State v. MillsState v. Mills
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Decided: March 31, 2023
* * * * *
Kеvin J. Baxter, Erie County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kristin R. Palmer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Brett F. Murner, for appellant.
* * * * *
MAYLE, J.
{¶ 1} Following a jury trial, defendant-appellant, Shad Mills, appeals the May 13, 2022 judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, convicting him of aggravated burglary and assault. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court judgment.
{¶ 2} Shad Mills was indicted on charges of aggravated burglary, a violation of
{¶ 3} Shad Mills and A.C. have known each other for over 30 years and have been in an on-again-off-again romantic relationship. On November 12, 2020, Mills and his friend, Tim, were building a patiо in A.C.s backyard. Tim left, but A.C. invited Mills to stay to watch football and eat pizza. At some point, Mills received a call from Tim. Mills told A.C. that Tims car had broken down and asked if he could use A.C.s vehicle to go get him. A.C. agreed.
{¶ 4} At least two hours passed and Mills did not return with A.C.s vehicle and did not answer her phone calls or text messages; A.C. became agitated. When her teenaged daughter returned home from work, A.C. asked her to take her tо Tims house. Mills was there. He ran through the living room and out the door, and A.C. followed. Mills looked like he was on drugs. A.C. told him that she was there to get her vehicle and she told him to leave her alone. He gave her the car keys.
{¶ 5} Around midnight on November 13, 2020, Mills and A.C. exchanged text messages. A.C. told Mills that she did not love him anymore, did not want to be with
{¶ 6} A.C. fell asleep on her couch after texting with Mills. Later that morning, around 8:00 a.m., A.C. awoke to Mills standing over her. He grabbed her by the hair and ripped her off the couch. Mills flung her to the ground and repeatedly kicked her in the head with steel-toed boots that she had bought for him, and he punched her in the mouth several times. Mills told A.C.: “Youre never going to leave me, bitch,” “this is the last day youre gonna live,” and “youll never see your daughter again.” A.C. faked an asthma attack, but Mills told her that he would not call anyone to help her.
{¶ 7} Mills took A.C. into the bathroom and put Vaseline on the cut on her head. He then let A.C. get some water and sit on the couch. Mills began scrolling through his cellphone; because he was distracted, A.C. grabbed her phone and called 9-1-1, but did not say anything to the dispatcher. Mills discovered that she called 9-1-1, took A.C.s phone and threw it, then ran out the door. After he left, A.C. redialed 9-1-1. She also called her daughter, who was at school, and asked hеr to take her to the hospital.
{¶ 9} At the hospital, A.C.s scalp wound was stapled, and she received four stitches in her mouth, where her tooth had penetrated her lip; she was evaluated for a concussion. She experienced dizziness, headaches, and pain from her injuries. Her elbow also hurt. Photographs depict the laceration to her scalp, the wound to her lip, and the bruising to her arms, neck, and face. A.C. texted photos of her injuries to Mills.
{¶ 10} A.C. testified that Mills did not live with her. She insisted that she always locks her doors and Mills does not have keys to her house. She believed that Mills entered the home through the bedroom window because he and Tim were using that window to run an extension cord into the house, and she neglected to lock it.
{¶ 11} The jury found Mills guilty of aggravated burglary and the lesser-included offense of assault, a violation of
{¶ 12} Mills appealed. He assigns the following errors for our review:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1: THE JURY S VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE, AND THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANTS CRIMINAL RULE 29 MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL[.]
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ADMITTING EVIDENCE AND GIVING A “CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT” JURY INSTRUCTION CONCERNING APPELLANTS [sic] STATEMENT OF SUICIDAL IDEATIONS AND APOLOGIES[.]
II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 13} Millss first assignment of error challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, and his second assignment of error challenges one of the trial courts instructions to the jury. We consider each of Millss assignments in turn.
{¶ 14} In his first assignment of error, Mills claims that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for acquittal. He also argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 15} A motion for acquittal under Crim.R. 29(A) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. State v. Brinkley, 105 Ohio St.3d 231, 2005-Ohio-1507, 824 N.E.2d 959, ¶ 39. The denial of a motion for acquittal under Crim.R. 29(A) “is governed by the same standard as the one for determining whether a verdict is supported by sufficient evidence.” State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 255, 2006-Ohio-2417, 847 N.E.2d 386, ¶ 37.
{¶ 16} Whether there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction is a question of law. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence, “[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viеwing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Internal citations omitted.) State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 113, 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997). In making that determination, the appellate court will not weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses. State v. Walker, 55 Ohio St.2d 208, 212, 378 N.E.2d 1049 (1978). “Rather, we decide whether, if believed, the evidence cаn sustain the verdict as a matter of law.” State v. Richardson, 150 Ohio St.3d 554, 2016-Ohio-8448, 84 N.E.3d 993, ¶ 13. Naturally, this requires “a review of the elements of the charged offense and a review of the states evidence.” Id.
{¶ 17} While his assignment of error is stated broadly, Millss arguments challenge only his conviction for aggravated burglary. Even more specifically, Mills challenges only one element of the offense: trespass.
{¶ 18} Under
{¶ 19} Mills claims that the state failed to show that he trespassed on A.C.s property. He contends that based on the text messages between he and A.C., he was privileged to be at her home on the morning of November 13, 2020, to retrieve his property; he insists that he had property both inside and outside the house, and A.C. routinely left her side door unlocked. Additionally, Mills maintains that A.C. had invited him on the property to do work on her house. He claims that he told her he would be coming over to finish that work, and she did not object.
{¶ 20} The state responds that Mills did not have the privilege to be inside A.C.s house on the morning of November 13, 2020. It emphasizes that he did not live with A.C. and did not have a key to her home. Although the state acknowledges that A.C. told
{¶ 21} The state further contends that even if Mills did have permission to be in the house on the morning of November 13, 2020, this privilеge was revoked when he committed a crime inside the home. It insists that because Mills assaulted A.C. while in her home that morning, any privilege he had to be in the house was terminated.
{¶ 22} “Trespass,” as pertinent here, occurs when a defendant, without privilege to do so, knowingly enters or remains on the land or premises of another.
{¶ 23} Here, A.C. testified that Mills did not live with her, he usually knocked on the front door when he visited her home, her doors were locked, Mills did not have a key, she did not want Mills to come into her home, and she told Mills not to knock on her door because she intended to go to sleep. Any permission A.C. granted for Mills to be on her property was limited to her backyard, where he and Tim had been doing work, and was not supposed to occur until 11:00 a.m.—not 8:00 a.m. Additionally, according to A.C., Mills entered the home through a bedroom window while A.C. was sleeping. While Mills may have believed that A.C. wanted him to come to her home to collect his belongings, nothing about their exchange of text messages may be interpreted as suggesting that he climb through a bedroom window to do so. Accordingly, we find that these facts, if believed, demonstrate that Mills was not privileged to enter A.C.s home. The state presented sufficient evidence that Mills “trespassed” in her home for purposes of
{¶ 24} We now turn to Millss challenge to the weight of the evidence. When reviewing a claim that a verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the
{¶ 25} Although under a manifest-weight standard we consider the credibility of witnesses, we must nonetheless extend special deference to the jurys credibility determinations given that it is the jury who has the benefit of seeing the witnesses testify, observing their facial expressions and body language, hearing their voice inflections, and discerning qualities such as hesitancy, equivocation, and candor. State v. Fell, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-10-1162, 2012-Ohio-616, ¶ 14.
{¶ 26} Here, the jury heard A.C. testify and it was presented with the text messages exchanged between A.C. and Mills. The jury obviously believed A.C.s version of events, and it did not interpret the text messages as inviting Mills to enter
{¶ 27} We find Millss first assignment of error not well-taken.
B. The Jury Instruction
{¶ 28} In his second assignment of error, Mills challenges the trial courts decision to instruct the jury on consciousness of guilt. He acknowledges that an accuseds flight, resistance to arrest, concealment, assumption of a false name, and rеlated conduct are admissible evidence of consciousness of guilt. He claims, however, that the behavior that prompted the court to provide the instruction here —his apologies and talk of suicide— were related to the termination of his relationship with A.C. and not evidence that Mills had committed a crime.
{¶ 29} The state responds that the instruction given by the court was a correct statement of the law and was supported by the facts of the case, and reasonable minds could conclude that Millss apologies and talk of suicidal ideations were motivated by his consciousness of guilt. It insists that the context of the statements makes clear that they were in relation to the assault he committed on the victim on the morning of November 13, 2020. The state contends that Millss apologies and talk of suicide quаlify as “related conduct” for purposes of providing the consciousness-of-guilt instruction.
Consciousness of Guilt, Apologies and Suicidal Comments. Testimony and evidence was admitted during—indicating that the Defendant made apologies and suicidal comments to [A.C.] regarding the alleged incident on November 13, 2020. You are instructed that such actions by Defendant alone does not raise a presumption of guilt, but it may tend tо indicate the Defendants consciousness of guilt.
If you find that the facts do not support that the Defendant made apologies or suicidal comments to [A.C.] as stated above, or if you find that some other motive prompted the Defendant making apologies and suicidal comments as stated above, or if you are unable to decide what the Defendants motivation was, then you should not consider this evidеnce for any purpose.
However, if you find that the facts support that the Defendant made apologies and suicidal comments to [A.C.] as stated above, and if you decide that the Defendant was motivated by a consciousness of guilt, you may, but are not required to, consider that evidence in deciding whether Defendant is guilty of the crimes charged. You alone will determine what weight, if any, to give this evidencе.
{¶ 32} “It is today universally conceded that the fact of an accuseds flight, escape from custody, resistance to arrest, concealment, assumption of a false name, and related conduct, are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself.” (Emphasis in original.) State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 1, 11, 679 N.E.2d 646 (1997), quoting State v. Eaton, 19 Ohio St.2d 145, 160, 249 N.E.2d 897 (1969). Ohio courts have concluded that apologies and expressions of suicidal thoughts may constitute a “consciousness of guilt.” See State v. Tvaroch, 11th Dist. No. 2012-T-0008, 2012-Ohio-5836, 982 N.E.2d 751, ¶ 25-26; State v. Wrasman, 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-20-03, 2020-Ohio-6887, ¶ 27 (apologies and suicide threats constituted consciousness of guilt); State v. Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106266, 2018-Ohio-3368, ¶ 45 (suicide
{¶ 33} In Tvaroch, the defendant argued that there was no evidence that his apology for “what happened” had anything to do with the incident giving rise to the charges against him. After reviewing the context of defendants statements, the court determined that the jury could reasonably infer that defendants apology did pertain to the incident at issue. It, therefore, concluded that the trial courts consciousness-of-guilt instruction was supported by the facts аnd the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving the instruction. The court noted that this was especially true given that the trial court also cautioned the jury that it could completely disregard the evidence if not believed, and even if believed, (1) the evidence would not rise to a presumption of guilt, and (2) the jury was not required to consider that evidence in deciding defendants guilt.
{¶ 34} Here, A.C. testified that after she texted Mills pictures of her injuries, Mills responded: “Im so fucking dumb ass of me im a fucking idiot. [sic]” A.C. told Mills
This is the last call i will ever make too you im sorry for everything i hurt you. I love you in my dying days in death i still love you.
* * *
I caused you so much pain and suffering i hurt bad when i look at you in those fucked up pics im truly am sorry try and fоrgive me do not hold onto the hate it was what ate me alive.
Im so hurt for you
* * *
The pain in your eyes that i see i can no longer deal with this shit my mind spinning out of control my thoughts coming and going i hurt the woman im so much claimed i love and who I was to protected im tired of these changes in my mind my heart loves [sic]
Screenshots of the text messages were admitted as a trial exhibit.
{¶ 35} Additionally, Mills called A.C. from the Erie County Jail on December 16, 2020. During that phоne call, Mills told A.C. that he wanted to call her again. She expressed reluctance and told him that he hurt her “so bad” and could not “in good conscience” continue talking to him. Mills responded that he knew he hurt her and that he was speaking with a psychiatrist. Mills called A.C. again on December 20, 2020. He
{¶ 36} We find that given the context of Millss statements, a reasonable juror could find that his apologies and suicidal thoughts related to the November 13, 2020 assault. And like the court in Tvaroch, the trial court provided the jury cautionary instructions that the evidence cannot give rise to a presumption of guilt, it could completely disregard the evidence if it did not believe that the statements were made or did not believe the statements were motivated by the incident giving rise to the оffense, and it could decline to consider the evidence even if believed.
{¶ 37} We find that the trial court did not err when it gave the consciousness-of guilt instruction. Millss second assignment of error is not well taken.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 38} The state presented evidence which, if believed, supported the “trespass” element of Millss conviction of aggravated burglary where A.C. testified that Mills did not live with her, he usually knocked on the front door when hе visited her home, her
{¶ 39} A reasonable juror could have found that Millss apologies and suicidal thoughts related to the November 13, 2020 assault. Ohio courts recognize that apologies and suicidal thoughts may constitute evidence of consciousness of guilt. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it gave the jury an instruction on consciousness-of-guilt. We find Millss second assignment of error not well-taken.
{¶ 40} We аffirm the May 13, 2022 judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas. Mills is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal under App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J.
JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, J. CONCUR.
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.