STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DION RANSOM, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 113225
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
July 11, 2024
2024-Ohio-2634
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-22-672376-C
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Eben O. McNair, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Susan J. Moran, for appellant.
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Dion Ransom (“Ransom”), appeals from his convictions following a bifurcated trial. He raises the following assignments of error for review:
- The State was allowed to argue facts not in evidence, fatally prejudicing Mr. Ransom.
- The State did not present sufficient evidence as to Count 14, murder (B) or the predicate offense, Count 18, felonious assault.
- Mr. Ransom’s convictions relied on the testimony of two witnesses that were shown to not be credible and are therefore against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State’s presentation of cumulative, gruesome, and minimally probative photos to the prejudice of Mr. Ransom.
{¶ 2} After careful review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm Ransom’s convictions and sentence.
I. Procedural and Factual History
{¶ 3} On July 15, 2022, Ransom and his codefendants, Dacee Fisher (“Fisher”), Jimmy Wilborn (“Wilborn”), Esperanza Lugo (“Lugo”), and Veronica Washington (“Washington”), were named in a 43-count indictment, charging them with various criminal offenses relating to the shooting death of H.R. (d.o.b. 07/03/2003) on April 8, 2021.
{¶ 4} Relevant to this appeal, Ransom was named in 13 counts of the indictment and charged with aggravated murder in violation of
{¶ 6} Ransom entered pleas of not guilty, and the matter proceeded to a joint trial on August 2, 2023. With respect to Ransom, the parties agreed to try Counts 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26, 29, 30, and 34 before a jury. Counts 36, 38, and 41, were tried separately to the bench. The repeat violent offender, notice of prior conviction, and criminal-gang activity specifications were also tried to the bench.
{¶ 7} Over the course of eight days, the State presented 24 witnesses and approximately 370 exhibits. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that on April 6, 2021, codefendants Fisher and Lugo befriended H.R. while visiting Edgewater Park in Cleveland, Ohio. Ultimately, Fisher invited H.R. to his apartment, located on Harvard Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio, where they spent the rest of the evening “smoking and drinking” together. (Tr. 1314.)
{¶ 8} The following day, Fisher drove H.R. and Lugo in his vehicle, a black Toyota SUV, to meet Ransom and Washington at a house party held at a residence located on Union Avenue. At some point that evening, Fisher and H.R. constructed a plan to complete an armed robbery at the residence of H.R.’s “boyfriend or ex-boyfriend,” Duane Crawford (“Crawford”) (Tr. 929, 1320-1323.) The plan was set in motion after H.R. disclosed to Fisher that Crawford’s residence, which was located on East 108th Street, contained guns, cash, and credit cards. (Tr. 1323.) To facilitate
{¶ 9} Lugo testified that she, Fisher, Wilborn, and H.R. left the Union Avenue residence after midnight and drove back to Fisher’s residence on Harvard Avenue to “wait for the time that whoever we were supposed to rob was going to be home.” (Tr. 1325.) To ascertain Crawford’s whereabouts, H.R. sent Crawford a text message at 11:19 p.m. on April 7, 2021, to see what he was doing that evening. As the evening progressed, H.R. continued to send Crawford text messages, stating that she wanted to “talk to [him] about something,” in person. (Tr. 480-483.)
{¶ 10} Ransom and Washington also left the Union Avenue residence after midnight. Washington, who was driving a red Ford Fusion, drove Ransom to an apartment complex located on East 40th Street. Ransom lived at the apartment complex with L.P., the mother of his child. Upon arriving at the apartment complex, Ransom went inside for an unspecified period of time while Washington fell asleep inside her vehicle. At approximately 1:22 a.m., Ransom sent a Facebook message to an unidentified woman, stating, “I left my phone at [Fisher’s] house. I told you what we was on[.] Love you. Talk to you later.” (Tr. 1567, State’s exhibit No. 937.) Ransom later returned to Washington’s vehicle with a large black duffel bag. (Tr. 922.)
{¶ 12} A home security system captured the vehicles arriving near the Crawford residence at approximately 5:07 a.m. (Tr. 951; State’s exhibit No. 100.) The parties drove their vehicles “up and down random streets” until H.R. was able to positively identify Crawford’s residence. (Tr. 1330.) The parties then pulled around the corner from Crawford’s residence and parked at the intersection of East 107th Street and Elk Avenue at approximately 5:12 a.m. (Tr. 927, 1330; State’s exhibit No. 81, 100.) Thereafter, the parties remained near the parked vehicles while they contemplated “what they were going to do.” (Tr. 925.)
{¶ 13} At some point, Fisher exited the black Toyota SUV to speak with Ransom. (Tr. 925.) During this conversation, Fisher stated that he believed H.R. “was setting them up” and that “he was going to kill her.” (Tr. 928.) Washington maintained that she pleaded with Fisher to not kill “that girl.” (Id.) Ransom, however, agreed with Fisher’s assessment and stated that H.R. had to be killed. (Id.)
{¶ 14} Lugo corroborated Washington’s recollection of Fisher’s movements prior to the shooting. Lugo stated that after Fisher completed his conversation with Ransom in Washington’s vehicle, he
came back to the Rav4 and opened the passenger side door. At that point I had [H.R.]’s number in my phone, [Fisher] tells me to stay by my phone. When everything was ready, that she would call me. He told [H.R.] to try to get [Crawford] to come outside and at that point we’ll rush in. And they shut the door and they start walking towards the park.
. . .
After that, I heard two gunshots.
. . .
I see the gun shots.
(Tr. 1334.)
{¶ 15} Washington testified that after she witnessed Fisher shoot and kill H.R., her only thought was to drive away. Washington stated that she turned the corner to flee the scene when Ransom told her to slow down near Crawford’s residence. Ransom then pulled a large rifle out of the black duffle bag and began shooting at Crawford’s residence. Phone records indicate that the drive-by shooting of the Crawford residence occurred at approximately 5:20 a.m. (Tr. 1108.) Lugo also
{¶ 16} Crawford was not home during the shooting. However, his father and two brothers were sleeping inside the residence. The gunfire entered the residence and struck interior walls, but no one was injured. (Tr. 445.) Crawford’s father testified that most of the gunshots entered the first floor of the residence, stating “it was about 20 or — maybe 20 or 30 bullet holes downstairs before they tried to — before they shot upstairs.” (Tr. 447.) However, several bullets entered the upstairs bedroom where Crawford’s father was sleeping at the time.
{¶ 17} Following the shootings, Lugo picked Fisher up in the black Toyota SUV and both vehicles fled the scene. Washington testified that she first drove Ransom back to the Union Avenue residence so that he could “dro[p] his gun off.” (Tr. 935.) They later returned to the Harvard Avenue residence to meet back up with Fisher, Lugo, and Wilborn. (Tr. 936.)1 When asked to describe her conversations with Ransom after the shootings, Washington testified that Ransom told her to “say nothing, keep [her] mouth closed, don’t repeat nothing to nobody.” (Tr. 958.)
{¶ 18} At 7:31 a.m., on April 8, 2021, Ransom sent a text message to L.P., stating: “I’m cool baby. Didn’t go the way we wanted it to. I’m at [Fisher’s] spot.”
{¶ 19} H.R.’s body was discovered at approximately 12:00 p.m. on April 8, 2021. Her body was examined at the scene by Dr. Joseph Felo (“Dr. Felo”), the Chief Deputy Medical Examiner for the Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner’s Office. Dr. Felo testified that H.R.’s body was still warm and did not have significant insect activity. Accordingly, he concluded that H.R. “had not been there for more than several hours [and] . . . most likely had died earlier that morning.” (Tr. 547.)
{¶ 20} Dr. Felo also performed H.R.’s autopsy. He testified that H.R. sustained independently fatal gunshot wounds to her head and chest. She also sustained a defensive gunshot wound to her left forearm. (Tr. 566.) Photographs of H.R.’s injuries were introduced while Dr. Felo explained his examination and the conclusions rendered in his autopsy report. Based on the nature and significance of the observable injuries, Dr. Felo determined that H.R.’s cause of death was “gunshot wounds of head, thorax, and left lower arm with skeletal, brain, and left lung injuries.” (Tr. 571.) Her manner of death was “categorized and classified as a homicide.” (Id.)
{¶ 21} Patrol Officer Patrick Wells (“Officer Wells”) of the Cleveland Police Department responded to the Crawford residence on April 8, 2021, after receiving a dispatch for shots fired into a habitation. (Tr. 1044.) Upon arriving at the scene, Officer Wells observed twelve .223 shell casings and seven .380 shell casings near
{¶ 22} Forensic scientist James Kooser (“Kooser”), of the Cuyahoga County Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, confirmed that all 12 of the .223 cartridge cases were fired from the same unknown firearm. (Tr. 1240.) However, Kooser could not recall whether he compared the .380 casings to determine whether they were fired from the same gun. (Tr. 1263, 1267.) On cross-examination, Kooser further admitted that on the morning of this direct examination, he learned that the spent shell casing discovered by the investigators during their execution of a search warrant in Ransom’s apartment did not match the .223 casings found at the scene of the shooting. (Tr. 1257-1258.)
{¶ 23} Special Agent Cristin McCaskill (“Agent McCaskill”) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, testified that she is currently employed in the violent crimes unit and is tasked with assisting the Cleveland police in certain homicide investigations. In this case, Agent McCaskill and her colleague Special Agent Andrew Burke (“Agent Burke”) responded to the location of H.R.’s body and attempted to “identify her using a mobile biometric application unit.” (Tr. 700.) Unfortunately, the agents were unable to identify H.R. at the scene because she did not have a record in the system. Thereafter, the agents assisted detectives in
{¶ 24} Based on video footage recovered from nearby residences and the city of Cleveland, the investigators learned that multiple vehicles were involved in the shooting, including “a small black Rav4, and a red sedan which we later discovered was a Ford Fusion.” (Tr. 707, 886.) Agent McCaskill testified that the black Toyota SUV was registered in the name of an individual that shared a listed address with Fisher. Using Cuyahoga County’s “license plate reader system,” the black Toyota SUV was discovered in a parking lot on April 13, 2021. (Tr. 888.) That same day, the police detained Fisher, which coincided with Ransom sending a Facebook message at 4:39 p.m. that day stating, “Police just got P Dup [Fisher].” (Tr. 1526 and 2011.)
{¶ 25} Following the police interview with Fisher, the police brought Lugo in for questioning. A follow-up interview was conducted a few days later that led to her being placed under arrest. (Tr. 1445.) During her direct examination, Lugo admitted to lying to the police after she was brought in for questioning. Specifically, Lugo originally told the police that she dropped H.R. off at her cousin’s house near East 108th Street and had no knowledge of what happened to her thereafter. She later stated that she “dropped [H.R.] off at St. Clair and Glenview and watched her go into a house.” (Tr. 1380.) When the investigators insinuated that they knew she was lying, Lugo finally conceded that there was a second vehicle involved, although she claimed that she “had no clue” who was in the other vehicle. (Tr. 1411.)
{¶ 26} Lugo maintained that she initially lied to the police because she was scared of “the guys who did the killing and shooting,” and if “they did this to [H.R.], what were they going to do to [her]” if she cooperated. (Tr. 1348.) Lugo also conceded that she accepted a plea deal with the State and pleaded guilty to reduced charges in exchange for her testimony. Lugo had yet to be sentenced and was facing up to 18 years in prison. (Tr. 1350.)
{¶ 27} In October 2021, the investigators identified Washington as the driver of the red Ford Fusion. She was subsequently arrested on January 19, 2022. (Tr. 1447 and 1543.) Washington similarly admitted on direct examination that she was not truthful with the police following her arrest in January 2022. Like Lugo, Washington conceded that she provided five or six different versions of the incident before identifying Fisher and Ransom as the shooters. (Tr. 985-992.) Initially, Washington claimed that she did not know H.R. and had never met her. She later stated that she and Lugo dropped H.R. off near East 108th Street and never saw her again. Next, Washington “indicated that an unknown male, that [she] had never met before was the one who shot [H.R.].” (Tr. 991.) Washington then stated that Fisher was also at the scene and was the individual who shot into the Crawford residence. In version number five, Washington asserted that Fisher was responsible for H.R.’s shooting death and that the unknown male was responsible for the drive-
{¶ 28} Washington stated that she lied to the police to protect Ransom because she was pregnant and believed Ransom to be the father. Washington further conceded that she accepted a plea deal with the State and pleaded guilty to reduced charges in exchange for her testimony. At the time of Ransom’s trial, Washington had yet to be sentenced and was facing two to eight years in prison. She has remained in jail since the time of her arrest and gave birth to her child while incarcerated.
{¶ 29} Shortly after her arrest, Washington contacted Ransom to tell him that she had been brought in for questioning and arrested. (Tr. 901.) On March 23, 2022, Ransom contacted a gunsmith, asking whether he had “a 556 NATO firing pin and attachments.” (Tr. 1558, State’s exhibit No. 935.) Agent Burke explained that the message indicated that Ransom was “looking to purchase specific parts of a rifle that would change those characteristics ballistically.” (Tr. 1558.)
{¶ 30} Detective John Dayton (“Det. Dayton”) of the Cleveland Police Department testified that Ransom was arrested in March 2022, after Washington linked him to the shooting. (Tr. 1450-1451.) At the time of his arrest, Ransom confirmed that he resided at the East 40th Street apartment with L.P. throughout 2021. (Id.) Ransom also admitted to knowing Fisher and Lugo but denied ever meeting H.R.
{¶ 32} Agent McCaskill testified that she participated in the execution of a search warrant at the East 40th Street apartment complex on March 25, 2022. During the search of the apartment, the investigators were attempting to locate a wooden table that was observable in Ransom’s photograph of the rifle. Ultimately, the investigators confirmed that there was a similar wooden table in the apartment. The investigators also recovered a wallet containing Ransom’s driver’s license and social security card, an empty gun box, spent shell casings, a rifle magazine, and ammunition that was capable of being fired by the rifle depicted in Ransom’s social media photograph. (Tr. 719, 895.) However, they were unable to locate the handgun or the rifle in the apartment.
{¶ 33} After his arrest, Ransom sent a letter to L.P. on July 3, 2022, stating:
I really don’t got much to say but I think the prosecutor’s go [sic] call you to the stand and ask you some questions like have you seen this gun and who bullets was those. I think you should say your ex-boyfriend brother had the gun and bullets and was tryin to sell it before he went out of town or moved out of town. . . . But if you [sic] not comfortable doing that I understand. But that’s what I’ll say.
(State’s exhibit No. 936.)
{¶ 35} In the course of the investigation, the police used a software program to extract data from the cell phone discovered on H.R.’s person at the crime scene, and the cell phones recovered from Ransom, Fisher, Lugo, Washington, and Wilborn at the time of their arrests. The GPS and cellular data recovered from the cell phones was used in collaboration with surveillance-video footage to determine
{¶ 36} At the close of the State’s case-in-chief, defense counsel moved for an acquittal pursuant to
{¶ 37} At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Ransom not guilty of aggravated murder and murder as charged in Counts 2, 6, and 10. However, Ransom was found guilty of murder (Count 14), felonious assault (Count 18), improper discharging of a firearm at or into habitation or school (Count 22), felonious assault (Count 26), and improperly handling a firearm in a motion vehicle (Count 29). Ransom was also found guilty of the repeat violent predator specifications attached to Counts 14, 18, 22, and 26 and the notice of prior conviction specifications attached to Counts 18, 22, and 26. However, he was found not guilty
{¶ 38} The trial court then found Ransom guilty of involuntary manslaughter, with firearm, repeat violent offender and notice of prior conviction specifications (Count 38), and having weapons while under disability, with firearm specifications (Count 41). Finally, Ransom was found not guilty of criminal gang activity as charged in Count 36.
{¶ 39} On August 31, 2023, Ransom was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 27 years to life. (Tr. 2253.)
{¶ 40} Ransom now appeals.
II. Law and Analysis
A. Prosecutorial Misconduct
{¶ 41} In the first assignment of error, Ransom argues the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by improperly referring to facts that were not in evidence during its closing statement.
{¶ 42} A prosecutor has wide latitude in closing argument and is free to comment on what the evidence has shown and reasonable inferences that can be drawn from that evidence. State v. Harris, 2017-Ohio-2751, ¶ 84 (8th Dist.). However, a prosecutor must avoid any declarations, claims, or averments that are deliberately calculated to mislead a jury. State v. Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d 13, 14 (1984). Similarly, an attorney’s advocacy should not go beyond the evidence and the
{¶ 43} Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument are reviewed to determine “‘whether the remarks were improper and, if so, whether they prejudicially affected substantial rights of the defendant.’” State v. McAlpin, 2022-Ohio-1567, ¶ 156, quoting Smith at 14. A trial should only be reversed on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct “if the effect of the misconduct ‘permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.’” State v. Gibson, 2013-Ohio-4372, ¶ 99 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Tumbleson, 105 Ohio App.3d 693, 699, (12th Dist. 1995). “‘The touchstone of analysis is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’” State v. Gapen, 2004-Ohio-6548, ¶ 92, quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982).
{¶ 44} In this case, the closing remarks disputed on appeal relate to defense counsel’s introduction of a two-second video, marked Defense exhibit B. The video was introduced during the cross-examination of Lugo to impeach her testimony that she had never had a gun or rifle in her vehicle before the night of the shooting. (Tr. 1420-1421.) The video, which was extracted from Lugo’s cell phone during the police investigation, shows an unidentified man holding a black rifle inside Lugo’s vehicle. The video does not depict a readily observable time or date stamp. Nevertheless, Ransom argues that the video clearly contradicted Lugo’s prior testimony and “cast[s] serious doubt on [her] contention that she was not the shooter,” or more significantly involved in the shooting. (Appellant’s brief, p. 21.)
{¶ 46} On appeal, Ransom maintains that the exhibit’s metadata was not referenced during the State’s case-in-chief, and therefore, the State was not permitted to ask the jury “to examine facts – the creation date of the exhibit — not in evidence[.]” Ransom further asserts that the prosecutor’s statements were prejudicial to his defense, stating:
Mr. Ransom was on his way to convincing the jury that he did not participate in either shooting, either as the primary offender or as an accomplice. Exhibit B was the cornerstone of counsel’s arguments that there was another shooter. Coupled with a shoddy investigation, there was reasonable doubt as to whether the police had zeroed in on the wrong suspects without truly examining all the possibilities. The State destroyed that doubt, not with evidence, but with an impermissible argument.
(Appellant’s brief, p. 23.)
{¶ 47} After careful review of the record, we find Ransom has not demonstrated that he was denied a fair trial based on the prosecutor’s limited
{¶ 48} Moreover, a review of the trial transcript clearly fails to demonstrate that Ransom would have been found not guilty of Counts 14, 18, 22, 26, and 29 but for the claimed error of prosecutorial misconduct. It is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have found Ransom guilty of these offenses regardless of the alleged misconduct of the prosecutor during closing arguments. Defense exhibit B was merely used to impeach Lugo’s testimony that she had not previously seen a firearm in her vehicle prior to the shooting. Beyond an unsupported inference, no additional testimony or evidence was introduced to suggest the video was taken in the days leading up to the shooting or that the unidentified male in the video was connected to the shooting. As discussed further in the third assignment of error, the trier of fact was presented with all relevant information concerning the credibility of the State’s witnesses, including the testimony of Lugo and Washington placing Ransom at the scene of the shooting and in possession of a large rifle. Thus, we find that Ransom was not prejudiced by the remarks at issue made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. See State v. Hanna, 2002-Ohio-2221; State v. Stevens, 2023-Ohio-4683 (6th Dist.); State v. Erker, 2019-Ohio-3185 (8th Dist.).
{¶ 49} The first assignment of error is overruled.
B. Sufficiency of the Evidence
(B) No person shall cause the death of another as a proximate result of the offender‘s committing or attempting to commit an offense of violence that is a felony of the first or second degree and that is not a violation of section 2903.03 or 2903.04 of the Revised Code.
Pursuant to that provision, the “commission of another felony offense is a necessary predicate to an
“To support a conviction for complicity by aiding and abetting pursuant to
R.C. 2923.03(A)(2) , the evidence must show 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.” Johnson at syllabus. “‘Participation in criminal intent may be inferred from presence, companionship and conduct before and after the offense is committed.‘”Id. at 245, quoting State v. Pruett, 28 Ohio App.2d 29, 34 (4th Dist. 1971).
McFarland at ¶ 29. However, “[t]he mere presence of an accused at the scene of the crime is not sufficient to prove, in and of itself, that the accused was an aider and abettor.” State v. Widner, 69 Ohio St.2d 267, 269 (1982). “Mere association with the principal offender . . . is [also] insufficient to establish complicity.” State v. Hoston, 2015-Ohio-5422, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Doumbas, 2015-Ohio-3026 (8th Dist.).
C. Manifest Weight of the Evidence
D. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
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.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J., and
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, J., CONCUR