STATE OF OHIO v. ERIC M. WARFEL
C.A. No. 16CA0062-M
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
July 10, 2017
[Cite as State v. Warfel, 2017-Ohio-5766.]
SCHAFER, Presiding Judge.
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO CASE No. 15-CR-0430
I.
{¶2} At approximately 10:00 a.m. on July 29, 2015, a cable installer arrived at Warfel‘s apartment in Medina, Ohio, in order to update cable equipment. When the cable installer realized that nobody was at home, he went to the apartment complex‘s office and obtained a key to Warfel‘s unit. Upon entering Warfel‘s unkempt apartment, the cable installer discovered the badly decomposed corpse of Warfel‘s 20-month-old daughter, E.W. The cable installer immediately exited the apartment and informed his supervisor and the apartment complex‘s office of what he had discovered inside Warfel‘s apartment. The Medina City Police Department was then notified and officers quickly arrived at the scene. During the course of their investigation, law enforcement also discovered cocaine and drug paraphernalia within
{¶3} The Westlake Police Department soon located Warfel‘s car in the Crocker Park Shopping Center parking lot. The Westlake Police Department subsequently conducted a traffic stop of Warfel‘s vehicle and took Warfel into custody. Law enforcement eventually learned that Warfel and his seven-year-old daughter had been staying in a Motel 6 located in Middleburg Heights, Ohio. Upon searching that motel room, law enforcement discovered additional cocaine and drug paraphernalia.
{¶4} On August 4, 2015, the Medina County Grand Jury indicted Warfel on one count of gross abuse of a corpse in violation of
{¶5} On November 9, 2015, the trial court held a pre-trial hearing at which time it provided the parties with the medical reports from Warfel‘s competency and sanity evaluations. The reports concluded that Warfel was competent to stand trial and that Warfel understood the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the alleged offenses. The trial court accepted the
{¶6} On November 18, 2015, the Medina County Grand Jury indicted Warfel on one additional count of possession of cocaine in violation of
{¶7} At trial, 14 witnesses testified on the State‘s behalf. At the close of the State‘s case-in-chief, Warfel made a
{¶8} Warfel filed this timely appeal and raises four assignments of error for this Court‘s review. As Warfel‘s first and second assignments of error implicate similar issues, we elect to address them together.
II.
Assignment of Error I
The evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of gross abuse of a corpse,
The evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of tampering with evidence in violation of
{¶9} In his first and second assignments of error, Warfel argues that the State failed to meet its burden of production with respect to Count One, abuse of a corpse, and Count Two, tampering with evidence. We disagree.
{¶10} “‘We review a denial of a defendant‘s
{¶11}
{¶12} At trial, 14 witnesses in total testified on behalf of the State. The cable installer testified that at approximately 10:00 a.m. on July 29, 2015, he entered Warfel‘s apartment in order to change cable equipment. The cable installer testified that the apartment was in an “extreme case of disarray” with garbage and toys all over the floor. He further testified that upon
{¶13} Brian Cavanaugh, a paramedic with the Medina Life Support Team, was the first person to arrive at the scene. Mr. Cavanaugh testified that he arrived at Warfel‘s apartment at roughly 10:00 a.m. in response to a report of infant cardiac arrest. Mr. Cavanaugh testified that he forced his way into Warfel‘s apartment, which he described as having a lot of trash, debris, boxes, and food all over the place. Mr. Cavanaugh testified that he found a deceased infant wearing a diaper in a crib. He described the deceased infant as having “blackened skin.” He further testified that he could see hair on the body, but was unsure of the infant‘s age or if the infant had any bruises due to the body‘s state of decomposition. Mr. Cavanaugh testified that he subsequently radioed for law enforcement and waited for them to arrive. Lastly, Mr. Cavanaugh testified that when Sergeant Scott Marcum of the Medina City Police Department arrived on the scene, the two of them searched and sealed-off the apartment until more officers arrived.
{¶14} Sergeant Marcum buttressed Mr. Cavanaugh‘s testimony. Specifically, Sergeant Marcum testified that he arrived on the scene at 10:39 a.m. and searched the apartment with Mr. Cavanaugh. He testified that upon searching the apartment, he saw a badly decomposed body. Sergeant Marcum testified that he could not tell the infant‘s race or age and could not observe any lacerations or bruises on the body due to its state of decomposition. Moreover, Sergeant Marcum testified that he could not see anything that could have contributed to the infant‘s death, such as malnourishment. Lastly, Sergeant Marcum testified that he exited and sealed the crime scene and waited for the detective‘s bureau to arrive with a search warrant.
{¶16} Next, Special Agent George Staley of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation testified that the Medina City Police Department summoned him to Warfel‘s apartment on July 29, 2015, to investigate an infant‘s death. Agent Staley testified that his role in the investigation was to collect evidence and confer with law enforcement to ensure that the investigation was properly conducted. Specifically, Agent Staley testified that he took pictures of Warfel‘s “unkempt” and “cluttered” apartment. He stated that the room where the deceased infant was discovered contained flies, pupae, and a “bunch of dirty diapers” on the floor. He further testified that flies and fly larvae were present in the crib with the deceased. Agent Staley further testified that the decomposed body was missing soft tissue, such as lips, eyes, and the underside of the throat and neck area. Lastly, Agent Staley testified that the body‘s advanced state of decomposition prevented him from establishing the infant‘s age, race, gender, or time of death. It also prevented him from establishing the presence of any injuries, signs of assault, signs of any postmortem lividity, or signs of illness, malnourishment, air starvation, or strangulation.
{¶17} Doctor Neil Grabenstetter, the Medina County Coroner, testified that he went to Warfel‘s apartment on July 29, 2015, in response to a report that remains of a young child had been discovered. Dr. Grabenstetter testified that by observation alone, the corpse was unrecognizable and in an advanced state of decomposition. He further testified that he could not
{¶18} Detective Sarah Lynn of the Medina City Police Department testified that due to the length of time that passed between the infant‘s death and the discovery of the infant‘s body, she was unable to determine when or where the infant died. Detective Lynn further testified that on July 29, 2015, she was assigned to locate Warfel following the discovery of the deceased infant in his apartment. Detective Lynn testified that during the course of her investigation, she was able to learn that Warfel and Warfel‘s seven-year-old daughter were in Westlake, Ohio. She further testified that upon communicating this information to the Westlake Police Department, Westlake police officers were able to locate Warfel‘s vehicle in the Crocker Park Shopping Center parking. Westlake police officers subsequently conducted a traffic stop of Warfel‘s vehicle and took Warfel into custody. Detective Lynn testified that upon learning that Warfel
{¶19} Detective Lynn testified that Warfel stated the following during the course of his interview with Medina City Police Department personnel: that he has lived at the apartment in Medina with his two daughters since January 2015 and that his two daughters shared a bedroom. Warfel indicated during the interview that the deceased infant found in the crib in his apartment was his 20-month-old daughter, E.W. Warfel stated that he last saw E.W. alive on June 18, 2015, at 10:00 p.m. when he put his daughters to bed. He stated that when he awoke the following morning, he discovered that E.W.‘s eyes were black and that her fingers were purple. He stated that he picked up E.W. from the crib and administered rescue breaths, but realized that she was already dead. He then placed E.W. back in the crib, placed a crucifix next to her body, and exited the bedroom. Upon exiting the bedroom, Warfel “shut the door and put boxes in front of [the door], including a vacuum box, just to keep [his other daughter] away.” Warfel stated during his interview that he only reentered the bedroom one other time, which was to retrieve a pillow for his other daughter on June 24, 2015. Warfel stated that when he reentered the room to get the pillow, E.W.‘s body was black. Warfel stated during the interview that he probably should have covered E.W.‘s body with a sheet, but that he did not do so. Warfel admitted that he was addicted to cocaine at the time of E.W.‘s death. Warfel also stated that following E.W.‘s death, he and his other daughter would stay in motels if he had the money to do so.
{¶20} Per Detective Lynn‘s testimony, Warfel admitted during the interview that he never called police, emergency care providers, doctors, coroners, or family members at any time following E.W.‘s death. Warfel also stated during the interview that he expected an autopsy could have been performed on E.W. if he had reported her death. Warfel‘s reasons for not
{¶21} Lastly, Warfel stated during the interview that he kept his other daughter busy following E.W.‘s death so that she would not ask about her little sister. He also stated that he told his parents that E.W. was at daycare whenever they inquired of her whereabouts. The wife of one of Warfel‘s friends later testified at trial that she encountered Warfel on July 25, 2015, at a family movie night in Medina Square. This individual testified that when she inquired about E.W.‘s location, Warfel told her that E.W. was at daycare and that he would pick her up later that night. Warfel admitted during his interview with Detective Lynn that he never enrolled E.W. in daycare. Warfel also incorrectly told this individual that his ex-wife communicates with their daughters “about three times a week.”
{¶22} Warfel argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him of gross abuse of a corpse because the State failed to demonstrate that he treated E.W.‘s corpse in a manner that would outrage reasonable community sensibilities. Specifically, Warfel contends that
{¶23} Thus, viewing the evidence of this case in a light most favorable to the State, we conclude that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for the trial judge to convict Warfel of gross abuse of a corpse in violation of
{¶24} We determine that Warfel‘s failure to report his daughter‘s death and failure to properly handle her remains (i.e. permitting a body to decompose beyond recognition and to an
{¶25} With respect to Warfel‘s tampering with evidence conviction, we likewise conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence on this count. In addition to the evidence that the State presented on the gross abuse of a corpse, Detective Lynn also testified that Warfel stated that he had another daughter that passed away unexpectedly in 2013 under similar circumstances. At that time law enforcement conducted an investigation and an autopsy was performed. Following this revelation, Warfel told investigators during his police interview that he expected that an autopsy could have been performed on E.W. if he had reported her death. Warfel also stated during this interview that he should have covered E.W.‘s body with a sheet, but that he did not do so. Warfel also admitted to conducting a Google search on his phone following E.W.‘s death to see if he was committing a crime by not reporting her death, but that he concluded that he was not. However, Warfel stated that he felt like he was doing something wrong by not reporting her death. Moreover, Detective Lynn testified that Warfel stated during the interview that upon discovering E.W.‘s dead body, he closed the door to her bedroom and placed boxes in front of the door to prevent his other daughter from accessing the room. Also, evidence was presented at trial demonstrating that Warfel lied to his parents and friends whenever they would inquire of E.W.‘s whereabouts following her death. Specifically, the testimony at trial indicates that Warfel would tell people that E.W. was at daycare, when in fact he had never enrolled her in daycare and E.W. was already dead.
{¶26} Furthermore, Dr. Grabenstetter explicitly testified that the body‘s decomposition impaired him from performing his official duties because he could not determine a cause of death. Sergeant McNabb testified to same. Dr. Grabenstetter further testified that the infant‘s
{¶27} Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the State, we conclude that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for the trial judge to convict Warfel of tampering with evidence in violation of
{¶28} Accordingly, Warfel‘s first and second assignments of error are overruled.
The trial court erred by failing to dismiss the charge of tampering with evidence because the State indicted for the general statute rather than the specific statute enacted to address the Appellant‘s conduct.
{¶29} In his third assignment of error, Warfel asserts that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss the tampering with evidence and gross abuse of a corpse charges because he should have been charged with the more specific crime of failing to report knowledge of a death in violation of
{¶30} A careful review of the record reveals that Warfel never requested the trial court to dismiss the gross abuse of a corpse and/or tampering with evidence charges. Thus, because Warfel did not ask the trial court to dismiss the gross abuse of a corpse or tampering with evidence charges, or otherwise object on the basis that the State improperly charged him under the “general” statutes instead of the “specific” statute contained in
Assignment of Error IV
The failure of trial counsel to move for dismissal of the charge of tampering with evidence and abuse of a corpse on the principal of “specific versus general” deprived the Appellant of his right to the effective assistance of counsel.
{¶32} In his fourth assignment of error, Warfel contends that his trial counsel‘s failure to ask the trial court to dismiss the charges for gross abuse of a corpse and tampering with evidence for the reasons set forth in his previous assignment of error amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. We disagree.
{¶33} “‘The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to the effective assistance of counsel.‘” State v. Liu, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24112, 2008-Ohio-6793, ¶ 22, citing State v. Banks, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 01CA007958, 2002-Ohio-4858, ¶ 16. “On the issue of counsel‘s ineffectiveness, [Warfel, as the Appellant,] has the burden of proof because in Ohio, a properly licensed attorney is presumed competent.” State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377, 2006–Ohio–6679, ¶ 62. To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, Warfel must establish that (1) his trial counsel‘s performance was deficient, and (2) “the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). To demonstrate prejudice, an appellant must prove that “there exists a reasonable probability that, were it not for counsel‘s [deficient performance], the result of the trial would have been different.” State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989), paragraph three of the syllabus. This Court need not address both prongs of Strickland if an appellant fails to prove either prong. State v. Ray, 9th Dist. Summit No. 22459, 2005–Ohio–4941, ¶ 10.
If a general provision conflicts with a special or local provision, they shall be construed, if possible, so that effect is given to both. If the conflict between the provisions is irreconcilable, the special or local provision prevails as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision is the later adoption and the manifest intent is that the general provision prevail.
“Thus, it is critical in the first instance to determine whether the statutes upon which the prosecution seeks to proceed are general, special or local. If the statutes are general and do not involve the same or similar offenses, then
{¶35} We conclude that Warfel was not prejudiced by his trial counsel‘s failure to file a motion to dismiss or otherwise object to the gross abuse of a corpse and tampering with evidence charges on the basis that he should have instead been charged under the purportedly more specific failure to report knowledge of a death statute. Failure to report knowledge of a death in
{¶36} Since
{¶37} Warfel‘s fourth assignment of error is overruled.
{¶38} With all four of Warfel‘s assignments of error having been overruled, the judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
JULIE A. SCHAFER
FOR THE COURT
CARR, J.
TEODOSIO, J.
CONCUR.
DAVID L. DOUGHTEN, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
S. FORREST THOMPSON, Prosecuting Attorney, and VINCENT V. VIGLUICCI, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.