State v. Thompson-Shabazz
2017 Ohio 7434
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Tabaree L. Thompson‑Shabazz lived with Sheila Gibson; police had previously returned an intoxicated Thompson‑Shabazz to her home on multiple occasions. Neighbors became concerned when they had not seen Gibson for days.
- On July 13, 2014, officers performing a welfare check found Gibson dead upstairs from multiple blunt/sharp chop‑type head injuries; police arrested Thompson‑Shabazz. He was later indicted for purposeful murder, felony murder (proximate result of felonious assault), and felonious assault, with repeat‑violent‑offender specifications.
- Pretrial suppression hearings addressed (a) statements made by Thompson‑Shabazz in two police cruisers and (b) evidence recovered after officers entered Gibson’s home; the trial court denied suppression.
- At trial the jury convicted Thompson‑Shabazz of felony murder and felonious assault and acquitted him of purposeful murder; the court found the repeat‑offender specs true, merged counts, and sentenced him to 15 years‑to‑life plus a consecutive 10 years.
- Key evidentiary points: (1) neighbors testified Gibson was unusually absent and her mail remained; (2) cruiser recordings captured voluntary statements to Officer Brienza and responses to Officer Dilley while in custody outside the home; (3) DNA/blood matching placed Gibson’s blood on defendant’s clothing and vest; (4) 333‑COPS calls from Gibson reporting harassment; and (5) a theft complaint by Gibson against defendant and his subsequent brief arrest two days before her death.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Thompson‑Shabazz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of statements to Officer Brienza in cruiser | Statements were volunteered, noncustodial and not the product of interrogation | Statements should be suppressed as obtained in police custody/without Miranda | Court: Admissible — casual, spontaneous, noninterrogative; Miranda not implicated |
| Admissibility of statements to Officer Dilley in cruiser outside home | Questions were narrowly tailored to locate a potentially endangered victim; public‑safety/exigent‑circumstances exception to Miranda applies | Statements were custodial and should have required Miranda warnings; suppress | Court: Admissible under public‑safety (Quarles) exception; officers reasonably feared danger to Gibson |
| Admission of Gibson’s 333‑COPS call (July 12) | Call was nontestimonial and admissible as present‑sense impression/excited utterance; relevant to ongoing emergency and motive/context | Admission violated Confrontation Clause and unfairly prejudiced defendant | Court: Admissible — nontestimonial, fell within hearsay exceptions and primary purpose was seeking assistance |
| Admission of theft complaint and arrest evidence | Evidence explains police broadcast/arrest and is relevant to motive and immediate background of events (Evid.R. 404(B)) | Evidence was unduly prejudicial propensity evidence and should be excluded | Court: Admissible for limited purpose (context/motive); limiting instruction given; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings and voluntariness principles)
- New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (public‑safety exception to Miranda)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (definition of "interrogation" for Miranda purposes)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (distinguishing testimonial from nontestimonial statements; primary purpose test)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial hearsay without cross‑examination)
- Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564 (voluntariness standard for confessions)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (manifest‑weight standard in Ohio)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sufficiency standard in Ohio)