State v. Young
| Decision Date | 28 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21CA0028 |
| Citation | 2022 Ohio 4726 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. EDWARD YOUNG Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
2022-Ohio-4726
STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
EDWARD YOUNG Defendant-Appellant
No. 21CA0028
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Coshocton
December 28, 2022
Appeal from the Coshocton County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 21CR13
For Plaintiff-Appellee
JASON W. GIVEN
COSHOCTON CO. PROSECUTOR
For Defendant-Appellant
SAMUEL H. SHAMANSKY
Judges: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
OPINION
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Appellant Edward Young appeals from the November 18, 2021, Judgment Entry-Jury Verdict and Sentencing of the Coshocton County Court of Common Pleas. Appellee is the state of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} Appellant's wife, one of the victims in this matter, is Jane Doe. Appellant and Jane lived at a property which abutted the property of one of Jane's brothers, John Roe. John is also one of the victims in this matter. John lived at his residence with his girlfriend, Mary, and Mary's children.
{¶3} On January 4, 2021, Mary was working from home as a customer service associate for a call center. She was seated in an upstairs bedroom, in which John was also napping. Five of Mary's six children were also present in the residence. Around 5:00 p.m., Mary was on the phone with a customer when she heard a loud noise downstairs, as though someone was breaking in. She awakened John and sent him downstairs, armed.[1] Mary remained on the phone.
{¶4} Mary recognized appellant's voice downstairs. She also heard John's voice, and Jane Doe's. The group was arguing. Mary heard the argument move outside the residence, then back in, and she heard several gunshots. She put the customer on hold and ran to investigate, first checking on her children in another upstairs bedroom.
{¶5} As she proceeded downstairs, Mary saw appellant at the bottom of the stairs, next to John's body. Appellant was holding a pistol. Appellant said he "knew what John and Jane had done," and that he was not going to hurt Mary because he liked her. Mary yelled for her oldest Son to call 911.
{¶6} In the meantime, Neighbor was outside walking her dog. Neighbor testified that she saw appellant and his wife Jane in the front yard of John's residence and saw John in the doorway of his residence. All three entered the residence, arguing. She then heard several pops or bangs and saw Jane exit through the front door and collapse near a tree. Appellant exited the residence with a gun in his hand and approached Jane and yelled something at her as she lay on the ground.
{¶7} Neighbor then saw appellant run back to his own residence, leave momentarily in his car, and then return. He left again in his car, driving through the neighborhood and ending up in front of John and Mary's residence.
{¶8} In the meantime, Mary's oldest Son was on the phone with the sheriff's department. Son observed appellant pull up in his car; appellant approached Son and told him to hang up the phone. Appellant took the phone from Son and tossed it. Appellant then approached Jane again, who was still on the ground, and attempted to remove something from her pocket. He then left again in his car. Son described the car to law enforcement. Son also observed appellant's four young children in the backseat of the car.
{¶9} Sheriff's deputies intercepted appellant's car and tried to stop him, but appellant refused to comply and fled. He eventually crashed into another vehicle,
disabling his own car. Appellant was apprehended without further incident and his children were safely recovered by law enforcement.
{¶10} The next day, detectives questioned appellant and he eventually requested an attorney. Later the same day, however, he contacted detectives and voluntarily spoke to Detective Andrews. After being Mirandized, appellant told Andrews he had no recollection of the murders or the ensuing events. Appellant's statements were videotaped and introduced at trial.
{¶11} Law enforcement processed the crime scene and collected evidence. The 9-millimeter firearm was recovered in a field on the route of appellant's flight from deputies. Ballistics testing established the firearm was used to shoot and kill both Jane and John, who died as direct results of their gunshot wounds. Appellant's DNA was found on the ammunition clip recovered with the firearm, and gunpowder residue was found on appellant's hands.
{¶12} Appellant was charged by indictment with two counts of aggravated murder pursuant to R.C. 2903.01(A), both unclassified felonies [Counts I and II], and one count of having a weapon while under disability pursuant to R.C. 2923.13(B), a felony of the third degree [Count III]. Appellant entered pleas of not guilty and the matter proceeded to trial by jury. Appellant was found guilty as charged.
{¶13} The trial court sentenced appellant to life in prison without the possibility of parole upon Counts I and II, along with additional terms of 3 years for accompanying firearm specifications. Appellant was sentenced to a prison term of 36 months upon Count III. The trial court ordered the sentences for all three counts and the firearm specifications to be served consecutively.
{¶14} Appellant now appeals from the judgment entry of his convictions and sentence.
{¶15} Appellant raises four assignments of error:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶16} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE ONE SECTION TEN OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION BY FINDING HIM GUILTY OF AGGRAVATED MURDER AND HAVING WEAPONS WHILE UNDER DISABILITY AS THOSE VERDICTS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND WERE ALSO AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE."
{¶17} "II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY CLOSING AND LOCKING THE COURTROOM DURING HIS JURY TRIAL, IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW PURSUANT TO THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE ONE SECTION TEN OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION."
{¶18} "III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY PERMITTING TESTIMONY AT HIS JURY TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF DOYLE V. OHIO, THEREBY DEPRIVING HIM OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE ONE SECTION TEN OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION."
{¶19} "IV. APPELLANT'S TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE THEREBY DEPRIVING HIM OF THE RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL PURSUANT TO THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION."
ANALYSIS
I.
{¶20} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues his convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence and are against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree.
{¶21} The legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence are both quantitatively and qualitatively different. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541, paragraph two of the syllabus. The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is set forth in State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991) at paragraph two of the syllabus, in which the Ohio Supreme Court held, "An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Thus, an appellate court's role is limited. It does not ask whether the evidence should be believed or assess the evidence's "credibility or effect in inducing belief." State v. Jones, 166...
To continue reading
Request your trial