State v. BaldwinState v. Baldwin
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 19, 2023
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-21-665692-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O‘Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jillian J. Piteo, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Weston Hurd, LLP, and Paul M. Shipp, for appellant.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶ 1} Brandon Baldwin appeals his conviction for the rape of a victim under the age of 13, which culminated in the imposition of a life sentence with the possibility of parole after 25 years. For the following reasons, the conviction is affirmed.
{¶ 3} Baldwin told the investigating social services personnel that he was in the house that evening and remembered seeing the victim asleep on the couch. He claims he was looking for the remote control for the television when the victim awoke.
{¶ 4} Baldwin‘s trial defense, carried over into this appeal, mostly focused on arguably irrelevant issues. Baldwin went through great lengths to elicit testimony that one of the victim‘s siblings had potentially sexually assaulted the victim or her siblings when he was six or seven years old and the victim was two years old (approximately eight years prior to Baldwin‘s sexual assault). According to Baldwin, because of the sibling‘s history, he must have been the perpetrator of the assault at issue. Baldwin also attempted to prove that the victim‘s mother was lying on the
{¶ 5} The trial court, sitting as the trier of fact, found Baldwin guilty of the rape charge but acquitted Baldwin of several gross-sexual-imposition counts pertaining to the victim and her sister. This timely appeal followed.
{¶ 6} In the first assignment of error, Baldwin claims the trial court erred by “excluding evidence of another suspect of the crime.” According to Baldwin, the victim‘s sibling was a potential suspect in light of his alleged misconduct when the sibling was six or seven years old.
{¶ 7} At trial, Baldwin repeatedly attempted to question witnesses, including the sibling, regarding the sibling‘s history with counseling and his own sexual misconduct allegations. Baldwin‘s “theory” was to blame the assault on the sibling, despite the fact that the victim expressly identified Baldwin as the perpetrator of the assault. The trial court repeatedly precluded Baldwin from pursuing that line of questioning, concluding that any past misconduct, even if accepted as true for the sake of discussion, was not relevant to the allegations pertaining to Baldwin‘s misconduct on the night in question. There was no evidence the sibling was even present at the time.
{¶ 9} As the state acknowledges, “the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense[,]” and as a result, competent, reliable evidence is admissible when that evidence is crucial to the defendant‘s claim of innocence. State v. Orr, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100841, 2014-Ohio-4680, ¶ 39, quoting Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986). That due process right is not absolute. Id., citing Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19-21, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); State v. Swann, 119 Ohio St.3d 552, 2008-Ohio-4837, 895 N.E.2d 821, ¶ 13; Cleveland v. Dexter, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107817, 2019-Ohio-4057, ¶ 35, quoting Swann at ¶ 12-13. The offender “must at least make some plausible showing of how [a witness‘s] testimony would have been both material and favorable to his defense.” Cleveland v. Alexander, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92282, 2009-Ohio-4566, ¶ 27, quoting United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867, 102 S.Ct. 3440, 73 L.Ed.2d 1193 (1982).
{¶ 10} In this case, Baldwin claims that “[c]learly, the existence of another person in the home who had previously sexually abused the girls was essential to Mr. Baldwin‘s defense.” It is far from clear how past allegations of abuse committed against other victims are relevant to the commission of the current crimes. At no time during the trial proceedings or in this appeal has Baldwin ever explained how
{¶ 11} We cannot conclude that the trial court erred in deeming the past allegations against the sibling as being irrelevant and immaterial to the defense in light of the underlying factual allegations. The first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 12} In the second assignment of error, Baldwin claims that the trial court erred by precluding him from introducing extrinsic evidence to question the veracity of the victim‘s mother‘s statements that she entered a relationship with her fiance after he reached the age of majority. According to Baldwin, the mother engaged in a conversation with another witness during trial. The mother allegedly “had been texting [the witness] and saying that she needed to make sure that [the witness] understood her relationship” with her 19-year-old fiance. When the mother
{¶ 13} Setting aside the fact that the victim‘s initial disclosure to her friend occurred almost immediately after the sexual assault and that the mother did not learn of the assault until later, “the admission or exclusion of relevant evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173, 510 N.E.2d 343 (1987), paragraph two of the syllabus. The trial court did not err by precluding Baldwin from presenting evidence of the mother‘s conduct or prior inconsistent statements.
{¶ 14} Baldwin claims the trial court erred, solely relying on
{¶ 15} Baldwin assumes the applicability of
{¶ 16} Under
{¶ 17} Mother‘s alleged statement to the other witness, inasmuch as that statement contradicted her trial testimony, is not admissible through the other witness without offering the mother the opportunity to explain or deny the statement. Under
{¶ 18} In the third and final assignment of error, Baldwin claims that a mistrial should have been granted based on the mother‘s alleged conversation with the other witness in which the mother allegedly “had been texting [the witness] and saying that she needed to make sure that [the witness] understood her relationship” with her then fiance. According to Baldwin, the mother‘s testimony that she did not start a relationship with her fiance until after the allegations of the sexual assault were disclosed to police officers was false. Based on that, the contact violated the trial court‘s instruction for witnesses to avoid discussing the case with each other.
{¶ 19} Nevertheless, the trial court denied Baldwin‘s request for a mistrial after agreeing with the state that the issue was “tangential” and not relevant to the allegations against Baldwin.
{¶ 20} Baldwin‘s sole claim in this appeal is that the mistrial was required based on the “larger question of whether the mother committed perjury during her testimony.” The mother‘s exposure to perjury charges based on her testimony regarding her relationship with her fiance has no bearing on Baldwin‘s guilt or the fairness of his trial. On this point, Baldwin‘s sole claim is that “the mother‘s illicit and illegal affair with [her fiance] took place prior to the allegations against Mr. Baldwin and caused the mother to manipulate [the victim] into accusing Mr. Baldwin of sexual” misconduct in an effort to end her marriage and pursue a relationship with her fiance. The content of the excluded testimony was limited, with mother asking the other witness whether she understood the mother‘s relationship with the fiance. There is no indication in the record that the victim ever spoke to her mother regarding the allegations until after the victim had already disclosed the assault to her friend. It is a speculative leap, with several layers of inference stacking in between, between the content of the text message and the mother contriving the events by manipulating her daughter into fabricating the
{¶ 21} A mistrial should be declared only when a fair trial is no longer possible. State v. Bolognue, 9th Dist. Summit No. 18171, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 4116, 11-12 (Sept. 10, 1997), citing State v. Stewart, 111 Ohio App.3d 525, 533, 676 N.E.2d 912 (9th Dist.1996), citing State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 59, 656 N.E.2d 623 (1995). Without more, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the potential evidence of perjury on a tangential issue unrelated to elements of the crime for which Baldwin was charged deprived him of a fair trial. A fair trial need not be a perfect one. The third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 22} Baldwin‘s conviction is affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant‘s conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, P.J., and EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., CONCUR