State v. ThomasState v. Thomas
Patrick E. McKnight, P.O. Box 621, Monroe, Ohio 45050, for defendant-appellant
RINGLAND, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Walter M. Thomas, appeals his conviction for felonious assault, possession of cocaine, and abduction. We affirm.
{¶2} Appellant and Donna Mathers have known each other for over 30 years and were involved in a romantic relationship between January 2006 and February 2008. On March 26, 2008, appellant was scheduled to look after Mathers’ sister, who was in poor health and needed assistance for nearly all of her daily activities. Upon arrival at the sister‘s
{¶3} Appellant requested that Mathers drive him to his mother‘s home, but Mathers ignored appellant‘s request and went inside the residence. Appellant accompanied her inside, where they continued to argue. Appellant walked towards Mathers. According to appellant, Mathers told appellant to hit her and he did. The blow knocked the chair Mathers was sitting in over and Mathers fell to the floor. Appellant then struck Mathers two or three times with the chair. According to appellant, Mathers came at him with a knife, a struggle ensued, and appellant stabbed her in the back with the knife. According to Mathers, she never went after him with a knife. Mathers testified that after he hit her, “I was hurt and frightened to death. I was scared he was going to kill me.”
{¶4} Appellant told Mathers not to run because he could run faster and that he would finish her when he caught her. Appellant then forced her outside at knifepoint. As they walked outside, Mathers told appellant that she could not go any further because she was short of breath. Appellant instructed her to go back in the house. Appellant then tucked the knife into his coat pocket and walked down the street.
{¶5} Appellant was apprehended shortly thereafter. He was confronted by an officer and ordered to the ground at gunpoint. As appellant went to the ground, the officer observed him drop a baggy containing cocaine.
{¶6} Appellant was charged with one count of felonious assault in violation of
{¶7} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶8} “THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ADMITTING EVIDENCE REGARDING PRIOR ACTS COMMITTED BY APPELLANT.”
{¶9} In his first assignment of error, appellant claims the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the introduction of evidence relating to a previous conviction. Appellant urges that the evidence violates
{¶10} A trial court‘s decision to admit or exclude evidence will not be reversed by a reviewing court absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Craft, Butler App. No. CA2006-06-145, 2007-Ohio-4116, ¶48. An abuse of discretion implies that the court‘s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable, and not merely an error of law or judgment. State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57, 2006-Ohio-160, ¶130.
{¶11}
{¶12} Before trial, the prosecution informed appellant that it intended to introduce evidence relating to appellant‘s conviction in 1994 for voluntary manslaughter. In that earlier conviction, appellant stabbed a former girlfriend. Appellant‘s trial counsel filed a motion in limine to prevent introduction of the evidence. The trial court denied the motion.
{¶13} Before introduction of the evidence at trial, the trial court provided the following
{¶14} Mathers testified at trial that she was in fear when appellant forced her outside the house at knifepoint and that she believed he was capable of killing her “because he stabbed a woman back in 1994.” Appellant also testified regarding the previous conviction and his version of the incident. According to appellant, the former girlfriend wished to commit suicide and that she provoked him into stabbing her in the chest.
{¶15} The crime of “abduction,” for the purposes of this case, is defined as: “[n]o person, without the privilege to do so, shall knowingly * * * by force or threat restrain the liberty of another person, under circumstances which create a risk of physical harm to the victim or place the other person in fear.”
{¶16} After review, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court. The testimony relating to appellant‘s prior criminal actions was relevant to an element of the crime, specifically the victim‘s fear based upon her knowledge of appellant‘s previous attack of a girlfriend. State v. Kelly (1993), 89 Ohio App.3d 320, 323-324. In addition, the trial court
{¶17} Even if the issues of stabbing and the previous conviction had not been introduced at trial, overwhelming evidence of appellant‘s guilt was still introduced. Appellant admitted hitting Mathers in the face and repeatedly hit her with a chair. He then forced her outside at knifepoint. Accordingly, we also do not find that the probative value of the evidence relating to appellant‘s previous conviction is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
{¶18} Appellant‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶19} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶20} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY FAILING TO ISSUE A JURY INSTRUCTION REGARDING THE ISSUE OF ACCIDENT.”
{¶21} In his second assignment of error, appellant argues that he was entitled to an accident instruction and the trial court erred by failing to provide the instruction to the jury. Appellant cites his testimony at trial, claiming that Mathers ran at him with the knife and he accidently stabbed her in the back as he attempted to disarm her.
{¶22} Appellant acknowledges that his trial counsel failed to request an instruction based upon a defense of accident, limiting this court‘s review to a plain error standard. State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191, 196, 2001-Ohio-141. However, appellant urges that the trial court‘s error was obvious and resulted in prejudice.
{¶23} “Plain error exists where there is an obvious deviation from a legal rule which affected the defendant‘s substantial rights, or influenced the outcome of the proceeding.” State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27, 2002-Ohio-68. An error does not rise to the level of a plain error unless, but for the error, the outcome of the trial would have been different. State v. Krull, 154 Ohio App.3d 219, 2003-Ohio-4611, ¶38. Notice of plain error must be taken with utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage
{¶24} “Accident is that which is unintentional and unwilled and implies a lack of criminal culpability.” State v. Ross (1999), 135 Ohio App.3d 262, 276. “Accident will be found only if the defendant‘s action or the resulting injury were a ‘mere physical happening or event, out of the usual order of things and not reasonably (anticipated) (foreseen) as a natural or probable result of a lawful act.‘” Id. To be entitled to a jury instruction on accident, there must be evidence to support the argument that appellant acted lawfully and that the result was unintended. Id. at 277, citing State v. Poole (1973), 33 Ohio St.2d 18, 20.
{¶25} Appellant has failed to demonstrate that he would have been entitled to an instruction on accident, even had trial counsel requested one, or that such an instruction would have altered the outcome of the trial. Overwhelming evidence was presented that appellant acted unlawfully. Appellant admitted hitting Mathers repeatedly, first with his fist and then multiple times with a chair. Even assuming that Mathers was retaliating against appellant by coming at him with the knife, appellant initiated the attack, creating the situation in which she was injured, and failed to avoid further confrontation. Ross at 277.
{¶26} Appellant‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶27} Judgment affirmed.
BRESSLER, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.