State v. West
| Decision Date | 11 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2020-0978 |
| Citation | 168 Ohio St.3d 605,200 N.E.3d 1048 |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. WEST, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
G. Gary Tyack, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael P. Walton, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Joseph R. Landusky II, Columbus, for appellant.
Russell S. Bensing, Cleveland, urging reversal on behalf of amicus curiae, Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Kennedy, J., announcing the judgment of the court.
{¶ 1} In this discretionary appeal from the Tenth District Court of Appeals, we consider whether a judge's comments and questions to witnesses during a criminal trial violated the accused's right to a fair trial before an impartial judge, causing structural error notwithstanding the accused's failure to object.
{¶ 2} A structural error is a violation of the basic constitutional guarantees that define the framework of a criminal trial; it is not susceptible to harmless-error review but rather, when an objection has been raised in the trial court, is grounds for automatic reversal. State v. Jones , 160 Ohio St.3d 314, 2020-Ohio-3051, 156 N.E.3d 872, ¶ 2, 20. But when the accused fails to object to the error in the trial court, appellate courts apply the plain-error standard of review, shifting the burden to the accused to demonstrate that the error affected the trial's outcome. Id. at ¶ 17. This court has "rejected the notion that there is any category of forfeited error that is not subject to the plain error rule's requirement of prejudicial effect on the outcome." State v. Rogers , 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 24, citing State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118, 2004-Ohio-297, 802 N.E.2d 643, ¶ 23. We do not retreat from that position today.
{¶ 3} Appellant, James R. West Jr., the accused in this case, failed to object to the trial judge's questioning him during his cross-examination. West therefore bears the burden to demonstrate plain error on the record—i.e., that there was a plain or obvious error that affected the outcome of the trial and resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice, id. at ¶ 22. Even assuming that the trial judge's questioning constitutes error, West's convictions are nonetheless supported by overwhelming evidence of his guilt, and he has not established that any error affected the outcome of his case. He therefore has not shown the existence of plain error on the record.
{¶ 4} For these reasons, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 5} On October 2, 2017, Patrick Akers drove to the Beverage Warehouse in the South Linden neighborhood in Columbus to buy a bottle of liquor. His friends Donovan Banks and "Reese" followed him to the store in a separate car, a Dodge Charger, and waited outside. Inside the store, Akers saw Reese's girlfriend "Nay" and joined her in line.
{¶ 6} West was standing beside Nay at the cash register, and Akers asked if he was in line. West suggested that Akers could go first if Akers "put[ ] $20 on his bottle," i.e., paid for part of West's purchase, but Akers did not understand him. According to Akers, West became belligerent after Akers asked him what he meant, and West mentioned having ammunition in his car.
{¶ 7} West swatted Akers with an open hand, knocking Akers's hat to the side, and Nay and other customers tried to separate them and deescalate the situation. Akers left the store, and West pushed through Nay and other customers who were trying to keep him from following Akers outside.
{¶ 8} As Akers walked away from the store, he signaled Banks and Reese to come over and, according to Akers, warned them that there was "static." Two passengers in West's car, "D" and an unidentified man, got out of the car and approached Akers in the parking lot while Reese got out of the Charger and joined Akers.
{¶ 9} The unidentified man punched Akers, Reese punched West, and then D punched Reese. According to Akers, D had two handguns, both of which "fell from his waist and hit the ground" during the fight. D picked up both guns. Banks then got out of his Charger, and Akers and Reese moved behind him. West, D, and the unidentified man approached the Charger, and after D hit Banks, West's group backed away.
{¶ 10} Once the two groups were separated by at least a car length, West took a handgun from D and fired shots toward the Charger's front driver's side until he expended the clip. Akers took cover at the rear passenger's side of the Charger while Banks and Reese ran from the parking lot. As West finished shooting, D ran from the scene, turning to fire shots toward the passenger's side of the Charger where Akers was taking cover. Akers was shot twice in his right leg.
{¶ 11} West drove away moments before officers from a nearby police substation arrived on the scene and secured the area. In the hospital, Akers picked West and another person from a photo array. West agreed to be interviewed by detectives, and he gave a statement in which he admitted that he had had a confrontation with Akers at the Beverage Warehouse and that someone had punched him in the parking lot. West told the detectives that he had been by himself and that after he heard gunshots, he jumped in his car and drove away. West denied having had a firearm and denied having shot at anyone.
{¶ 12} The grand jury returned a three-count indictment charging West with two counts of felonious assault, each with a firearm specification, and one count of having a weapon while under a disability. At trial, the state presented the testimony of Akers, the officers who had responded to the scene, and the detectives who had interviewed West. The state also presented evidence of West's prior convictions and security-camera footage from the Beverage Warehouse showing the altercation and shooting from multiple angles.
{¶ 13} Against the advice of defense counsel and over the admonishment of the judge, West testified on his own behalf. He explained that while he was in line to buy a bottle of liquor and speaking to Nay, Akers approached and asked why he was speaking to her. Akers then asked to pass him in the line, and West told him that he could, if Akers gave him $20. An argument ensued, and West antagonized Akers by calling him "broke" and saying, "Most broke people can't fight." He also showed Akers cash that he had pulled from his pocket and said, "Look, you'll never get this much money."
{¶ 14} West testified that when he produced his cash, Akers said, "I'm going to take that shit from you." West then proceeded to narrate the security-camera footage of this encounter; he concluded his narrative in time with the footage of him pulling his money out in front of Akers and the comment Akers made in reply. The judge then asked West, "So you're claiming that he said he would rob you," and West responded, West testified, "[Akers] said he was going to his car after he said he was going to rob me," and the judge asked, West responded, "He said, ‘I'm gonna take that shit.’ "
{¶ 15} West testified that when Akers left the store, Akers signaled to his friends and yelled to them, "I got something for us," not "[w]e got static." As West narrated the security-camera footage of the action in the parking lot with a laser pointer, defense counsel asked West where he was, and West replied, The judge then inquired, "Is that you?" West confirmed, "Yeah, that's me getting struck, and that's Akers right there trying to strike me, too." West narrated additional security-camera footage of the scene from a different angle, after which the judge asked him, "Is that you with the gun, shooting?" West admitted, "That is me with the gun, shooting."
{¶ 16} West testified that he had acted in self-defense, asserting that when Reese punched D, both men dropped a firearm. He also claimed that when the driver of the Charger—Banks—got out of his car, he had a firearm. West explained that he retreated when he saw Banks with a gun and that he then took a handgun from D and began shooting, stating "I was in fear for my life at that point." West also testified that he had not intended to kill anyone:
{¶ 17} During cross-examination, West admitted that getting punched had made him mad and that he had then pursued Akers's group to fight. When the prosecutor stated that he was wrapping up, the judge asked the prosecutor, "Did he make a statement to a police officer?" The prosecutor, who had not covered this topic during cross-examination, responded, "He did," and then began questioning West about the statement he had made to police:
West did not object to any of the court's questioning.
{¶ 18} After the close of evidence, the judge gave the following instruction to the jury:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bias
..."A structural error is a violation of the basic constitutional guarantees that define the framework of a criminal trial." State v. West , 169 Ohio St.3d 605, 2022-Ohio-1556, 200 N.E.3d 1048, ¶ 2. "Structural error has been recognized only in limited circumstances involving fundamental const......
-
State v. Stevens
...that Rogers had "clarified" the substantial-rights prong of the plain-error test. Id. at ¶ 33. {¶ 87} Recently, in State v. West, 168 Ohio St.3d 605, 2022-Ohio-1556, 200 N.E.3d 1048, a three-justice plurality of the court held to the position that Rogers " 'rejected the notion that there is......
-
State v. Carbaugh
...¶ 16. An appellate court has discretion to notice plain error and therefore "is not required to correct it." Rogers at ¶ 23. State v. West, 168 Ohio St.3d 605, 2022-Ohio-1556, 200 N.E.3d 1048, ¶ 22. See also State McAlpin, 169 Ohio St.3d 279, 2022-Ohio-1567, 204 N.E.3d 459, ¶ 90. ("McAlpin ......
-
State v. Lane
...is a reasonable probability that, but for the trial court's error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise. State v. West , 168 Ohio St.3d 605, 2022-Ohio-1556, ¶ 35-36. See also State v. McAlpin , ––– Ohio St.3d ––––, 2022-Ohio-1567, ¶ 90 ("McAlpin could not establish plain ......