State v. Yarbrough, APPEAL NO. C-110355
| Decision Date | 16 May 2012 |
| Docket Number | APPEAL NO. C-110355,TRIAL NO. B-0905324 |
| Citation | 2012 Ohio 2153 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHAUNCEY YARBROUGH, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald W.
Springman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
William F. Oswall, Jr., for Defendant-Appellant.
Please note: This case has been removed from the accelerated calendar. SYLVIA S. HENDON, Judge.
{¶1} Following a bench trial, defendant-appellant Chauncey Yarbrough was found guilty of two counts of murder with accompanying weapon specifications, two counts of carrying a concealed weapon, and having a weapon while under disability. The trial court sentenced Yarbrough to an aggregate term of 19 years' to life imprisonment for these offenses.
{¶2} Yarbrough's convictions stemmed from a shooting that occurred outside Annie's nightclub in the early morning hours of July 27, 2009. Marcus Mitchell and Daunte Phillips were shot and killed in the parking lot of Annie's as they left the club. Immediately prior to the shooting, Yarbrough and Mitchell had been engaged in an argument. During the altercation, Yarbrough fired his weapon several times at Mitchell. Two shots struck Mitchell, and he died from the resulting injuries. A stray bullet struck and killed Daunte Phillips, a bystander who had not been involved in the altercation between Yarbrough and Mitchell.
{¶3} Yarbrough now appeals from the trial court's judgment, raising six assignments of error for our review. Because we find no merit to Yarbrough's arguments, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Manifest Weight
{¶4} In his first assignment of error, Yarbrough argues that his conviction for the murder of Marcus Mitchell was against the manifest weight of the evidence. When reviewing the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court must weigh all evidence and reasonable inferences and consider the credibility of the witnesses to determine whether the trier of fact lost its way and created a manifest miscarriageof justice such that the conviction must be reversed. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997).
{¶5} Yarbrough was convicted of murder under R.C. 2903.02(A), which provides that "[n]o person shall purposely cause the death of another." Yarbrough admits to shooting Mitchell, but asserts that the evidence demonstrated that he had acted in self-defense. A defendant is entitled to rely on the affirmative defense of self-defense when he establishes "(1) the defendant was not at fault in creating the violent situation, (2) the defendant had a bona fide belief that [he] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that [his] only means of escape was the use of force, and (3) that the defendant did not violate any duty to retreat or avoid the danger." State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323, 326, 673 N.E.2d 1339 (1997). A defendant bears the burden of proving each element of self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Miller, 1st Dist. No. C-070691, 2008-Ohio-5899, ¶ 15.
{¶6} The state presented testimony from Willie Smith, a friend of Mitchell's who had witnessed his murder. Prior to the shooting, Mitchell, who went by the nickname of "Murder," had exited from Annie's nightclub and had told Smith that Mitchell then crossed the street and retrieved something from his car, which Smith did not view but believed to be a gun. Smith cautioned Mitchell against engaging in any sort of confrontation, but Mitchell ignored his friend's advice and approached Yarbrough in the parking lot. As Yarbrough and his friends began to walk away, Mitchell said to Yarbrough "you think I'm playing whichu?" Yarbrough responded by likewise challenging Mitchell, "you think I'm playing whichu?" He thenimmediately pulled a gun out of his right pocket and fired repeatedly at Mitchell. Smith testified that he had never seen Mitchell expose a gun during the altercation, and that Mitchell had tried to back up when Yarbrough had revealed his weapon.
{¶7} Cincinnati Police Officer Sabreen Williams had been working an off-duty detail at Annie's on the night of the shooting. She testified that, shortly after the nightclub let out for the evening, she had heard approximately seven gunshots that came from the same general area. Responding to the shots, she found Mitchell face down on the ground with no pulse. After rolling Mitchell over, Officer Williams discovered a weapon on him. Cincinnati Police Detective Kurt Ballman confirmed that a weapon had been found on Mitchell. Detective Ballman testified that Mitchell's weapon had been holstered deep inside the right side of his pants.
{¶8} Marvin Gates had been at Annie's nightclub on the night of the shooting with his friend Daunte Phillips, who was struck by a stray bullet. Gates testified that he and Phillips had deliberately attempted to avoid Yarbrough in the parking lot that evening because they had seen him standing at the top of a hill flexing a weapon behind his back as Mitchell walked towards him.
{¶9} At trial, Yarbrough testified that he carried a weapon for protection, even though he was not legally permitted to do so because of a prior conviction. He did so because he worked as a security guard at several area clubs and often angered people by enforcing the club rules. He further stated that he had been robbed twice at gun point and that several of his friends had been murdered.
{¶10} Yarbrough testified that he had gone to Annie's nightclub on the night of the shooting with his friends Midnight, 80, and Kenny. As he waited in the parking lot, Mitchell approached him with a crazy look on his face, while shouting Yarbrough testified that he saw Mitchell make a reaching motion toward his pants with his right hand. Fearful that Mitchell was in the process of retrieving a weapon, Yarbrough pulled out his own weapon and fired approximately four shots at Mitchell. He explained that he chose to fire at Mitchell rather than retreat, because he had feared that he would be shot in the back if he had attempted to run. On cross-examination, Yarbrough conceded that he had never actually seen a weapon in Mitchell's possession.
{¶11} Andre Whaley, also known as "Midnight," had been with Yarbrough at Annie's nightclub. Whaley witnessed Yarbrough and Mitchell arguing, and then heard Mitchell say "Fuck these niggas." He saw Mitchell reach for his side and bend his arm, and at this same time, Whaley saw Yarbrough remove his own weapon. Whaley ducked, and then heard multiple gun shots. Whaley testified that Mitchell had a reputation as a violent person, but that he had not seen a weapon in Mitchell's possession at the time that he was shot.
{¶12} Following our review of the record, we hold that the evidence does not demonstrate that Yarbrough had a legitimate belief that he was in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm. Although Mitchell was found with a weapon in his possession, the record was devoid of evidence that Mitchell had actually produced that weapon during his confrontation with Yarbrough. Yarbrough himself conceded that he had not seen Mitchell display a weapon. Neither the statements uttered by Mitchell during the verbal altercation nor Mitchell's uncompleted reaching motion were enough to provide Yarbrough with a legitimate belief that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm. The trial court correctly concluded thatYarbrough had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he had acted in self-defense.
{¶13} Yarbrough next argues that the record demonstrates that the trial court was not convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In support of his argument, he cites the length of time that it took the trial court to render a verdict, as well as an order issued by the trial court requesting the parties to research whether Yarbrough was guilty of lesser-included offenses. Yarbrough's arguments are tenuous. First, the length of time that it took the trial court to issue its decision has no bearing on the weight of the evidence supporting a conviction or the confidence of the court in its decision. The record contains no indication that the trial court engaged in anything other than a thorough deliberation of the evidence.
{¶14} Further, the trial court's order requesting the parties to research lesser-included offenses was issued following a post-trial Crim.R. 33(A) motion for a new trial filed by Yarbrough. Crim.R. 33(A) provides that "[i]f the evidence shows the defendant is not guilty of the degree of crime for which he was convicted, but guilty of a lesser degree thereof, or of a lesser crime included therein, the court may modify the verdict or find accordingly." Rather than evince doubt in its verdict, the trial court's order demonstrates that it thoroughly considered Yarbrough's motion for a new trial, but ultimately determined that it was without merit. Yarbrough's conviction for the murder of Mitchell was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶15} In his second assignment of error, Yarbrough argues that his conviction for the murder of Daunte Phillips was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Phillips was struck by a stray bullet that missed Yarbrough's intendedvictim, Marcus Mitchell. We have already determined that Yarbrough's conviction for the purposeful murder of Mitchell was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. Under the doctrine of transferred intent, Yarbrough's conviction for the purposeful murder of Phillips was likewise supported by the weight of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial