handgun was recovered during the investigation of Sarver's shooting.
{¶ 8} Detective Brad Daugherty from the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office was one of the detectives assigned to investigate Sarver's death. Detective Daugherty testified that he knew Snowden from working with him on other investigations, and he possessed Snowden's cell phone number. Detective Daugherty further testified that he had spoken with Snowden earlier in the day on June 6, 2016, prior to the shooting. After completing an "exigent circumstance" form, Detective Daugherty requested that the phone service provider "ping" Snowden's cell phone in an attempt to locate him. When an attempt was made to "ping" Snowden's cell phone on the night of the shooting, Detective Daugherty was informed that Snowden's cell phone had been turned off. When the cell phone was "pinged" the following day on June 7, 2016, it was discovered that the cell phone had been turned back on and was in the possession of Snowden's girlfriend. Snowden, however, was not with his girlfriend.
{¶ 9} On June 7, 2016, the police also located Snowden's black Impala car parked in an alleyway against a garage. The vehicle was approximately half a block away from Snowden's mother's house. Police officers found that a large garbage can and a box had been placed in front of the tires of the vehicle. The officers also learned that Snowden's vehicle had been outfitted with distinctive after-market black rims. Dayton Police Detective David House testified that he viewed the placement of the garbage can and box in front of the rims of the vehicle as an intentional attempt at concealment. The police were unable to ascertain Snowden's whereabouts.
{¶ 10} On July 14, 2016, Snowden was indicted for two counts of murder (proximate result) and two counts of felonious assault (serious physical harm and deadly weapon), each of which was accompanied by a three-year firearm specification; he was also indicted on one count of having weapons while under disability (prior drug conviction).
{¶ 11} Detective Daugherty testified that in October 2016, he was provided with a phone number of a cell phone in Snowden's possession. Detective Daugherty testified that the cell phone was "pinged" to a location in Maricopa, Arizona. Thereafter, Detective Daugherty contacted the U.S. Marshals to assist in Snowden's apprehension. Snowden was arrested in Maricopa and extradited back to Dayton, Ohio, where he was taken into custody and placed in jail. At his arraignment on October 25, 2016, Snowden stood mute, and the trial court entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf.
{¶ 12} On November 22, 2017, Snowden waived his right to a jury trial on the count of having weapons while under disability. Thereafter, the remaining charges in the indictment were tried to a jury on November 27-29, 2017. However, the jury could not reach a verdict regarding any of the offenses, and the trial court declared a mistrial.
{¶ 13} It eventually came to light that in late November 2017, D.E., who testified at trial, received a phone call from Snowden who was in jail. During the conversation, Snowden offered D.E. $2,500 to give testimony favorable to him at trial. On November 30, 2017, Snowden also called Watson from the jail and asked her to change her story regarding her recollection of the events surrounding Sarver's shooting.
{¶ 14} On March 23, 2018, Snowden was additionally charged in a "B Indictment" with one count of bribery (corrupt witness), in violation of R.C. 2921.02(C), a felony of the third degree. On June 26, 2018, Snowden filed a motion for leave to a file a motion to suppress accompanied by a proposed motion to suppress, based upon the authority of Carpenter v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 2206, 201 L.Ed.2d 507 (2018). The trial court granted Snowden's motion for leave on July 2, 2018. The trial court held a hearing on Snowden's motion to suppress on July 9, 2018, immediately prior to the beginning of his second trial. After hearing from both parties, the trial court overruled Snowden's motion to suppress from the bench.
{¶ 15} During the same hearing, Snowden also made an oral motion for the trial court to sever the "B Indictment" from the "A Indictment" for purposes of trial. The trial court overruled Snowden's motion to sever from the bench. Thereafter, the case proceeded to trial, and on July 11, 2018, the jury found Snowden guilty on all counts presented to it. On July 13, 2018, the trial court found Snowden guilty of having weapons under disability following a bench trial. The trial court merged the two counts of murder and the two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hudson
...are properly joined pursuant to Crim.R. 8(A), a defendant may move to sever the charges pursuant to Crim.R. 14." State v. Snowden, 2019-Ohio-3006, 140 N.E.3d 1112, ¶ 48 (2d Dist.). "It is the defendant's to demonstrate that joinder is prejudicial[.]" State v. Gordon, 152 Ohio St.3d 528, 201......
-
Davison v. Shoop
...obtained in reasonable reliance on binding precedent is not subject to suppression under the exclusionary rule. Snowden, 2019-Ohio-3006, 140 N.E.3d 1112, at 39, quoting Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 241, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011). {¶ 16} For each of the foregoing reason......
-
State v. Farra
... ... 128, 134, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d ... 387 (1978). A person who is aggrieved only ... through the introduction of damaging evidence secured through ... a search of a third person's property has not had any of ... his Fourth Amendment rights infringed. Id; State v ... Snowden, 2019-Ohio-3006, 140 N.E.3d 1112, ¶ 102 (2d ... Dist.); United States v. Baker, M.D. PA No. 3:19-32, ... 2021 WL 4317995 (Sept. 23, 2021) (no standing to challenge ... cell phone location data where "pings" tracked ... co-defendant's phone). So here, Farra cannot complain ... about the ... ...
-
State v. Donaldson
... ... the court's order in this regard ... {¶ ... 54} Furthermore, "[a] defendant who does not ... dispute an amount of restitution, request a hearing, or ... otherwise object waives all but plain error in regards to the ... order of restitution." State v. Snowden, ... 2019-Ohio-3006, 140 N.E.3d 1112, ¶ 88 (2d Dist.), citing ... State v. Woods, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2015-CA-75, ... 2016-Ohio-1103, ¶ 12. See also State v. Floyd, ... 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19AP-449, 2020-Ohio-4655, ¶ 13; ... State v. West, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-22-07, ... ...
-
Privacy After Carpenter v. United States: Can a Tower Dump Warrant Meet the Warrant Requirement?
...129-134 and accompanying text (detailing state case law concerning various types of CSLI protections). (128.) See State v. Snowden, 140 N.E.3d 1112, 1126 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019) (contending no rationale for not considering one day of CSLI search). In its opinion, the court concluded law enforc......