State v. Wainwright, 2020 Ohio 623

In the early morning of Jan. 27, 2018, Youngstown officers Edwards and Caraway approached Gerald Wainwright walking in the street, masked and carrying a book bag; he fled when the patrol car activated lights.
Wainwright entered a fenced school parking lot, discarded his bag, produced a Kahr CW9 9mm pistol, and discharged it while running; officers returned fire during a foot pursuit and ultimately captured him in a backyard.
Three 9mm casings at the scene matched Wainwright’s gun; the pistol was recovered in the school lot and his DNA was on the handle; no police vehicle was hit; Wainwright sustained gunshot wounds.
Wainwright gave varying statements: initially denied firing, later admitted firing once into the air; he also admitted possessing the pistol while under a weapons disability.
He was convicted by a jury of two counts of felonious assault on peace officers with firearm specifications (first-degree felonies) and, after a bench trial, one count of having a weapon while under disability; sentenced to an aggregate 35 years.
On appeal Wainwright challenged (1) the trial court’s flight instruction to the jury and (2) that the felonious assault and firearm-specification convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a jury instruction on flight/consciousness of guilt was properly given	State: evidence (flight after encounter, discard of bag, later shooting) permitted instruction that flight could indicate consciousness of guilt	Wainwright: early flight began before alleged assault and was to conceal firearm (weapon-under-disability), so flight instruction was prejudicial/misleading	Court: Instruction permissible because record supported inference that later flight was motivated by consciousness of guilt; even if error, any error was harmless given evidence
Whether felonious-assault and firearm-specification verdicts were against the manifest weight of the evidence	State: officers’ consistent testimony, physical evidence (casings, gun, DNA), and Wainwright’s admissions support convictions	Wainwright: officers’ testimony had inconsistencies (number of shots, which hand, prior interview differences); he testified he fired in the air and did not aim at officers	Court: Verdicts were not against the manifest weight; credibility/resolution of conflicts were for the jury; conflicting testimony did not create a miscarriage of justice

State v. Comen, 50 Ohio St.3d 206, 553 N.E.2d 640 (1990) (trial courts must give jury instructions that are relevant and necessary)
State v. Joy, 74 Ohio St.3d 178, 657 N.E.2d 503 (1995) (jury instructions must be correct, pertinent, and timely presented)
State v. Palmer, 80 Ohio St.3d 543, 687 N.E.2d 685 (1997) (instruction supported only when record contains evidence from which reasonable minds might reach the conclusion sought)
State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 1, 679 N.E.2d 646 (1997) (flight and related conduct admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest-weight review)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967) (credibility determinations are primarily for the trier of fact)
State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67, 960 N.E.2d 995 (2011) (reaffirming deference to jury credibility findings)