State v. Muncy, 21563 (4-6-2007)State v. Muncy, 21563 (4-6-2007)
{¶ 1} Bobby Muncy appeals from his conviction and sentence in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court on one count of felonious assault with a firearm specification.
{¶ 2} In his sole assignment of error, Muncy contends the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to introduce into evidence a post-arrest videotape in which he made incriminating statements. Muncy argues that the recording was inadmissible under Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, because his statements were the product of a custodial interrogation and were obtained without a waiver of his Miranda rights. Muncy also argues that the recording should have been excluded under Evid.R. 403(A) because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair рrejudice.
{¶ 3} The present appeal stems from a shooting that occurred inside a home at 186 Woburn Farm Circle. The State‘s evidence at trial showed that Ashley Schulte was there “partying” with three friends — George Abernathy, Chad Poochowski, and Muncy — on the evening of March 28, 2005. After smoking marijuana and consuming Xanax pills until early the next morning, the friends fell asleep. At some point, Schulte and Poochowski аwoke on the living room couch and went into a bedroom where Muncy was sleeping. There they took some marijuana that Muncy had in a shoe. Schulte and Poochowski rolled the marijuana into a “joint” before returning to the couch and falling asleep again. Sometime later, Schulte awoke to the sound of a loud bang and discovered that she had been shot in the breast. When she opеned her eyes, Schulte saw Muncy standing near her and placing a handgun in his waistband. Schulte told Muncy, “You just shot me.” He responded by saying, “I got to go, my ride‘s here.”
{¶ 4} Munсy testified in his own defense at trial. He told the jury that he was sleeping in the bedroom when he heard a loud bang. He responded by going into the living room, where he saw Poochowski holding the handgun. According to Muncy, Poochowski handed him the gun and he left to hide it in the woods. Over defense counsel‘s objection, the prosecutor on cross-examination played part of a videotape showing Muncy in a police cruiser near where the handgun was found. The videotape, which was produced by a local television station, included brief questioning of Muncy about the crime. During the portion of the recording played for the jury, Muncy stated, “Officer, I didn‘t want to do that to nobody.” When asked what had happened, he replied, “It was an accident.” The jury later found Muncy guilty of felonious assault with a firearm sрecification. The trial court imposed two consecutive three-year sentences. This timely appeal followed.
{¶ 5} In his assignment of error, Muncy challenges the trial court‘s decision to аllow the prosecutor to play the videotape for the jury. Although the recording was produced by a television station, Muncy contends it depicts him responding to a police officer‘s questions. Because he was handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser at the time, Muncy argues that his responses were the product of a custodial interrogation and that he had not waived his Miranda rights. Therefore, he asserts that his statements were inadmissible under Miranda.
{¶ 6} Upon review, we find Muncy‘s argument to be unpersuasive. At trial, the
{¶ 7} Having reviewed the videotape ourselves, we note that it begins with Muncy speaking into a microphone in the back of the police cruiser. The first statemеnt recorded on the videotape is Muncy‘s declaration, “Officer, I didn‘t want to do that to nobody.” An unidentified speaker then asks how the shooting happened, and Muncy responds, “It was an accidеnt.” Although we cannot say so with certainty, we agree with the trial court that Muncy appears to be speaking to a news reporter despite the fact that he prefaced his first comment with thе word “officer.”
{¶ 8} While Muncy now argues that the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing to determine who asked the questions on the videotape, nothing in the record indicates that he requested such a hearing at trial. Instead, he argued to the trial court that the State bore the burden of proving the absence of a custodial interrogation. It is well settled, however, that “when a defendant sеeks to suppress his statements on the basis that he was not given Miranda warnings, he has the burden of
{¶ 9} Finally, evеn assuming arguendo that Muncy‘s statements were the product of a custodial interrogation, we would find no merit in his argument that Miranda compelled their exclusion. In Harris v. New York (1971), 401 U.S. 222, 225-226, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a statement inadmissible against a defendant in the prosecution‘s case-in-chief because of non-compliance with Miranda may be used for impeachment purposes to challenge the credibility of the defendant‘s trial testimony. See also State v. Hill (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 195, 207-208 (recognizing that a voluntary but un-Mirandized statement may be used for impeachment purposes).
{¶ 10} Herе Muncy testified on direct examination that he was in the bedroom when Schulte was shot. He told the jury that he entered the living room after hearing the shot and saw Poochowski holding a handgun. In light of this testimony, the trial court properly found the State entitled to impeach Muncy on cross examination with his prior
{¶ 11} Muncy next contends the vidеotape was subject to exclusion because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. In particular, he argues that the recording had little or no prоbative value and that it was extremely prejudicial because it showed him handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser.
{¶ 12} Muncy‘s argument implicates Evid.R. 403(A), which provides that a court must exclude relеvant evidence “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or of misleading the jury.” When determining whether the probative value of evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effects, the evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to the proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing any prejudicial effect to the party opposing аdmission. State v. Lakes, Montgomery App. No. 21490, 2007-Ohio-325, ¶ 20. The decision to admit or exclude relevant evidence is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Id. We will not disturb a trial court‘s ruling on the admissibility of evidence under Evid.R. 403(A) absent an abuse of disсretion. Id.
{¶ 13} We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court‘s admission of the
{¶ 14} Muncy‘s assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
WOLFF, P.J., and DONOVAN, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Mark J. Keller
William T. Daly
Hon. Michael T. Hall