State v. Wynn
| Decision Date | 07 February 2014 |
| Docket Number | Trial Court Case No. 2010-CR-3822/1,Appellate Case No. 25097 |
| Citation | 2014 Ohio 420 |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. ANTONIO L. WYNN Defendant-Appellant |
(Criminal Appeal from
Common Pleas Court)
OPINIONMATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by CARLEY J. INGRAM, Atty. Reg. No. 0020084, Assistant Prosecuting
ENRIQUE G. RIVERA-CEREZO, Atty. Reg. No. 0085053, 765 Troy Street, Dayton, Ohio 45404
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Antonio L. Wynn, appeals from his conviction on a charge of complicity to commit felony murder in violation of R.C. 2923.03(A)(2) and R.C. 2903.02(B), with a firearm specification. Wynn contends that he was denied due process and his right of confrontation when the trial court refused to permit him to cross-examine and impeach his co-defendant. Wynn also maintains that the trial court erred in admitting a letter that he purportedly wrote to his co-defendant.
{¶ 2} In addition, Wynn contends that his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed a juror to serve after the juror had inappropriate contact with a police detective. Finally, Wynn argues that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on a lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter.
{¶ 3} We conclude that Wynn was not denied due process or a right of confrontation either by the trial court's application of Evid.R. 607(A), or by the court's failure to call Wynn's co-defendant as a court's witness pursuant to Evid.R. 614(A). However, the trial court did incorrectly conclude that evidence pertaining to the lack of a plan to harm the victim was irrelevant. Wynn was not prejudiced by the error, because the court did, in fact, allow Wynn to present evidence of the absence of a plan.
{¶ 4} Additionally, we conclude that the trial court did not err in its rulings about the letter that Wynn allegedly wrote. The letter was properly authenticated by its content and the circumstances under which it was delivered, which demonstrated a sufficient foundation for attributing authorship to Wynn. The State also did not fail to appropriately disclose the letter to Wynn.
{¶ 5} We further conclude that trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel by allegedly failing to discuss the letter with Wynn or in failing to request a continuance. Wynn has not demonstrated that the result of the trial would have been any different had his counsel discussed the letter with him, and nothing in the record indicates that Wynn had information about the letter that would have changed counsel's defense strategy. Moreover, discussing the letter with Wynn would not have changed the fact that a substantial amount of evidence, both video and testimonial, supported the conviction. Furthermore, requesting continuances is a matter of trial tactics and strategy, and we will not second-guess trial counsel's decision in this regard.
{¶ 6} We also conclude that the trial court did not err in allowing a juror to serve at trial after the juror had contact with a police detective. The trial court questioned the juror in chambers with counsel present, and both the State and defense indicated that they were satisfied with the juror's explanation that the contact had nothing to do with the case. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in choosing not to investigate the matter further.
{¶ 7} Finally, the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter. The evidence would not permit the jury to reasonably reject the greater offense of complicity to commit felony murder. Furthermore, Wynn's actions in assaulting the victim had no connection with the felonious assault with the gun, and did not proximately result in the victim's death. A jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter would not be an appropriate instruction, because the victim died as a proximate result of being shot, rather than from Wynn's assault.
{¶ 8} Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
{¶ 9} The murder charge in this case arose from Wynn's involvement in the December 3, 2010 death of Deonta Beans. Beans was shot and killed by Wynn's friend, George Turner, while Beans was standing inside a convenience store located in Dayton, Ohio. Wynn was with Turner during the shooting, and punched the victim twice before Turner fired his gun. After Wynn pled not guilty to the complicity charge, his case was tried before a jury.
{¶ 10} At trial, the State called two eyewitnesses to testify regarding the shooting - the store cashier and Beans' 12-year-old cousin, D.T. The State also presented video footage and stills of the shooting that were captured by the convenience store's security cameras. The testimony and video evidence established that Beans and D.T. were standing near the entrance of the convenience store when Turner and Wynn walked in together. As the two men walked in, Wynn punched Beans with his right hand, which was covered by a black glove; his left hand was gloveless. Turner then pulled out a gun and aimed it at Beans' head. When Beans backed up and tried to get the gun from Turner's left hand, Turner used his right hand to hold Beans' arm back. As Turner struggled with Beans, Wynn jumped in and punched Beans a second time. Immediately after the second punch, Turner fired a shot at Beans. Turner and Wynn then both ran from the store.
{¶ 11} Shortly after the shooting, the police were able to identify Turner and Wynn as suspects. On the evening of the shooting, the police found Wynn at his home, which was located just a few blocks from the store. Wynn was taken into custody for questioning and was later arrested. He gave the police an address where Turner could be found, but Turner was notat that location. Turner was not apprehended until January 21, 2011.
{¶ 12} On the day Turner was apprehended, he was interviewed by the police, and gave a statement. Turner stated that Beans and a few other men had robbed him at gunpoint a week before the shooting, and that he was angry and frustrated by what people were saying about the robbery. He also claimed that he was concerned that Beans might try to rob him again. As a result of the robbery, Turner began to carry a gun in his vehicle at all times. Turner further stated that when he saw Beans in the convenience store on December, 3, 2010, he did not intend to shoot Beans, but merely went in the store to talk to Beans and get him to stop saying what he was saying on the streets.1 This version of events supported Wynn's defense theory, which was that Wynn had no knowledge of Turner's gun, and that Turner shot Beans on a whim, which Wynn could not have either anticipated or controlled.
{¶ 13} Turner was interviewed by the police and prosecutors again on October 28, 2011, November 9, 2011, and February 7, 2012. Turner's statements during these interviews were much less favorable to Wynn. Turner claimed that he had confided in Wynn after Beans had robbed him, and that they had talked about seeking revenge. In fact, when Turner told Wynn that he had been robbed, Wynn said, "it's on when I see [Beans]." Transcript of Proceedings, Vol. IV, p. 696, ln. 4-7.
{¶ 14} In this version of the story, Turner said that he and Wynn drove by the convenience store and saw Beans standing inside. Turner then turned the car around and drove to Wynn's house to get the gun. When they arrived at Wynn's house, Wynn went into the houseand Turner stayed in the car. When Wynn came back out, he had a .40 caliber Glock semi-automatic gun. Wynn got back in the car, and put the gun in Turner's lap. Thereafter, they returned to the convenience store, intending to harm Beans.
{¶ 15} Turner also claimed that before they went into the store, Wynn grabbed two gloves from the back seat of the car and gave Turner the left glove. Turner was left-handed, and wore the glove to prevent gun residue from getting on his hand. According to Turner, Wynn put on the right glove because he was right-handed.
{¶ 16} After giving the police this information, Turner entered into a plea agreement with the State. Approximately one week before Wynn's trial, Turner pled guilty to tampering with evidence, felony murder with the underlying offense of felonious assault, and a firearm specification. As part of the plea agreement, Turner agreed to testify truthfully in Wynn's trial. In exchange, the State agreed to recommend that the potential sentence for tampering with evidence would run concurrently with the other charges. This would result in an 18-year-to-life prison term rather than a longer potential term of up to 21 years to life.
{¶ 17} At Wynn's trial, the State did not call George Turner as a witness during its case in chief. If Turner were called, the defense expected Turner to testify in line with his later statements, which indicated that Wynn had played a greater role in the shooting. Accordingly, Wynn wanted to impeach Turner's testimony with his first statement. Because the State did not call Turner to testify, Wynn's counsel asked the court to call Turner as a witness under Evid.R. 614(A), so that the defense could question him on cross-examination and eliminate the issue of the defense's inability to impeach Turner under Evid.R. 607(A). The trial court overruled the request, stating that it had limited knowledge of the evidence at that point, and lack of time todigest our prior decision in State v. Arnold, 189 Ohio App.3d 507, 2010-Ohio-5379, 939 N.E.2d 218 (2d Dist.), which had just been given to the court. However, the court also indicated that its opinion could change during Turner's...
To continue reading
Request your trial