Opinion
C. A. 29614
08-04-2023
STATE OF OHIO Appellee v. TAYLOR WESLEY WALTER Appellant
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by RICKY L. MURRAY, Attorney for Appellee. DAVID R. MILES, Attorney for Appellant.
Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Trial Court Case No. 20CR3668
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by RICKY L. MURRAY, Attorney for Appellee.
DAVID R. MILES, Attorney for Appellant.
OPINION
LEWIS, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Taylor Wesley Walter appeals from his conviction for murder after a jury trial in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. Walter contends that the trial court erred in failing to suppress statements he made to the police, that it erred in admitting certain evidence at trial, that it should not have given certain jury instructions requested by the State, and that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
I. Procedural History
{¶ 2} In January 2021, Walter was indicted on two counts of felonious assault (serious physical harm and deadly weapon) and two counts of felony murder (proximate result of felonious assault). The charges stemmed from the stabbing death of his mother, Donna Walter, on February 12, 2020. A month after the indictment, Walter moved to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officers on several different days, asserting that his statements had been involuntarily made and had been obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. After a hearing, the trial court overruled the motion in its entirety.
{¶ 3} Walter's trial ultimately was scheduled for August 29, 2022. As the trial date neared, the State raised several evidentiary issues. In a motion in limine, the State sought to prevent Walter from introducing exculpatory and self-serving statements. The trial court overruled the motion. The State also filed a notice of its intention to use Evid. R. 803(3) statements in its case-in-chief. It identified ten statements made by Donna,either orally or in writing, that she was fearful of her son and believed him to be dangerous. The court overruled Walter's motion to preclude the use of those statements. Finally, the State filed a notice of its intention to use Evid.R. 404(B) evidence, which mainly consisted of prior acts of violence and threats of violence by Walter against his mother. The trial court sustained Walter's objection regarding a December 13, 2019 text between Donna and her sister, Doreen Hildebrand, and a text from Walter to Donna's friend, Angie Morgan (formerly known as Angie Hicks). However, it overruled Walter's objections to the use of statements by Donna about threats Walter had made on three occasions, as well as statements made in various jail calls and texts between Walter and his mother.
{¶ 4} The matter proceeded to a jury trial. The State presented 20 witnesses and numerous exhibits. Walter did not offer any evidence in his defense. During a discussion of the jury instructions, the State requested instructions on consciousness of guilt and voluntary intoxication. The trial court gave those instructions over Walter's objections. After deliberating, the jury found Walter guilty on all charges. At sentencing, the trial court merged the offenses and imposed a prison term of 15 years to life for murder, to be served consecutively to a sentence in another case. Walter also was designated a violent offender.
{¶ 5} Walter appeals from his conviction, raising six assignments of error. We will address them in an order that facilitates our analysis.
II. Manifest Weight of the Evidence
{¶ 6} In his sixth assignment of error, Walter claims that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. He argues that there was no eyewitness to the murder and that the forensic evidence did not support the conclusion that he committed the homicide. Walter emphasizes that the State resorted to improper statements of Walter's prior bad acts and of Donna's fear of him to convince the jury of his guilt. We disagree.
{¶ 7} "[A] weight of the evidence argument challenges the believability of the evidence and asks which of the competing inferences suggested by the evidence is more believable or persuasive." State v. Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22581, 2009-Ohio-525, ¶ 12. When evaluating whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider witness credibility, and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact "clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice" that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist. 1983). Because the trier of fact sees and hears the witnesses at trial, we must defer to the fact finder's decisions whether, and to what extent, to credit the testimony of particular witnesses. State v. Lawson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 16288, 1997 WL 476684, *4 (Aug. 22, 1997). A judgment of conviction should be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence only in exceptional circumstances. Martin at 175.
{¶ 8} We recognize that, in other assignments of error, Walter challenges the trial court's admission of certain evidence under Evid.R. 404(B) and Evid.R. 803(3). However, when reviewing claims based on the manifest weight of the evidence, we are required to consider all of the evidence admitted at trial, regardless of whether it was admitted erroneously. See State v. Fleming, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2021 -CA-40, 2022-Ohio-1876, ¶ 27, citing, e.g., State v. Brewer, 121 Ohio St.3d 202, 2009-Ohio-593, 903 N.E.2d 284. Accordingly, we must consider that evidence as part of our analysis.
{¶ 9} Walter was found guilty of two counts of murder and two counts of felonious assault. A person is guilty of murder under R.C. 2903.02(B) if he or she causes "the death of another as a proximate result of the offender's committing or attempting to commit an offense of violence that is a felony of the first or second degree and that is not a violation of section 2903.03 or 2903.04 of the Revised Code." Pursuant to R.C. 2903.11(A), a person commits felonious assault by either knowingly causing serious physical harm to another, R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), or by knowingly causing or attempting to cause physical harm to another by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance, R.C. 2903.11(A)(2).
{¶ 10} According to the State's evidence at trial, in February 2020, 28-year-old Walter lived with his mother, Donna, in the family's residence in Perry Township, Ohio. Walter's father, Kevin, had died in June 2018 after a long battle with cancer. His brother, Landon, had moved out in June 2019 after a "situation" occurred. By all accounts, Walter had a turbulent relationship with his mother.
{¶ 11} At 7:07 a.m. on February 12, 2020, Donna called 911 about Walter. At 8:12 a.m, she texted her sister, Doreen, with whom she was close, saying that Walter had stolen her car and phone and to contact her on her back-up cell phone. Donna called 911 again at 8:21 a.m.
{¶ 12} Perry Township police did not have an officer on the road that morning, so the call was directed to Police Chief Timothy Littleton. Littleton responded to Donna's home at 8:42 a.m. Donna was in her vehicle, wearing her pajamas and robe, when Littleton arrived. Littleton described her as frightened and scared. After talking at the house, Donna and Littleton drove separately to the police department to prepare a complaint against Walter. Donna provided a written statement, indicating that Walter had been high and wanted her car keys, that he had grabbed her and threatened to hurt her after she said no, that he had pushed her up the stairs, and that she then had given him her keys. Donna also wrote that he had left with the car and returned an hour later, at which time she had slipped out her back door and called the police. Chief Littleton prepared a complaint for driving without consent. Donna became upset that Walter would not be incarcerated.
{¶ 13} Donna returned to her home and waited in her vehicle for Chief Littleton to return to serve Walter with the complaint. At 9:42 a.m., Donna called Doreen, and they spoke for more than 30 minutes. Donna was "livid, hysterical, crying" and was upset about what had happened and how long it was taking the police to return. Stilling waiting, Donna called the police department's administrative line at 10:32 a.m.
{¶ 14} Chief Littleton and Officer Payne arrived at Donna's residence approximately ten minutes later. She was seated in her vehicle, and Walter was moving back and forth on the front porch, rapping. After calling to Walter multiple times, Chief Littleton served the complaint. Walter placed the papers on a table on the porch and returned to his music. Donna again expressed her dismay that Walter would not be arrested; Littleton advised her to get a restraining order, evict him, and use "tough love." Donna then went inside her home, and Walter soon followed. The officers left the house at approximately 10:56 a.m.
{¶ 15} Donna talked with Doreen again at 11:17 a.m.; this was Donna's last communication.
{¶ 16} Doreen and Donna had plans to go to Landon's residence to wait for an internet installer while Landon was at work and also to help him clean his new house. After Donna failed to pick her up, Doreen texted Donna at 1:03 p.m., asking if she had left. When Donna did not reply, Doreen sent additional texts and attempted, unsuccessfully, to reach Donna by phone.
{¶ 17} Doreen also tried to reach Walter several times and spoke with him at 1:25 p.m. He denied that he was in a car, but Doreen could tell that he was. When Doreen asked him where he was, Walter told her, "Georgia, baby," and said he had gotten there by airplane. (Donna and Doreen had another sister who lived in Georgia.) Walter did not mention anything about his mother.
{¶ 18} Shortly after 2:00 p.m., Doreen called Tonia Keener, Donna's long-time friend, to ask Keener to check on Donna. When Keener arrived at Donna's residence, Donna's car was gone, and Walter was not there. Keener went into the home and noticed that the downstairs areas were unusually messy. She then went upstairs and found Donna on the floor of her bedroom, unresponsive and with blood around her head. Keener called 911 at 2:16 p.m. Keener's friend, Steve Yancey, arrived while Keener was on the phone with the dispatcher.
{¶ 19} Chief Littleton was the first officer to arrive at Donna's home. Yancey directed Littleton to Donna's bedroom, where he found her lying between her bed and the wall. Littleton pulled her away from the wall and administered CPR until paramedics from the Brookville Fire Department arrived. The paramedic's assessment found that Donna was not breathing, had no pulse, was cool to the touch, showed signs of bluishness around her lips, and had some mottling in her arm and stomach areas. The blood around her head was coagulated, meaning that it had been there a while. The paramedics declared Donna deceased at the scene.
{¶ 20} It was not immediately apparent how Donna had died. Upon removing her body from the scene, a knife was found embedded in the back of her neck. The autopsy determined that Donna had 30 stab wounds to the back of her head and neck, ranging from ¼ inch to 4 inches in depth, and cuts to her head, left shoulder, and hands. The coroner also found bruising on three sides of her head and on her legs. Donna died from the multiple stab wounds to her head and neck, which caused substantial blood loss.
{¶ 21} Chief Littleton secured the residence and called Sergeant Douglas Hesler, an evidence technician, and Detective Tina Waymire to begin the investigation. Hesler saw no signs of forced entry at Donna's home. Upon entering the house pursuant to a search warrant, Hesler took photographs throughout the house, took fingerprints, and collected items with potential evidentiary value. He noticed, among other things, that the only open kitchen drawer contained knives of the same brand that was used to kill Donna. The house was messy, but Sergeant Hesler saw signs of a struggle only in Donna's bedroom. Foot powder had been spread all around the upstairs of the house. The upstairs bathroom had a "nice clean and fresh scent," as if someone had recently bathed. Hesler swabbed the bathroom shower and wall areas and areas of Donna's bedroom. He also collected, among other items, a golf putter that had been on the floor near Donna's head and a Clorox bottle with a red smear from the laundry room. However, upon examination by the Miami Valley Regional Crime Lab, no blood was detected on those items.
{¶ 22} The investigation quickly focused on finding Walter. In her 911 call, Keener had expressed her belief that Walter was responsible, and the Perry Township police took efforts to locate him by having the Montgomery County Sheriffs Office ping his phone and by issuing a "be on the lookout" (BOLO) to other law enforcement agencies.
{¶ 23} At 2:31 p.m. that day, Patrick Bradford, a former acquaintance of Walter, received a text from Walter, saying "I'm in vandelia wanna chill." Bradford did not respond. At 4:07 p.m., Englewood Police Officer Doug Hacker located Walter seated in Donna's GMC Acadia in the Englewood Meijer parking lot. Officer Hacker and other Englewood officers apprehended Walter and placed him in a cruiser. No one informed Walter that his mother had been murdered.
{¶ 24} At Sergeant Hesler's instruction, Perry Township Officer Jason Collins went to the Meijer to take Walter into custody. Collins testified that he was given a direct order not to talk to Walter. As Officer Collins drove him to the Montgomery County Jail, Walter sang that he "killed my motherf*cking mom," his "best friend."
{¶ 25} When he was arrested, Walter was wearing a different shirt than what he had been wearing when Chief Littleton spoke with him earlier in the day. Detective Waymire went to speak with him and noticed that Walter's hands also were "extremely clean." The detective testified that Walter's hands had never een during her past encounters with him. Landon similarly stated that Walter lacked "body hygiene" and that he did not have clean hands and fingernails.
{¶ 26} The GMC Acadia was sealed and towed by Marlow's Towing to its facility, which the Perry Township police used to impound vehicles. After obtaining a search warrant, Sergeant Hesler conducted a search of the vehicle. He located, among other things, Donna's phone and a plaid purse with several expired credit cards, which Doreen identified at trial as Donna's "dummy purse." (Doreen testified that Donna had had a "dummy" purse with expired cards and a "real" purse for her active cards and money.) Donna's primary set of car keys were in the ignition. Hesler collected latent fingerprints and swabs of suspected blood from the vehicle and items located within it. The swabbings from the vehicle either were not tested by the Miami Valley Regional Crime Lab or, upon testing, failed to indicate the presence of blood. Walter's fingerprints were matched to latent prints found on the driver's side area of the vehicle and to some cards from Donna's dummy purse.
{¶ 27} Walter was released from jail on April 16, 2020. On April 18, he contacted Detective Waymire and indicated that he wanted to talk about what had happened the day his mother died and to give a complete timeline. When they spoke at the police station on April 21, Walter stated that he had taken his mother's car on February 11 (the day before the murder) and had been at home when the police came the following day because of that. Walter said that, after the police left, he took the spare keys to Donna's vehicle and went to Drexel; his mother was in her room when he left. Walter told Detective Waymire, "That's where my story stops." When asked if had changed clothes before leaving, Walter said that he had not. Walter discussed his relationships with his family members and the family business. He said that most of his arguments with his mother were about drugs and her wanting him to get a job and move out. Walter indicated that he would provide statements from friends, but Detective Waymire testified that he never did. The detective tried to follow up with Walter's ex-girlfriend but was unable to make contact with her.
{¶ 28} In early June 2020, Jim Marlow stopped at the Walter residence to ask about an old forklift truck that he had seen at the property. Marlow had heard about Donna's murder and, as part of his towing business, had towed her Acadia from Meijer for the police, but he did not realize that the homicide had occurred there and did not know the residents. Marlow spoke with Walter, who said that the truck had belonged to his father, who had died. Walter told Marlow that he was probably going to sell the house and was moving to Georgia. When Marlow asked why, Walter responded that "everyone here thinks I killed my mom" and everyone hated him. At that point, Marlow made the connection with Donna's murder but asked Walter why they thought that. Walter responded that it had happened in the house and it was a "crime of passion," but he did not do it. When asked what he meant by "crime of passion," Walter said that "she was beat and stabbed." After leaving the residence, Marlow immediately reported the conversation to the Perry Township police.
{¶ 29} Detective Waymire and Walter again spoke on June 4, 2020, shortly after Walter's interaction with Marlow. The interview covered a number of topics, including that Walter appeared to be sleeping on the floor of his mother's bedroom (the furniture had been removed), that he used a driver when golfing (no driver had been found by police), and that he had heard that his mother had been shot. Walter told Detective Waymire that he had been angry with his mother for filing the criminal complaint and that she had treated him differently than his brother. Walter also claimed that he bought gas in Brookville at 11:52 a.m. on the day of the murder and returned home to find his mother "dead as f*ck." Walter acknowledged that he had not called the police.
{¶ 30} The State also presented substantial evidence about the tumultuous relationship between Donna and Walter. Doreen and Landon testified that part of the discord stemmed from the closing of Kevin's (Walter's father) water softening business. Doreen stated that the business had not been profitable, and when Kevin became ill, Walter had helped with the business and hoped to take it over. Bradford, who had worked at the water softening business on occasion, also confirmed that Walter had wanted to take over the business. Walter became upset when Donna closed the business after Kevin's death. Walter was unemployed after Kevin died, and Donna performed occasional jobs for friends. Several witnesses testified that Walter's drug use and taking Donna's car without permission had caused a strain in their relationship. Donna had previously tried to kick Walter out of the house.
{¶ 31} Donna told Doreen daily that she feared Walter would hurt her. Doreen was aware that Walter was not on good terms with his brother, and he would have nowhere to go if Donna evicted him. Landon confirmed that Walter would not have been allowed to stay with him. Landon also testified that his mother said she was scared of Walter multiple times, including the day before she was killed.
{¶ 32} Numerous additional witnesses testified that Walter had previously threatened Donna and that Donna had been afraid of him. Keener testified that Donna had had issues with Walter "for years" and, in the months prior to Donna's death, Keener could hear Walter yelling and screaming at Donna in the background when the two talked on the phone. A week before the murder, Donna told Brielle Slaton that she was scared of Walter and afraid he was going to hurt her. In July 2019, Donna texted Angie Morgan that she never used to be afraid of Walter but was then. Several police officers described encounters with Donna and Walter at different times in 2019, in which Donna described being assaulted by Walter, Walter's demanding money from her, and Donna's being afraid that Walter would hurt her. On some of those prior occasions, Walter was removed from the residence.
{¶ 33} The State also offered five sets of text messages between Donna and Walter. On April 26, 2019, Donna wrote: "Back the f*ck off ur not getting any money from me period," to which Walter responded, "Mom if u dont go away ill make sure that I give u a problem I promis u." State's Ex. 133A. On July 16, 2019, Walter and Donna had an exchange which concluded with Donna's writing to Walter: "Oh and for your information, hurting your mother and holding a knife to her throat and busting up your home and antiques that can't be replaced, how it that smart af. It's dumb af and disrespectful." State's Ex. 133B. In a series of messages to Walter on August 31, 2019, Donna wrote:
You're a drug addict punk and I'm not dealing with you anymore. I won't be threatened and hit by you ever again. Don't bother coming home. The doors are locked. Take your money and shove it.
Your not getting my vue or any other car so go f*ck yourself. I'm tired of your sh*t. And I'm tired of you threatening my life. It's over. And by
Tuesday you'll be evicted.
You just want everyone to do everything for you. Well forget it. Make it on your own. I got your truck off the highway and it took all my money.
But you don't care. You don't appreciate anything. I feed you and give you a place to live and you threaten to kill me. I don't trust you. Go away.State's Ex. 133C.
{¶ 34} On October 25, 2019, Walter wrote to Donna: "I live [sic] drugs and I will never give them up until I make the choice to period. So f*ck yourself if you dont like it I could care less all of your old self is gone I'll see u in hell if you dont give me dads knife he got me and some my stuff cause I'm telling you it's only reason I havent killed your ass." State's Ex. 133D. Fifteen minutes later, Donna texted back: "And your always threatening to kill me so why would I try to help you get pot or anything else. What son threatens to kill their mother." State's Ex. 133E. Taylor responded, "Because of this right here you wont ever shut the f*ck up. Just do it or dont. You can fight argue and bitch but never can you just support anything I'm great at or even have passion to do. And I'm deffinetly needing t irk smoke mom I got nothing it's better then sans or blow or heroin or smack or that hard or that mf sniffing hate back or shooting up pain or to may pills type sh*t." State's Ex. 133E.
{¶ 35} Doreen and Landon testified that Donna did not have any enemies. Although Walter told Detective Waymire that he wanted to investigate who had killed his mother, Walter did not provide any leads to the police. When Donna's autopsy was conducted, Donna still had her jewelry and some money on her person.
{¶ 36} Upon review of the evidence as a whole, we cannot conclude that the jury lost its way in finding Walter guilty of killing his mother. No one witnessed Donna's murder, and the State relied upon circumstantial evidence to prove that Walter had committed the crime. Circumstantial evidence has the same probative value as direct evidence. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 272, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), citing State v. Nicely, 39 Ohio St.3d 147, 529 N.E.2d 1236 (1988); State v. St. John, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27988, 2019-Ohio-650, ¶ 49. In some cases, "circumstantial evidence may be more certain, satisfying, and persuasive than direct evidence." State v. Jackson, 57 Ohio St.3d 29, 38, 565 N.E.2d 549 (1991).
{¶ 37} Here, the State's evidence demonstrated that Donna and Walter had a difficult and volatile relationship, and by July 2019, Donna had come to fear him. Between July 2019 and the February 2020 murder, Donna had contacted the police several times due to violence and threats of violence by Walter. In one text, Donna indicated that Walter had threatened her with a knife. Donna had attempted to kick him out of the house, and the two had argued repeatedly over Walter's unemployment, drug use, and unauthorized use of her car. Donna continued to express her fear of him in the days prior to the murder.
{¶ 38} Donna had again reported Walter to the police on the morning of February 12, 2020. After Walter was served with the complaint shortly before 11:00 a.m., Donna expressed apprehension about going back into her house. Within minutes, Walter followed her inside. Donna was killed sometime between her last conversation with Doreen at approximately 11:15 a.m. and when she was discovered by Keener shortly after 2:00 p.m. Based on Donna's lack of responsiveness to Doreen's efforts to contact her and the paramedic's assessment, the jury could have reasonably concluded that Donna was killed prior to 1:00 p.m. There was no evidence that anyone other than Walter was at the home during that time or that anyone other than Walter potentially had had the opportunity or reason to kill her.
{¶ 39} The condition of the house also supported the conclusion that someone close to Donna had committed the murder. Although there was substantial damage to doors in the house, the damage was not new and there were no signs of forced entry. The only signs of struggle were in Donna's bedroom. The murder weapon was the same brand as knives in the kitchen, and the only open kitchen drawer contained some of those knives.
{¶ 40} Finally, Walter's own conduct and statements on the day of and following the murder further supported the jury's verdict. When he was arrested, Walter sang that he had killed his mother, his best friend; at that point, no one had told him that Donna had been murdered. In June 2020, Walter told Marlow that his mother had been beaten and stabbed; Detective Waymire indicated that the fact Donna had been beaten was never released to the public. Walter had changed his shirt between being served with the complaint and being arrested on February 12, 2020, a fact he later denied. Although he generally had poor hygiene and unclean hands, his hands were "extremely clean" when he was apprehended that day; Sergeant Hesler noticed that the upstairs bathroom in Donna's home smelled as if someone had recently bathed. Walter initially told Detective Waymire that he had left the residence and gone to Drexel. In a later interview, he told her that he had returned home before noon and found his mother deceased, but he never called the police or mentioned his mother in his subsequent conversation with Doreen.
{¶ 41} As noted by defense counsel in his closing argument, no forensic evidence linked Walter to the crime. Although numerous swabs were taken from Donna's home and her vehicle and various items were collected, the laboratory testing of the items did not implicate Walter. A blood stain on Walter's orange t-shirt, which he was wearing when he was arrested, was matched to Walter himself. The blood on the handle of the murder weapon was matched to Donna. Many of the swabs and items failed to indicate the presence of blood. Walter's DNA was found inside work gloves, but there was no indication the gloves had been used by the perpetrator. Walter's fingerprints were also found on credit cards recovered from Donna's vehicle, but there was no evidence that he had taken them as part of the murder. Counsel emphasized that fingernail scrapings taken from Donna showed a mixed DNA profile, but Walter was excluded as a possible contributor. Walter had no injuries when he was arrested.
{¶ 42} It was the province of the jury, as the trier of fact, to assess the witnesses' credibility and determine whether the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Walter committed the murder. In reaching its verdict, the jury was free to believe all, part, or none of each witness's testimony. State v. Peterson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29061, 2021 -Ohio-3947, ¶ 27. Although there was some evidence (such as the lack of forensic evidence) that could have led the jury to question Walter's culpability, the State presented substantial circumstantial evidence of his guilt. We cannot conclude that the jury lost its way when it determined, based on the evidence presented, that the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Walter committed the murder.
{¶ 43} Walter's sixth assignment of error is overruled.
III. Motion to Suppress Walter's Statements
{¶ 44} In his third assignment of error, Walter contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the statements he made on February 12, 2020, while inside a police cruiser. Walter's motion to suppress had addressed five distinct interactions with the police, but he does not challenge the trial court's suppression ruling as to the other four interactions.
{¶ 45} In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the United States Supreme Court outlined procedural safeguards needed for securing the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. "Miranda requires police to give a suspect certain prescribed warnings before custodial interrogation commences and provides that if the warnings are not given, any statements elicited from the suspect through police interrogation in that circumstance must be suppressed." State v. Petitjean, 140 Ohio App.3d 517, 523, 748 N.E.2d 133 (2d Dist.2000). "If a suspect provides responses while in custody without having first been informed of his or her Miranda rights, the responses may not be admitted at trial as evidence of guilt." Cleveland v. Oles, 152 Ohio St.3d 1, 2017-Ohio-5834, 92 N.E.3d 810, ¶ 9, citing Miranda at 479.
{¶ 46} "An individual is in custody when there has been a formal arrest or a restraint of freedom of movement such that a reasonable man would believe that he is under arrest." State v. Wenzler, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2003-CA-16, 2004-Ohio-1811, ¶ 15, citing State v. Biros, 78 Ohio St.3d 426, 440, 678 N.E.2d 891; State v. Hudson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29333, 2022-Ohio-3253, ¶ 32.
{¶ 47} " 'Interrogation' includes express questioning as well as 'any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.'" State v. Strozier, 172 Ohio App.3d 780, 2007-Ohio-4575, 876 N.E.2d 1304, ¶ 20 (2d Dist.), quoting Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980). "Interrogation" must reflect "a measure of compulsion above and beyond that inherent in custody itself." Innis at 300.
{¶ 48} "Police officers are not responsible for unforeseeable incriminating responses." State v. Waggoner, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21245, 2006-Ohio-844, ¶ 14; Strozier at ¶ 20. "A suspect who volunteers information, and who is not even asked any questions, is not subject to a custodial interrogation and is not entitled to Miranda warnings." State v. Fair, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24120, 2011-Ohio-3330, ¶ 39, citing State v. McGuire, 80 Ohio St.3d 390, 401, 686 N.E.2d 1112 (1997); State v. Hall, 2018-Ohio-2321, 114 N.E.3d 730, ¶ 37 (2d Dist.).
{¶ 49} The State's evidence at the suppression hearing established that on February 12, 2020, Officer Collins was sent to Donna's residence to assist with a homicide investigation. While there, Sergeant Hesler told him to go to the Meijer store in Englewood to pick up Walter, who was in the custody of the Englewood police. Officer Collins testified that he was instructed not to speak with Walters at all. When Officer Collins arrived at the store, Walter was handcuffed and seated in an Englewood cruiser. Collins placed Walter in his own marked cruiser and transported him to the Montgomery County Jail. The officer did not provide Miranda warnings to Walter.
{¶ 50} Walter made incriminating statements to Officer Collins while in the officer's cruiser. However, Collins did not ask Walter any questions to elicit those statements, and he did not respond to what Walter said. Officer Collins testified that he did not question Walter in any way and did not do anything to elicit Walter's statements. Collins's cruiser video (State's Exhibit 1) corroborated his testimony.
{¶ 51} The trial court found that Officer Collins did not interrogate Walter and, instead, Walter made spontaneous voluntary statements while in the back of Officer Collins's cruiser. Upon review, we similarly conclude that the statements were not the product of police interrogation and therefore were not obtained in violation of Miranda. The trial court did not err in denying Walter's motion to suppress the volunteered statements that he made to Officer Collins in the cruiser.
{¶ 52} In his appellate brief, Walter acknowledges that spontaneous statements by a suspect who is not being interrogated do not fall within Miranda. He states, however, that "[i]t is [his] position that Miranda warnings should be given to a suspect in custody even in the absence of questioning or interrogation." He therefore asks us to reconsider our prior case law that Miranda warnings are not required in this circumstance.
{¶ 53} We find no basis to revisit our prior rulings on this issue. Our case law on spontaneous volunteered statements by a suspect is based on binding precedent from the Ohio Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. As an intermediate court of appeals, this court must continue to follow the precedent established by those higher courts. See, e.g., State v. Simpson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28558, 2020-Ohio-2961, ¶ 20; State v. White, 110 Ohio App.3d 347, 356, 674 N.E.2d 405 (4th Dist.1996).
{¶ 54} Walter's third assignment of error is overruled.
IV. Evidentiary Rulings
{¶ 55} In his first assignment of error, Walter claims that the trial court erred in overruling his motion in limine regarding the State's use of Evid.R. 803(3) statements in its case-in-chief. His second assignment of error raises a similar claim regarding Evid.R. 404(B) evidence. We will address them in reverse order.
{¶ 56} "A decision on a motion in limine is a tentative, interlocutory, precautionary ruling by the trial court on the admissibility of evidence; as such, it cannot serve as the basis for an assignment of error on appeal." State v. Tyra, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27040, 2017-Ohio-313, ¶ 28. Failure to object at trial based on the disposition made in a preliminary motion in limine constitutes a waiver of any challenge. State v. Robinson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29272, 2022-Ohio-2896, ¶ 15.
{¶ 57} In this case, defense counsel consistently objected to the admission of the State's Evid.R. 803(3) and 404(b) evidence throughout the trial. Accordingly, Walter's challenges to the Evid.R. 803(3) and 404(B) evidence have not been waived, and we will construe his assignments of error as challenging the admission of that evidence at trial.
{¶ 58} A trial court has broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence, and its exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Hunt, 2d Dist. Darke No. 2018-CA-9, 2019-Ohio-2352, ¶ 27. A trial court abuses its discretion if it makes an unreasonable, unconscionable, or arbitrary decision. Id.
{¶ 59} "When engaging in this gatekeeper role regarding the admissibility of evidence, the trial court must determine if potential evidence is relevant. To be relevant, evidence must have a 'tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.' Evid.R. 401. In other words, there must be some probative value to the evidence. Generally, relevant evidence is admissible. Evid.R. 402. However, even if evidence is relevant, it can become inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or of misleading the jury. Evid.R. 403(A)." State v. Robinson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29272, 2022-Ohio-2896, ¶ 18.
A. Other Acts Evidence under Evid.R. 404(B)
{¶ 60} In his second assignment of error, Walter argues that the trial court erred in allowing the State to present evidence of his violence and threats of violence against Donna during the year preceding the murder. He argues that the trial court did not employ the correct legal analysis in overruling his motion in limine and that it failed to give a proper limiting instruction at trial.
{¶ 61} "Evid.R. 404(B) categorically prohibits evidence of a defendant's other acts when its only value is to show that the defendant has the character or propensity to commit a crime." State v. Smith, 162 Ohio St.3d 353, 2020-Ohio-4441, 165 N.E.3d 1123, ¶ 36. Nevertheless, evidence of a defendant's other crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admitted for other purposes, "such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident." Evid.R. 404(B)(2). "The key is that the evidence must prove something other than the defendant's disposition to commit certain acts. Thus, while evidence showing the defendant's character or propensity to commit crimes or acts is forbidden, evidence of other acts is admissible when the evidence is probative of a separate, nonpropensity-based issue." State v. Hartman, 161 Ohio St.3d 214, 2020-Ohio-4440, 161 N.E.3d 651, ¶ 22.
{¶ 62} The Supreme Court of Ohio has put forth a three-step analysis for a trial court to use in determining the admissibility of other acts evidence. State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521, 2012-Ohio-5695, 983 N.E.2d 1278, ¶ 20. "The first step is to consider whether the other acts evidence is relevant to making any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Id., citing Evid.R. 401. Next, the trial court must determine "whether the evidence is presented to prove a person's character to show conduct in conformity therewith or whether it is presented for a legitimate other purpose." State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85, 2018-Ohio-5205, 123 N.E.3d 955, ¶ 139. "The nonpropensity purpose for which the evidence is offered must go to a 'material' issue that is actually in dispute between the parties." Hartman at ¶ 27, citing Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 686, 108 S.Ct. 1496, 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988). Finally, the last step is "to consider whether the probative value of the other acts evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." Williams at ¶ 20.
{¶ 63} We have stated that "[evidence of a defendant's threats, violence, or other behavior in the months preceding a murder is probative of the defendant's motive or intent." State v. White, 2015-Ohio-3512, 37 N.E.3d 1271, ¶ 33 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Nields, 93 Ohio St.3d 6, 22, 752 N.E.2d 859 (2001). However, "an act too distant in time has no probative value to the charged crime." Id. The defendant's other act "must have such a temporal, modal and situational relationship with the acts constituting the crime charged that evidence of the other acts discloses purposeful action in the commission of the offense in question." State v. Snowden, 49 Ohio App.2d 7, 10, 359 N.E.2d 87 (1st Dist.1976), citing State v. Burson, 38 Ohio St.2d 157, 159, 311 N.E.2d 526 (1974).
{¶ 64} "The admissibility of other-acts evidence pursuant to Evid.R. 404(B) is a question of law. The court is precluded from admitting improper character evidence under Evid.R. 404(B), but it has discretion to allow other-acts evidence that is admissible for a permissible purpose." (Citation omitted.) State v. Graham, 164 Ohio St.3d 187, 2020-Ohio-6700, 172 N.E.3d 841, ¶ 72, citing Hartman at ¶ 22, citing Williams at ¶ 17.
{¶ 65} Here, Walter challenges the State's evidence of five instances prior to the murder that reflected Walter's threatening and violent behavior toward his mother and illustrated the sources of conflict between them. First, Officer Collins testified that he took a written statement from Donna on August 13, 2019. In that statement, Donna wrote, in part:
Taylor Walter, my son, wanted to use one of my vehicles and wanted money and I said no. He threatened to take my vehicle and money by force and I stayed out in car for almost 2 hours[.] [W]hen I finally came back into the house I locked myself in my bedroom. He the[n] proceeded to bust down my bedroom door to take the items by force. That's when I called 911. He threatened to harm me if I didn't give him the money and car. He has a
long drug history and needs serious help. I believe he's not only dangerous to myself by [sic] also to himself.Tr. 614-615; State's Ex. 130. Officer Collins read the redacted statement at trial.
{¶ 66} Second, on November 21, 2019, Perry Township Officer Matthew Guillozet responded to a bank parking lot and spoke with Donna and Walter. Donna's written statement for that incident, which the officer read for the jury, stated:
We returned home from dinner and when I parked the car he started getting crazy. Said he needed money to go to Georgia to a bank to retrieve money he had waiting there. I realized he was on drugs and he was going to try to get money from me at that point. I went into the house and he started slamming things around and threatening me. At one point he slapped me in the face. Then he calmed down for a bit and then it started again. He wanted me to go and get him money so he could leave and go to Georgia. I told him I didn't have any money and that I didn't get paid until Friday. I was in the living room and trying to decide how to escape. I had locked my purse and keys to my car in the barn and put my barn key in my shoe earlier. I was able to get out of the house but not quick enough to get into my car and leave before he blocked me from doing that. We ended up back in the house where he slapped my face again and kicked me in my breast. I then sat there awhile and we argued, but he was making no sense whatsoever, so I just went along. Then he took my phone in order to make me go up town to get money. So we drove up town and went to the ATM, but I put
in the wrong number so that the receipt would say denied, which it did. Then we drove to Speedway and I jumped out of the car. He had my camcorder and was videoing. A police officer drove in the parking lot and [Walter] got out and told me not to make a scene, but I told him I was. Then he got out of car and went over and spoke to the officer. I proceded [sic] to leave and go home. He walked home from Speedway and I had locked myself in my bedroom. He still had my phone. He didn't bother me the rest of the night. Then in the morning I went down and he was sleeping on the couch and I tried to get my phone back. His phone was laying there so I picked it up and took it to my room and locked the door. He came up immediately and said we're going to get money and I said ok. But he didn't believe me and busted down my door. I gave him his phone back and we headed for the ATM. When we got to the ATM I turned the car off and jumped out. That's when I went to the laundromat and asked to use someone's phone and called for help.Tr. 449-450; State's Ex. 44.
{¶ 67} Third, Chief Littleton testified to his interactions with Donna on the morning of February 12, 2020, prior to the murder. During his testimony, the State played a cruiser video showing Donna's conversation with Littleton after he served the complaint on Walter.