State v. Jones
2021 Ohio 3050
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- December 2018: two separate nighttime home invasions/sexual assaults in the Salem Village neighborhood of Trotwood (victims A.W. and I.J.) with similar facts (young Black male intruder, gun, condom already on, demanded money, gold Trojan Magnum wrapper recovered at both scenes).
- Canine track led officers to a nearby house; neighbors identified William D. Jones as a person of interest. On December 10 officers brought Jones to the station (apparently unhandcuffed); he consented to a buccal swab; BCI later matched his DNA to a Magnum condom wrapper from I.J.’s home.
- On January 7 Jones was Mirandized, gave inculpatory statements admitting recent sexual encounters in the neighborhood; search warrant of his home recovered gold Magnum wrappers by his bed. Jones (then 16) was indicted on 13 first-degree felony counts with firearm specifications.
- At a suppression hearing the trial court suppressed statements from the December 10 interview (finding custody/Miranda issue) but denied suppression of the December 10 DNA (consent valid) and denied suppression of the January 7 statements (valid waiver). Trial resulted in convictions on all counts and a 39-year aggregate sentence.
- On appeal Jones raised four issues: (1) suppression/illegal seizure and DNA exclusion; (2) denial of motion in limine to exclude fingerprint evidence; (3) failure to give an Evid.R. 404(B) instruction; and (4) juror misconduct/mistrial. The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of December 10 seizure and admissibility of DNA (fruit of poisonous tree) | State: encounter was consensual or, if not, Jones voluntarily and knowingly consented to buccal swab; consent dissociated any taint. | Jones: was illegally seized/held at pickup and the December 10 DNA was the product of that illegal detention and must be suppressed. | Court: record does not show unlawful seizure; even if seizure occurred, ~30-minute interval, explanation and signed consent form, and lack of coercion show consent was independent — DNA admissible. |
| Motion in limine re: fingerprint evidence | State: fingerprint evidence admissible and defendant ultimately stipulated. | Jones: trial court erred in overruling motion in limine; evidence prejudicial and should have been excluded. | Court: motion in limine was interlocutory; defense failed to object or proffer at trial (and stipulated), so issue waived except plain error — none found. |
| Failure to give Evid.R. 404(B) instruction | State: no objection was made to jury instructions; no requested 404(B) instruction. | Jones: court erred by failing to give 404(B) instruction, affecting fairness. | Court: defense expressly declined to object and made no request; claim waived except plain error — none found. |
| Juror misconduct / motion for mistrial (Juror #9 reading/sleeping/discussing) | State: court cured with admonition, monitored juror, later removed Juror #9; curative instructions sufficient. | Jones: juror slept, read, and discussed evidence, compromising impartiality; mistrial required. | Court: defense (on Jones’s instruction) initially declined removal and later accepted the court’s remedial option; invited-error doctrine applies — no reversible error; mistrial denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980) (tests seizure by whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (voluntariness of consent is determined from totality of the circumstances)
- United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (U.S. 1976) (Fourth Amendment protects against arbitrary interference; discusses types of encounters)
- State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.2d 120 (Ohio 1980) (consent after unlawful detention must show reasonable person would believe they could refuse and leave)
- State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994) (government bears burden to prove consent was freely and voluntarily given)
- United States v. Delancy, 502 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2007) (factors for when consent following unlawful police action is an independent act; short interval, lack of coercion, and signing consent form weigh toward dissipation of taint)
- State v. Brinkley, 105 Ohio St.3d 231 (Ohio 2005) (trial court's factual findings at suppression hearing receive deference; appellate court independently reviews legal conclusions)