State v. Williams

• Decision Date: 16 August 1995
• Docket Number: No. 93-7,93-7
• Citation: 73 Ohio St.3d 153,652 N.E.2d 721
• Parties: The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. WILLIAMS, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 153

73 Ohio St.3d 153

652 N.E.2d 721

The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. WILLIAMS, Appellant.

No. 93-7.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted April 5, 1995.

Decided Aug. 16, 1995.

[652 N.E.2d 724] On Friday, August 3, 1990, at approximately 10:20 p.m., Hamilton police officers responded to a call that someone had been shot in the one hundred block

of Beckett Street in the city of Hamilton, Ohio. When the police arrived, they found a red cab from the Clifton Cab Company of Cincinnati with its motor stalled and the meter stopped, displaying a fare of $32.10. The driver, Wayman Hamilton, was slumped to the right behind the steering wheel with a single gunshot wound in his forehead. Paramedics airlifted Hamilton to a hospital in Cincinnati, where he was pronounced dead. Doctors recovered a .25 caliber bullet from Hamilton's head

On the front seat of the cab, detectives recovered a single .25 caliber cartridge casing from a semiautomatic weapon. Hamilton's trip sheet indicated that, in addition to the $32.10 fare shown on the cab's meter, he had generated approximately $50 in fares that evening. While Clifton cab drivers customarily carried money to make change in their shirt pockets, there was no money in Hamilton's shirt pockets; his wallet contained $60.24.

Earl Jones, a dispatcher for the Clifton Cab Company, testified that at approximately 9:20 p.m. on the night of the shooting, Hamilton's cab had been dispatched to pick up a fare at the Fuel Mart gas station on Compton Road in Mt. Healthy. The person who wanted the cab stated that he was going to Hamilton, Ohio. Jones indicated he received three or four calls over a period of approximately one hour from the Fuel Mart; two or three calls came from the person who wanted the cab and one came from a Fuel Mart employee.

William Teasley and James Trivett were working at the Fuel Mart that evening. They identified appellant, Clifford Donta Williams, as the person who called for the cab at the gas station. Teasley testified that appellant walked into the gas station and asked if he could use the phone because he did not have any money to use the pay phone on the corner. Teasley handed the phone and phone book to appellant to call a cab. Appellant waited at the gas station for the cab for approximately twenty to forty-five minutes, talking with Teasley and Trivett. Appellant inquired about potential employment at Fuel Mart. He expressed concern that, because of his juvenile record, he may not be hired. Appellant stated in the course of the conversation that he did not have any money, that he had just come from Los Angeles, and that he was staying in Mt. Healthy. After a period of time, a red Clifton cab arrived just as Trivett made a final call to the cab company. Appellant got in the front seat of the cab and left the Fuel Mart.

On Monday, August 6, 1990, Jeff Wallace, a resident of Columbus, Ohio, was in Hamilton searching for work. At approximately 9:45 p.m., Wallace left his hotel to go to the store. A few blocks away, Wallace picked up appellant, who was While Wallace was in the hospital, he saw a newspaper article that showed a picture of the appellant, who had been arrested for the murder of Wayman Hamilton. Wallace recognized appellant as the person who shot him. Wallace called the police and subsequently identified appellant from a group of photographs the police showed him at the hospital and also from a police line-up.

hitchhiking. At appellant's request, Wallace drove him to an apartment in Hamilton, where appellant changed clothes. Appellant then offered to pay Wallace gas money if Wallace would drive him somewhere else. Wallace agreed and followed appellant's directions until appellant asked Wallace to drive down an alley in the vicinity of South Second Street near Central Avenue in downtown Hamilton. Wallace became suspicious and asked appellant to get out of the truck. At that time, appellant pulled a .25 caliber pistol out of his pocket, shoved a clip into it, told Wallace, "I got one bullet in the chamber" and demanded all of Wallace's money. Wallace shifted the truck into low gear and accelerated. As he did this, Wallace heard one gunshot. Appellant fired a second shot that hit Wallace on the back of the head. After a struggle, appellant fled the scene, and Wallace sought help for his injury.

Detectives examined the truck that Wallace drove the night of the shooting. The detectives discovered two fired .25 caliber cartridge casings in the truck. The detectives submitted the two casings found in the truck and the casing recovered from the scene of the Wayman Hamilton murder to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation ("BCI") for comparison.

David Hall, a ballistics and firearms expert from BCI, testified that all three of the cartridge casings had at one time been loaded in, chambered in, and extracted from the same firearm. Hall's testimony indicated that although he could not conclusively determine whether the cartridge casings had been fired from the same firearm, they had been extracted from the same firearm. Hall explained that he found matching characteristics on the rims of all three cartridge casings where the firearm's extractor hooks in and pulls the casing out of the chamber. Hall also testified that the three fired cartridge casings had similar, uniformly smooth firing pin impressions that indicated that they could have been fired from the same .25 caliber semiautomatic firearm. Hall did indicate, however, that there was not sufficient detail for a conclusive determination due to the smoothness of the firing pin and the hardness of the casings.

Forensic analysis also revealed human blood on a pair of appellant's jeans that police recovered during the execution of a search warrant in an apartment where On September 19, 1990, the Butler County Grand Jury returned a four-count indictment against appellant. Count One charged appellant with the aggravated murder of Hamilton pursuant to R.C. 2903.01(B). Count One contained three specifications: (1) appellant committed the offense while committing or attempting to commit an aggravated robbery or while fleeing immediately after committing or attempting to commit an aggravated robbery, and appellant was the principal offender in the commission of the aggravated murder, pursuant to R.C. 2929.04(A)(7); (2) appellant committed the offense for the purpose of escaping detection, apprehension, trial, or punishment for another offense committed by appellant, pursuant to R.C. 2929.04(A)(3); and (3) appellant had a firearm on or about his person or under his control while committing the offense, pursuant to R.C. 2929.71 and 2941.141. Count Two charged appellant with the aggravated robbery of Hamilton pursuant to R.C. 2911.01(A)(1). Count Three charged appellant with the aggravated robbery of Wallace. Count Four charged appellant with felonious assault of Wallace pursuant to R.C. 2903.11(A)(2). Counts Two, Three, and Four also contained firearm specifications.

appellant was staying. Experts at BCI were unable to identify the type of blood found on the jeans.

On January 7, 1991, the guilt phase of the trial began. On January 10, 1991, the jury found appellant guilty as charged in the indictment. A penalty phase hearing was held on January 17, 1991. The jury found that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt and recommended that appellant be sentenced to death on the aggravated murder charge and the specifications. On February 26, 1991, the trial court issued a written opinion accepting the jury's recommendation and imposed a sentence of death on the aggravated murder charge and specifications. The trial court overruled appellant's motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. Appellant then appealed to the Twelfth District Court of Appeals for Butler County, which affirmed the decision of the trial court.

This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.

John F. Holcomb, Butler County Pros. Atty., Daniel G. Eichel and Robert N. Piper III, Asst. Pros. Attys., for appellee.

David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, Joann M. Jolstad and Richard J. Vickers, Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.

WRIGHT, Justice.

R.C. 2929.05(A) mandates that we undertake a three-prong analysis. First, we must consider the specific issues raised by the appellant with regard to the proceedings below. Second, we must independently weigh the For the reasons that follow, we uphold appellant's conviction and affirm the sentence of death.

aggravating circumstances in this case against any factors that mitigate the penalty. Third, we must independently consider whether appellant's sentence is disproportionate to the penalty imposed in other similar cases.

I

Propositions of Law I, II, and IV relate to joinder of the separate charges dealing with separate victims ¹ and the consideration of duplicative aggravating circumstances. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred to his prejudice in failing to grant the defense's request to sever the charges pending against him. Appellant also asserts that the trial court erred to his prejudice by permitting the jury to consider irrelevant evidence dealing with the separate felonious assault of Wallace during both phases of the trial and by permitting the jury to consider duplicative aggravating circumstances.

Crim.R. 8(A) permits two or more offenses to be charged in the same charging instrument in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged are of the same or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are based on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, or are part of a course of criminal conduct. Additionally, in State v. Jamison (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 182, 552 N.E.2d 180, syllabus, we stated: "Other acts forming a unique, identifiable plan of criminal activity are admissible to...