State v. Wright
| Citation | 2012 Ohio 1809 |
| Decision Date | 23 April 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. CT2011-0046 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. DALE C. WRIGHT Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
JUDGES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee
RONALD L. WELCH
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR
For Defendant-Appellant
DAVID A. SAMS
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Dale C. Wright appeals his sentence and conviction on one count of child endangering and one count of murder following a jury trial in the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas.
{¶2} Plaintiff-Appellee is the State of Ohio.
{¶3} On August 1, 2010, Community Ambulance Services responded to a 9-1-1 call at 2148 East Pike that came in at approximately 12:17 a.m. The call came in as a "child not breathing". (T. at 201). Upon arriving at the scene, paramedic Robin Lynn Fisher and EMT Lynn Dalrymple found Appellant Dale Wright standing in the front yard holding five month old Dash Wright. (T. at 202). The medics took the infant from Appellant and confirmed that he was not breathing and had no pulse. (T. at 204). EMT Dalrymple recalled that as she was running to the squad with the baby, Appellant told her that the baby had vomited and that he had tried to give him a bath. (T. at 221-222).
{¶4} Washington Township volunteer firefighters Casey Parrett and Adam Siddle also arrived on the scene. (T. at 205, 222). Firefighter Siddle drove the squad to Genesis Hospital while Firefighter Parrett assisted medics Fisher and Dalrymple with CPR. Id. Paramedic Phillip Koster also caught up with the ambulance and joined the medics to assist in treating the child. (T. at 231).
{¶5} The squad arrived at the hospital at approximately 12:28 a.m. The child was still unresponsive, having showed no signs of life during the twelve minutes from when the squad arrived on the scene to when they arrived at the hospital. (T. at 225).
{¶6} Fisher and Dalrymple stated that the child never left their sight during that time period and that at no time did they drop him or strike his head on anything. (T. at 215, 225). Koster also stated that from the time he got on the ambulance to when they arrived at the hospital, the child was never dropped, and he was never struck in the head. (T. at 233).
{¶7} Upon arriving at the hospital, Dash was treated by Dr. Robert McCoy. (T. at 267-272). Dr. McCoy received a history regarding the patient's condition that was virtually identical to what Dep. Gearhart had received from the Defendant. Dr. McCoy conducted a thorough examination of Dash and ordered that Dash be administered epinephrine with the hope of generating a pulse. Dash also was being bagged as he was still not breathing on his own.
{¶8} During the course of Dr. McCoy's examination, he discovered that the child had bleeding in the back of the eyes. This being a strong indicator of an abusive injury absent other traumatic explanation, Dr. McCoy contacted Children's Hospital and was advised that a CAT scan was necessary as well. Dr. McCoy's review of the CAT scan showed that there were multiple brain bleeds of varying age, as well as a skull fracture. Ultimately Dash was transferred to Children's Hospital in Columbus.
{¶9} At Children's Hospital, Dash was examined and treated by a team of doctors, including several experts in the field of child abuse pediatrics, radiologists and an ophthalmologist. Dr. Farah Brink, an expert in the field of child abuse pediatrics, conducted a thorough physical examination of Dash, as well as reviewing the records provided by Genesis regarding Dash's treatment at that hospital. Dr. Brink noted that the child suffered from swelling of the brain, subdural bleeding within the brain, skullfractures and retinal hemorrhages. Dr. Brink's treatment of Dash included exploring any possible reasons for the existence of these injuries including accidental causes or pre-existing conditions, but she found none. Dr. Brink testified that the injuries suffered by Dash Wright were the result of blunt impact trauma with a likely shaking mechanism. (T. at 483). Dr. Brink further testified that these types of injuries can occur in car accidents or high distance falls, but that the injuries Dash suffered were caused by the child's physical abuse. (T. at 490).
{¶10} On August 3, 2010, Dash Wright was pronounced dead. Dr. Kenneth Gerston of the Franklin County Coroner's Office performed the autopsy in this case. Dr. Gerston concluded that Dash Wright's cause of death was homicide. In his report, Dr. Gerston noted that a child that suffers the type of injuries that Dash had would have had immediate onset of symptoms meaning that Dash would not have wanted to eat or play, nor would he have been giggling, happy and smiling after the injury. (T. at 376). Finally, Dr. Gerston testified that Dash's cause of death was traumatic brain injury caused by blunt force. (T. at 386).
{¶11} While Dash was being treated at Children's Hospital, the Muskingum County Sheriff's Office conducted an investigation into Dash Wright's death which included interviews with the mother, Appellant, the coroner and medical personnel. Detectives also conducted a search of Appellant's residence on August 2, 2010.
{¶12} As a result of such investigation, Appellant Dale C. Wright was indicted on one count of child endangering, in violation of R.C. §2929.11(B)(1) and one count of murder, in violation of R.C. §2903.02(B).
{¶13} On January 14, 2011, Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence.
{¶14} On January 29, 2011, the trial court conducted a hearing on Appellant's motion to suppress.
{¶15} On June 27, 2011, a jury trial commenced in this matter.
{¶16} On June 29, 2011, the jury returned a guilty verdict on both counts as charged in the indictment.
{¶17} On August 1, 2011, the trial court sentenced Appellant to fifteen (15) years to life.
{¶18} Defendant-Appellant now appeals, assigning the following errors for review:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶19} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT SUPPRESSING EVIDCENCE [SIC] OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.
{¶20} "II. THE INDICTMENT WAS STRUCTURALLY INSUFFICIENT AND WAS IMPROPERLY AMENDED IN VIOLATION OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.
{¶21} "III. THE JUDGMENT WAS BASED ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.
{¶22} "IV. THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BY THE ADMISSION OF INADMISSIBLE, IRRELEVANT AND PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.
{¶23} "V. THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BY PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.
{¶24} "VI. THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS WERE STRUCTURALLY INSUFFICIENT IN VIOLATION OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.
{¶25} "VII. THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE STATE/FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.
{¶26} "VIII. THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.
{¶27}
{¶28} In his first Assignment of Error, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We disagree.
{¶29} More specifically, Appellant argues that the warrantless search of his residence which resulted in recovery of the blanket upon which the child had been found unresponsive, along with photographs of the basement, was unconstitutional.
{¶30} Appellate review of a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to suppress involves a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Long (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 328, 713 N.E.2d 1. During a suppression hearing, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and, as such, is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and to evaluate witness credibility. State v. Brooks, 75 Ohio St.3d 148, 1996-Ohio-134, 661 N.E.2d 1030. A reviewing court is bound to accept the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. State v. Metcalf (1996), 111 OhioApp.3d 142, 675 N.E.2d 1268. Accepting these facts as true, the appellate court must independently determine as a matter of law, without deference to the trial court's conclusion, whether the trial court's decision meets the applicable legal standard. State v. Williams (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 37, 619 N.E.2d 1141.
{¶31} There are three methods of challenging a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress on appeal. First, an appellant may challenge the trial court's finding of fact. In reviewing a challenge of this nature, an appellate court must determine whether the trial court's findings of fact are against the manifest weight of the evidence. See State v. Fanning (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 437 N.E.2d 583; and State v. Klein (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 486, 597 N.E.2d 1141. Second, an appellant may argue the trial court failed to apply the appropriate test or correct law to the findings of fact. In that case, an appellate court can reverse the trial court for committing an error of law. See State v. Williams (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 37, 619 N.E.2d 1141. Finally, an appellant may argue the trial court has incorrectly decided the ultimate or final issues raised in a motion to suppress. When reviewing this type of claim, an appellate court must independently determine, without deference to the trial court's conclusion, whether the facts meet the appropriate legal standard in any given case. State v. Claytor, (1993) 85 Ohio App.3d 623, 620 N.E.2d 906 and State v. Curry (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 93, 641 N.E.2d 1172
{¶32} The Fourth Amendment provides:
{¶33} "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial