State v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 22 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | Trial Court No. CR0201003247,Court of Appeals No. L-11-1202 |
| Citation | 2013 Ohio 5182 |
| Parties | State of Ohio Appellee v. Terrance Lee Taylor Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Timothy F. Braun, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Tim A. Dugan, for appellant.
{¶1} Appellant, Terrance Taylor, appeals a July 27, 2011 judgment of conviction, entered against him after a jury trial in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. At trial, the jury found appellant guilty of murder, a violation of R.C. 2903.02(B) and2929.02, an unclassified felony, and of aggravated robbery, a violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) and a first degree felony. The guilty verdicts also included findings of R.C. 2941.145 firearm specifications on both counts.
{¶2} The criminal charges against appellant were brought by indictment on December, 21, 2010, and arise out of an incident that occurred on December 12, 2010, in Toledo, Ohio in which Mark Ward was shot to death. The first count of the indictment charged appellant with aggravated murder, a violation of R.C. 2903.01(B) and (F). The count also included an R.C. 2941.145 firearm specification. On the first count, the jury found appellant not guilty of the aggravated murder charge, but found him guilty of murder, a lesser included offense. The second count of the indictment was the aggravated robbery charge which was tried to a guilty verdict.
{¶3} The parties agreed at sentencing that the murder and aggravated robbery offenses were allied offenses of similar import and should be merged at sentencing. Based upon merger, the state requested the trial court to sentence appellant only on the murder count and accompanying firearm specification.
{¶4} In the July 27, 2011 judgment, the trial court reported on the murder and aggravated robbery guilty verdicts, imposed sentence on the murder conviction, and dismissed the aggravated robbery conviction. The court ordered appellant to serve an indefinite term of 15 years to life in prison on the murder conviction and an additionalmandatory consecutive three year term of imprisonment on the accompanying firearm specification. The court also sentenced appellant to five years postrelease control.
{¶5} Appellant appealed the July 27, 2011 judgment to this court and asserts five assignments of error on appeal:
Assignments of Error
{¶6} The evidence at trial was undisputed that Dorcas Stephens resided at a house located at 1520 Bell Avenue in Toledo, Ohio, on December 12, 2010. A group of individuals, known to Stephens, came to her house. Mark Ward, Derrick Pierce, John Winfield, Deirdre Taylor, and appellant arrived first. Seatrieon Holmes and AndreWoodson arrived later. Most of the group had known each other for many years. Appellant and Deirdre Taylor are brother and sister. John Winfield is their half-brother.
{¶7} Mark Ward had once resided in the neighborhood and was visiting friends. Ward had been sharing bottles of cognac with a group, walking through the neighborhood before he came to the Stephens house. Dorcas Stephens testified that when the group arrived at the house they had been drinking and were loud and obnoxious. They waited on someone to bring more cognac to drink.
{¶8} After a dispute between Ward and both Winfield and appellant over money and who paid for the bottles of cognac, John Winfield shot and killed Mark Ward at the residence. Stephens, appellant, and all others of the group were in the residence at the time of the shooting.
{¶9} Key testimony against appellant was provided by two witnesses: Deidre Taylor (appellant's sister) and Dorcas Stephens. Deidre Taylor testified that she saw John Winfield hand appellant a gun before the shooting and that appellant, with the gun in hand, "walked to the front door and shut the front door and said wasn't nobody leaving." Deidre testified further that Mark Ward responded and "said he wasn't no punk and wouldn't nobody take nothing from him."
{¶10} According to Ms. Taylor, appellant then handed the gun back to John Winfield. Winfield paced the floor talking and then Winfield and Mark Ward argued over who paid the most money for the alcohol. "Next thing you know, John shot Mark."
{¶11} Dorcas Stephens testified that both appellant and John Winfield demanded money from Mark Ward. According to Stephens, Mark Ward responded stating "ain't gonna take nothing from Baby Herc [Ward's nickname]," and then Ward tore his coat off and threw it on the floor. Dorcas Stephens testified that she tried unsuccessfully to stop Ward from arguing further and heard appellant tell Ward "[M]an, you gonna give my brother his money or whatever, take his liquor and do what you want to do, don't keep disrespecting, don't disrespect my brother or whatever."
{¶12} Dorcas Stephens testified that she was easing towards the front door to leave the house and heard "steady arguing and then I heard, pow." She turned and saw Mark Ward still standing and John Winfield standing there with the gun. She took off and heard more shots as she left the house.
{¶13} According to Deidre Taylor, Winfield then told her after the shooting "to go in Mark's pocket," and that when she complied and took money out, Winfield "snatched" the money out of her hands. At the time of his arrest, appellant held $323 in cash on his person, including a one dollar bill in his wallet that was stained with Mark Ward's blood.
{¶14} We consider the assignments of error out of turn.
{¶15} Under Assignment of Error No. 3, appellant contends that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on felony murder. As previously discussed, the indictment charged appellant with aggravated murder (a violation of R.C. 2903.01(B) and (F)). Overappellant's objection, the trial court also instructed the jury on felony murder (a violation R.C. 2903.02(B) and 2929.02) as a lesser included offense. Appellant contends under Assignment of Error No. 3 that an instruction on the lesser included offense was not warranted under the facts.
{¶16} The Ohio Supreme Court recently summarized the two-tier analysis required in determining whether to instruct a jury on a lesser included offense:
The question of whether a particular offense should be submitted to the finder of fact as a lesser included offense involves a two-tiered analysis. State v. Evans, 122 Ohio St.3d 381, 2009-Ohio-2974, 911 N.E.2d 889, ¶ 13. The first tier, also called the "statutory-elements step," is a purely legal question, wherein we determine whether one offense is generally a lesser included offense of the charged offense. State v. Kidder, 32 Ohio St.3d 279, 281, 513 N.E.2d 311 (1987). The second tier looks to the evidence in a particular case and determines whether "'a jury could reasonably find the defendant not guilty of the charged offense, but could convict the defendant of the lesser included offense.'" Evans at ¶ 13, quoting Shaker Hts. v. Mosely, 113 Ohio St.3d 329, 2007-Ohio-2072, 865 N.E.2d 859, ¶ 11. Only in the second tier of the analysis do the facts of a particular case become relevant. State v. Deanda, 136 Ohio St.3d 18, 2013-Ohio-1722, 989 N.E.2d 986, ¶ 6.
{¶17} Appellant does not dispute the trial court's determination that felony murder is a lesser included offense to aggravated murder as charged in this case. Appellant argues that the instruction on murder was not warranted under the facts because the evidence at trial did not reasonably support a jury verdict of not guilty to aggravated murder, the charged offense.
{¶18} The indictment charged appellant with aggravated murder, a violation of R.C. 2903.01(B) and (F). At the time of the offense, R.C. 2903.01(B) and (F) provided:
{¶19} Appellant was convicted of murder, a violation of R.C. 2903.02 and R.C. 2929.02. R.C. 2003.02(B) provides:
{¶20} R.C. 2929.02 sets forth penalties for murder.
{¶21} Appellant argues that the evidence at trial established that John Winfield shot Mark Ward multiple times and afterwards ordered Deidre Taylor to take Ward's money from his pocket. Winfield immediately grabbed the money from Deidre Taylor's hand when she complied. Appellant also argues that the evidence against Winfield clearly established that Winfield committed aggravated robbery and based upon the facts also committed aggravated murder. Appellant contends that it would have been unreasonable to believe Winfield committed anything other than aggravated murder and that appellant's own criminal liability, as a claimed aider and abettor, is tied to Winfield's. Appellant claims the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of...
To continue reading
Request your trial