State v. Haywood
99 N.E.3d 916
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On April 18, 2013, four people were found shot to death in the basement of an Akron apartment. Police suspected a robbery/burglary connected to a large heroin delivery the night before.
- Deshanon Haywood and Derrick Brantley were investigated; cell‑phone records and messages linked both to the area and to incriminating messages from Brantley to Haywood around the time of the killings.
- Haywood was indicted on multiple counts including aggravated murder, aggravated felony murder (with robbery, kidnapping, burglary predicates), aggravated robbery, kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and a weapons disability; many counts included firearm or capital specifications. Trials and pretrial proceedings were protracted (including Brantley’s earlier trial and mitigation), a judge recusal, a quashed venire, and a retrial with a special prosecutor.
- At retrial the jury convicted Haywood of complicity to commit aggravated felony murder (for two victims), complicity to commit aggravated robbery and kidnappings, and related capital specifications; he was sentenced to life with parole eligibility after 35 years.
- On appeal Haywood raised ten assignments of error (concerning juror selection/venire/quash, prosecutorial misconduct, judicial recusal, Miranda/non‑Mirandized statements, sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence, hearsay admission, and cumulative error).
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument (Haywood) | State's / Respondent's Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether delaying impaneling and later quashing the first jury violated due process / double jeopardy | State manufactured bias claims, induced mistrial/quash to avoid an unfavorable jury; delay and quash prejudiced Haywood and barred retrial | Delay was a brief, legitimate continuance to consider affidavit of disqualification; quash was within trial court discretion given potential taint | Court affirmed: continuance appropriate; quash not an abuse of discretion; double jeopardy not implicated because jury was never sworn (jeopardy not attached) |
| Whether prosecutor committed misconduct by pursuing judge disqualification or otherwise provoking mistrial | Alleged fabricated or tactical bias allegations by State to avoid the selected jury | Record shows conduct complained of actually occurred and State acted promptly and reasonably; not tactical manipulation | Court rejected prosecutorial‑misconduct claim on these facts |
| Whether the first judge’s voluntary recusal is reviewable | Haywood argued recusal was an abuse of discretion | Disqualification determinations lie with the Ohio Chief Justice, not the court of appeals | Court declined to review recusal issue for lack of jurisdiction |
| Admissibility of Haywood’s in‑custody, non‑Mirandized statements; right to counsel/self‑incrimination | Statements were obtained in custody without Miranda; should have been suppressed | Haywood failed to identify which statements were at issue or show prejudice; record insufficient to adjudicate the claim | Court declined to consider because appellant didn’t identify the statements or show prejudice; assignment overruled |
| Sufficiency of evidence for complicity convictions | Mere presence is insufficient; convictions lack proof of accomplice intent | State offered circumstantial and direct evidence (cell records, texts from Brantley, Haywood’s thumbprint at scene, witnesses placing Haywood with Brantley near scene) showing aiding/abetting and intent | Court held evidence sufficient for a rational jury to find Haywood supported/encouraged/assisted Brantley; Crim.R. 29 denial affirmed |
| Manifest weight / cumulative error challenge | Verdicts are against manifest weight; cumulative errors deprived him of fair trial | Appellant offered no targeted manifest‑weight analysis; appellate review requires argument pointing to unreliable evidence; court found no multiple reversible errors | Court rejected manifest weight and cumulative‑error claims |
| Admission of statements by victim (K.W.) through a witness (A.T.) and impeachment | Statements were improper hearsay and State improperly impeached its own witness | Statements fit a hearsay exception (present sense impression) and/or prior consistent/inconsistent statement rules; impeachment/use was for substantive proof and weight issues | Court found admission and impeachment proper (or at least not an abuse of discretion); evidentiary rulings affirmed |
| Prosecutorial misconduct for commenting on post‑Miranda silence and references to prior proceedings | State improperly used post‑Miranda silence and prior proceedings to prejudice jury | Any improper comments were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming circumstantial evidence; references to prior proceedings were not attributable to State misconduct alone (defense also opened the topic) | Court held any error harmless; no reversal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Glover, 35 Ohio St.3d 18 (1988) (mistrial analysis balancing defendant’s right to a particular tribunal against public interest in fair trials)
- Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684 (1949) (defendant’s right to a particular tribunal may be subordinated in some instances)
- State v. Gustafson, 76 Ohio St.3d 425 (1996) (jeopardy in a jury trial attaches when jury is impaneled and sworn)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240 (2001) (complicity defined: must show defendant supported, assisted, encouraged, cooperated with, advised or incited principal)
- State v. Herring, 94 Ohio St.3d 246 (2002) (complicity convictions permitted)
- State v. Williams, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 09CA009679 (2010) (discusses present sense impression hearsay exception)