STATE OF OHIO v. TIFFANY GARDNER
No. 111506
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, County of Cuyahoga
February 2, 2023
[Cite as State v. Gardner, 2023-Ohio-307.]
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION; JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
Appearances:
Michael C. O‘Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrew F. Rogalski and Caroline Nelson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.
Kelley & Ferraro, L.L.P., and Carl W. Sullivan, for appellant.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Tiffany Gardner appeals from her judgment of conviction, which was rendered after a jury trial. After a thorough review of the facts and pertinent law, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural History
{¶ 2} In May 2021, Gardner was charged in a seven-count indictment with two counts of aggravated murder, three counts of murder, and one count each of aggravated robbery and felonious assault.
{¶ 3} Prior to trial, plaintiff-appellee the state of Ohio dismissed the two counts of aggravated murder and one of the murder counts, all of which included “purposely” as an element of the crimes. The counts that remained for trial were two counts murder, unclassified felonies, one a violation of
{¶ 4} The charges resulted from the April 14, 2021 fatal beating by two unknown male assailants of the victim, 70-year-old Leonard Craddock. The state‘s theory of the case was that Gardner was an aider and abettor to the crimes. The following facts were established by the state‘s witnesses at trial.
{¶ 5} On the day of the incident, Gardner was shopping at the Family Dollar on Euclid Avenue in East Cleveland. The store had surveillance cameras that captured some of the ensuing incident.
{¶ 7} Shortly after Gardner left, Craddock approached the Family Dollar, retrieved the shopping cart used by Gardner, saw the pouch of cash in the cart, and put it in his waistband. Craddock then shopped in the store.
{¶ 8} Meanwhile, Gardner apparently realized that she left her cash and went back into Family Dollar, where she spoke with the store manager. The store manager viewed footage of a security video, on which she saw Craddock put the pouch of cash in his waistband. The manager told Gardner what she saw on the video.
{¶ 9} More video surveillance showed Gardner confront Craddock. Gardner was able to get her pouch of cash back from Craddock. After that confrontation, Craddock began walking across the street toward another store, AutoZone. According to the Family Dollar manager, Gardner was “screaming” and “hollering” as she got in her car and “sped off.” A witness testified that he saw Gardner on her cell phone and heard her “ranting” about someone taking her money.
{¶ 10} Gardner drove to the AutoZone, where Craddock was, and video recorded herself confronting Craddock outside of the store. The video shows Gardner exiting her vehicle, approaching Craddock, and repeatedly questioning him
{¶ 11} Craddock entered the AutoZone and Gardner followed him. Witnesses inside AutoZone testified that Gardner was “angry,” “chasing [Craddock] aggressively,” “hitting him on the head” with the wrist wallet and yelling at him about stealing from her. Meanwhile, according to the witnesses, Craddock was “trying to get away from [Gardner],” and was not fighting back. One witness described Craddock as “crunched over” as Gardner hit him. Gardner was heard saying, “[I]f I was a man I would do some real damage.”
{¶ 12} The AutoZone employees told both Gardner and Craddock to leave the store. Gardner initially left, but Craddock remained, as one witness described, “to catch his breath.” Gardner re-entered the store twice. A witness testified that “[i]t was like she was making sure he was still in the store.” According to the witness, when Gardner came back into the store Craddock would start hyperventilating.
{¶ 13} Outside video surveillance showed a car drive onto the AutoZone parking lot and two men exiting the car. Gardner walked by the two men and then turned around and started talking to them. After their conversation, Gardner and the two men went into the AutoZone. According to one witness in the store, the men referred to Gardner as “auntie” and made a comment about her “yelling and ranting”
{¶ 14} The AutoZone witnesses testified that within a few minutes the two men came back into the store with Gardner. One witness testified that Gardner looked directly at Craddock and then left the store. The men then went straight to Craddock and repeatedly demanded that he come outside with them. Craddock refused. Eventually, the two men “grabbed” and “dragged” Craddock out of the store.
{¶ 15} The witnesses testified that once the two men had Craddock outside, they brutally attacked him. They described the men as kicking, punching, and stomping Craddock. One witness testified that “there was no match, it was like [they were] beating a tiny baby.”
{¶ 16} After the attack, Craddock attempted to stand but collapsed to the ground. Emergency personnel were called. When they arrived, they pronounced Craddock dead at the scene.
{¶ 17} The video surveillance demonstrated that Gardner remained at the scene for 12 minutes, the time it took the two men to confront and attack Craddock. Gardner left the scene at the same time the two men left.
{¶ 18} An autopsy was performed on Craddock and revealed that he had seven rib fractures, some of which were displaced fractures. The medical examiner determined that the fractures punctured Craddock‘s right lung. As the air built up in Craddock‘s cavity, it exerted pressure around the lung, making breathing
{¶ 19} Gardner was subsequently arrested. She maintained that she did not know or have any relationship with the two men who beat Craddock. The state presented some of Gardner‘s jail calls to dispute her contention.
{¶ 20} During the calls, Gardner stated that an individual she referred to as “Apple Head” better help pay her bond or she was going to “sing like a bird.” Gardner learned that “Apple Head” was complaining about paying $5,000 or $10,000 for her bond, to which she responded, “once it hits, it‘s a million dollars for both of them.” Gardner also stated that she was not going “to do life” for anybody, and if “push come[s] to shove,” she would “make sure they pop up.” Further, Gardner was recorded saying that Craddock “caused his own s***, he took s*** from me.”
{¶ 21} Law enforcement obtained a buccal swab from Gardner. They were unable to link Gardner‘s DNA to Craddock‘s body or the crime scene.
{¶ 22} The defense did not present any witnesses and at the close of the state‘s case made a Crim.R. 29 motion for judgment of acquittal. The trial court denied the motion. The court instructed the jury, including an instruction on complicity without objection from the defense.
{¶ 24} The trial court merged the murder and felonious assault counts for the purpose of sentencing and the state elected to proceed on the murder count. The trial court sentenced Gardner to life with the possibility of parole after 15 years.
{¶ 25} Gardner presents the following assignments of error for our review:
- Appellant‘s conviction is not sustained by sufficient evidence.
- The jury‘s verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Appellant was unfairly prejudiced by the introduction of improper and irrelevant evidence.
- Appellant was prejudiced by trial counsel‘s ineffective assistance of counsel.
Law and Analysis
Evidence Sufficient to Support Conviction; Conviction not Against Manifest Weight of the Evidence
{¶ 26} In her first assignment of error, Gardner contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. In her second assignment of error, she contends that the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We combine these assignments of error because they are interrelated.
{¶ 27} “A claim of insufficient evidence raises the question whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict as a matter of law.”
{¶ 28} A manifest weight challenge and a sufficiency of the evidence challenge are two distinct challenges to the evidence presented. State v. Miree, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110749, 2022-Ohio-3664, ¶ 30, citing State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382, 2007-Ohio-2202, 865 N.E.2d 1264, ¶ 25. A challenge to the manifest weight of the evidence “involves the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence.” State v. Harris, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109060, 2021-Ohio-856, ¶ 32, quoting Thompkins at id. Weight of the evidence examines “the evidence‘s effect of inducing belief.” Harris at id., quoting Wilson at id., citing Thompkins at 386-387. In reviewing a manifest-weight claim, the court must consider all the evidence in the record, the reasonable inferences drawn from it, and
{¶ 29} Although sufficiency and manifest weight are different legal concepts, manifest weight may subsume sufficiency in conducting the analysis; that is, a finding that a conviction is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence necessarily includes a finding of sufficiency. State v. McCrary, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP-881, 2011-Ohio-3161, ¶ 11, citing State v. Braxton, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP-725, 2005-Ohio-2198, ¶ 15. “[T]hus, a determination that a conviction is supported by the weight of the evidence will also be dispositive of the issue of sufficiency.” Id. Manifest weight of the evidence is dispositive here.
{¶ 30} Gardner was convicted of felony murder under
{¶ 32} To establish that a defendant aided and abetted a crime, the evidence must prove that the defendant “supported, assisted, encouraged, cooperated with, advised, or incited the principal in the commission of the crime, and that the defendant shared the criminal intent of the principal.” State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240, 754 N.E.2d 796 (2001), syllabus. “Thus, the state must prove two criminal intents for the accomplice: first that the accomplice had the same criminal intent as the principal offender and, second, that the accomplice also intended to help the principal commit the offense.” State v. Middleton, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-05-1162, 2006-Ohio-6634, ¶ 14, citing State v. Mendoza, 137 Ohio App.3d 336, 343, 738 N.E.2d 822 (3d Dist.2000). In Mendoza, the Third District interpreted the terms “aid” and “abet” as requiring a showing that the defendant directed his or her conduct toward the goal of the principal‘s criminal offense. Id. at 344-345.
{¶ 33} This court has held that “[t]o be convicted as an aider and abettor such person must: (1) engage in an overt act ‘with a view’ towards producing the result for which he [or she] is held; and (2) such person must himself [or herself] possess the felonious intent that the principal possesses.” State v. Boigner, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 34514, 1976 Ohio App. LEXIS 7630, *3 (Mar. 25, 1976),
{¶ 34} Ohio law is well-settled that, to convict an offender of complicity, the state need not establish the principal‘s identity. Rather,
{¶ 35} Gardner contends that “[t]his is a mere presence case, end of story.” It is true that mere presence at the crime scene is insufficient to convict a defendant under a complicity theory. State v. High, 2018-Ohio-2236, 115 N.E.3d 702, ¶ 23 (8th Dist.). However, “‘participation in criminal intent may be inferred from presence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense is committed.‘” State v. Cartellone, 3 Ohio App.3d 145, 150, 444 N.E.2d 68 (8th Dist.1981), quoting
{¶ 36} There is nothing incredible about the jury‘s finding that Gardner was complicitous in the assault and murder of Craddock. Gardner‘s contention that all the evidence showed was that she was upset about her money being taken is belied by the record. Rather, the record demonstrates that, as the state maintains, Gardner “was at the center of the conflict from the start to finish.”
{¶ 37} After Gardner confronted Craddock at Family Dollar and got her pouch of money back, she followed him to AutoZone where she confronted him again and assaulted him herself, albeit not to the extent that the two males did. She was overheard telling Craddock that “if I was a man I would do some real damage.” Gardner was also seen talking on her cell phone and overheard “ranting” during the call about someone stealing her money.
{¶ 38} Shortly thereafter, the two males arrived and Gardner talked to them before all three of them went into the AutoZone where Craddock was. A witness in the store testified as to what could reasonably be construed as Gardner identifying Craddock to the two men. There was also witness testimony that the men referred to Gardner as “auntie,” which further demonstrated that Gardner and the men knew
{¶ 39} After her arrest, Gardner was recorded on jail calls saying that she was going to “sing like a bird” and it was going to be “a million dollars for both of them” if a particular individual did not help with her bond money. A reasonable inference could be made from this evidence that Gardner knew who the assailants were. A reasonable inference that Gardner possessed the intent of the assailants could be made from Gardner‘s statement on the calls that Craddock “caused his own s***, he took s*** from me.”
{¶ 40} The evidence the state presented was compelling and was not lessened, as Gardner contends, by the lack of Gardner‘s DNA at the crime scene or forensic evidence from her phone showing who she was talking to when she was overheard complaining about her money being stolen.
{¶ 41} This is not the exceptional case where the jury lost its way. Rather, the weight of the evidence supports the conviction. Because the weight of the evidence supports the conviction, the evidence was necessarily sufficient. The first and second assignments of error are therefore overruled.
No Plain Error in Admission of Jail Calls
{¶ 42} In her third assignment of error, Gardner contends that the probative value of the jail calls was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. No objection to the calls was made at trial, and therefore we review for plain error.
{¶ 44} Trial courts have a duty “to determine whether testimony is relevant and to balance its potential probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice.” State v. Clark, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95928, 2011-Ohio-4109, ¶ 32.
{¶ 45} Statements made during jail calls can be deemed nonhearsay admissions by a party-opponent under
{¶ 46} Although the term “admission” appears to imply that an out-of-court statement must be a confession or statement against interest, “in actuality, any prior statement of a party is admissible providing it is offered against the party at trial.” State v. Baker, 137 Ohio App.3d 628, 652, 739 N.E.2d 819 (12th Dist.2000), quoting Weissenberger‘s Ohio Evidence 367, Section 801.33 (1998). Thus, there was no requirement that Gardner had to make an admission during the calls for them to be admitted under
{¶ 47} The state offered the calls as evidence to refute Gardner‘s contention that she had no connection to the two men who beat Craddock. Gardner was recorded on the calls saying that if an individual did not help with her bail money she was going to “sing like a bird” and it would be “a million for both of them.” These statements were properly admitted under
No Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
{¶ 48} For her final assignment of error, Gardner contends that she was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. According to Gardner, “[h]ad [the] jail calls not been in evidence, the jury would not have come back with a guilty verdict on any of these counts.” We disagree.
{¶ 50} As discussed, the jail calls were properly admitted under
Conclusion
{¶ 51} The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence — it demonstrated that Gardner was complicitous in the assault and murder of Craddock. Recordings of Gardner‘s jail calls were properly admitted under
{¶ 52} Judgment affirmed.
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.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, JUDGE
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J., and SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR