Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 05-17-2020
Case Style:
STATE OF OHIO v. MATTHEW TOLLE
Case Number: 19CA1095
Judge: Mike Hess
Court: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ADAMS COUNTY
Plaintiff's Attorney: C. David Kelley, Adams County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kris D. Blanton, Adams County Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney
Defendant's Attorney:
Need help finding a lawyer for representation for a judgment of conviction and sentence for two counts of murder in Ohio?
Call 918-582-6422. It's Free
Description:
MoreLaw ReceptionistsVOIP Phone and Virtual Receptionist Services
Call 918-582-6422 Today
On September 24, 2018, law enforcement officers visited Thatcher’s residence when
she claimed that appellant had called and threatened to drive his truck through her residence. Later
the same day, Thatcher obtained a Domestic Violence Civil Protection Order against appellant for
herself and her child. No record exists of the service of the protection order, but Adams County
Sheriff’s Deputy Don Adams telephoned appellant and advised him about the terms of the protection
order.
ADAMS 19CA1095 3
{¶ 5} Despite the protection order, however, appellant and Thatcher continued to
communicate. Around this time, appellant became upset when he learned that Lowe had been
staying with Thatcher.
{¶ 6} On September 29, 2018, appellant returned to Adams County from a job in West
Virginia. At approximately 5:00 AM, appellant tried, unsuccessfully, to call Thatcher. Appellant
testified that he called her because he had nowhere to stay and could not get money until the bank
opened. Appellant then appeared at Thatcher’s residence around 6:00 AM. When Thatcher
realized appellant was at her residence, she called 911. However, appellant left before law
enforcement arrived. Also, during this incident Lowe was present at the residence. When law
enforcement arrived, Lowe was agitated and stated that the next time appellant appeared at the
residence, he would take care of things himself and not bother to call the police.
{¶ 7} After appellant left the residence, he drove to Maysville, Kentucky and while enroute,
spoke with Thatcher on the telephone several times. Appellant also cut his wrist with a knife.
{¶ 8} Later that morning, at approximately 10:50 AM, appellant again called Thatcher and
told her that he was coming to her residence to get the clothes that he left there earlier that morning.
Thatcher was on the telephone with Lowe when she received appellant’s call, and this prompted
Lowe to return to the residence.
{¶ 9} After appellant arrived at Thatcher’s residence, he sat in his vehicle while Thatcher’s
daughter, Shauna, brought a bag of clothes to him. Shortly after appellant received the clothes,
Lowe pulled into the driveway. Appellant then told Shauna to go inside the house. Shauna
testified that appellant then chased Lowe with a knife and, after she ran into the house, she observed
appellant throw his hands up and down with a knife in hand.
ADAMS 19CA1095 4
{¶ 10} At this time, Thatcher called 911 and said, “they are out there fighting on my porch
and they have a knife, they’re going to kill each other.” Thatcher’s daughter, Alliysa, viewed some
of the confrontation from the kitchen window. Alliysa observed appellant jump out of his truck and
into the back of Lowe’s truck, then chase Lowe with a knife toward the porch. Once they got to the
porch, Alliysa could no longer see Lowe.
{¶ 11} Appellant testified that he observed Lowe enter the driveway, exit his truck and stand
next to his truck bed with a knife in hand. Lowe, acting in an aggravated manner, said something to
appellant that prompted him to tell Shauna to go into the house. At that point, appellant grabbed a
knife from his truck and jumped into the back of Lowe’s truck. Eventually, both men faced each
other with Lowe holding a knife. Appellant ran to Lowe, punched him with his empty hand and, as
Lowe backpedaled, he fought and swung. During the fight, appellant fell in the mud and Lowe
struck him with his fist and stabbed him in the head and shoulder. According to appellant, Lowe
did not turn and attempt to run. Also, appellant did not remember stabbing Lowe on the porch, but
did remember Lowe falling over and appellant tell a person at the scene, “I think I killed him.”
Appellant also testified that he suffered cuts to his head and a shoulder wound from Lowe’s knife,
but none of appellant’s injuries appeared to be life threatening. Appellant then surrendered to law
enforcement without incident.
{¶ 12} Officers at the scene found a large knife stuck into the front porch near Lowe,
presumably placed there by appellant after the incident. Officers also found a second, smaller knife
next to Lowe’s body. A crime scene investigator testified that the smaller knife could have been
used to inflict serious physical harm or death.
{¶ 13} When EMS arrived, Lowe was not breathing, had no pulse, exhibited large wounds to
ADAMS 19CA1095 5
both arms, minor cuts to his neck and a large tissue avulsion on the top of his head. Lowe’s most
serious injury was a large wound to his abdomen.
{¶ 14} The coroner testified that most of Lowe’s stab wounds would not have been
immediately fatal and could have been treated, but the injury to his abdomen cut through the aorta
and inferior vena cava and were likely the fatal injuries. Also, the injuries to Lowe’s abdomen did
not appear to be consistent with repeated stabbing, but more likely two distinct stab wounds.
{¶ 15} The investigation also revealed that both knife blades contained Lowe’s DNA and
appellant excluded as a DNA contributor. Blood on the larger knife’s handle contained a DNA
mixture, with Lowe as one contributor. Appellant, however, was inconclusive as a possible
contributor to the mixture. Lowe was also excluded as a contributor to the DNA on appellant’s
hand, although additional DNA did appear but in levels too low for comparison. Also, a small
section of appellant’s t-shirt contain blood with Lowe’s DNA, and appellant excluded as a
contributor. The DNA technician acknowledged that only a small portion of the shirt was tested,
and blood from other people could have been on the shirt. Also, a DNA swab from appellant’s face
revealed appellant’s blood and excluded Lowe as a contributor.
{¶ 16} At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found appellant guilty on both counts of
murder.2
The trial court then merged the two counts for purposes of sentencing and sentenced
appellant to serve a fifteen years to life in prison. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
2
On October 25, 2018, an Adams County Grand Jury returned an indictment that charged appellant with
murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A) and a second count of murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B). R.C.
2903.02(A) provides in relevant part that “[n]o person shall purposely cause the death of another.” R.C. 2903.02(B)
provides that “[n]o 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 [voluntary manslaughter] or 2903.04 [involuntary manslaughter] of the Revised Code.” The
underlying offense of violence supporting the second count was felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11, a
second-degree felony.
ADAMS 19CA1095 6
I.
{¶ 17} In his first assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court misinterpreted the
self-defense statute and failed to instruct the jury on self-defense.
{¶ 18} On March 28, 2019, approximately one month prior to the trial, the amended version
of R.C. 2901.05, the statute that governs self-defense as an affirmative defense, became effective.
R.C. 2901.05(B)(1); WEAPONS, 2018 Ohio Laws File 159 (Am. Sub. H.B. 228). The parties
agreed that the amended version of the statute applied at the trial in this case. As amended, R.C.
2901.05(B)(1) states:
A person is allowed to act in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that
person’s residence. If, at the trial of a person who is accused of an offense that
involved the person’s use of force against another, there is evidence presented that
tends to support that the accused person used the force in self-defense, defense of
another, or defense of that person’s residence, the prosecution must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the accused person did not use the force in self-defense, defense
of another, or defense of that person’s residence, as the case may be.
The amended statute shifts the burden of proof on the affirmative defense of self-defense from the
defendant to the prosecution, provided that “there is evidence presented that tends to support that the
accused person used the force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person’s
residence.” Id.
{¶ 19} Generally, a trial court has broad discretion to decide how to fashion jury instructions.
See State v. Hamilton, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 09CA3330, 2011–Ohio–2783, ¶ 69. However, “a trial
court must fully and completely give the jury all instructions which are relevant and necessary for the
jury to weigh the evidence and discharge its duty as the fact finder.” State v. Comen, 50 Ohio St.3d
206, 553 N.E.2d 640 (1990), paragraph two of the syllabus. In addition, a trial court may not refuse
a requested instruction if it is a “correct, pertinent statement of the law” and “appropriate to the
ADAMS 19CA1095 7
facts.” Hamilton at ¶ 69 (internal quotes omitted); quoting Smith v. Redecker, 4th Dist. Athens No.
08CA33, 2010–Ohio–505, ¶ 51; quoting Smith v. Lessin, 67 Ohio St.3d 487, 493 (1993).
{¶ 20} “In determining whether to give a requested jury instruction, a trial court may inquire
into the sufficiency of the evidence to support the requested instruction.” Hamilton at ¶ 70 (internal
quotes omitted); quoting Redecker at ¶ 52; quoting Lessin at 494. A trial court is therefore vested
with discretion “to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to require a jury instruction.” State
v. Mitts, 81 Ohio St.3d 223, 228, 690 N.E.2d 522 (1998); see also State v. Wolons, 44 Ohio St.3d 64,
541 N.E.2d 443 (1989), paragraph two of the syllabus. “If, however, the evidence does not warrant
an instruction a trial court is not obligated to give the requested instruction.” Hamilton at ¶ 70
(internal quotes omitted); quoting Redecker at ¶ 52; quoting Lessin at 494. Thus, “‘we must
determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding that the evidence was insufficient to
support the requested charge.’” Id. at ¶ 70; quoting Redecker at ¶ 52. The term ‘abuse of
discretion’ implies that a court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. State v.
Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980).
{¶ 21} In the case sub judice, appellant testified that he acted in self-defense and his counsel
requested a self-defense jury instruction. However, after the trial court reviewed the evidence and
considered the parties’ arguments, the court denied appellant’s request for the jury instruction. The
court pointed out that the evidence established that appellant was not permitted to be at the residence
due to the protection order and that he also did not comply with his duty to retreat.
{¶ 22} Appellant, however, contends that the parties presented sufficient evidence at trial to
submit to the jury the issue of whether he acted in self-defense. Appellant argues that, under R.C.
2901.05(B)(1), the language “tends to support” implies that an accused’s burden to present evidence
ADAMS 19CA1095 8
sufficient to obtain a jury instruction is “extremely low.” Yet, elsewhere in appellant’s brief he cites
the same standard that applied to the assertion of self-defense under the prior version of R.C.
2901.05.
{¶ 23} Prior to the statutory amendment, it was well-settled that “[t]he proper standard for
determining in a criminal case whether a defendant has successfully raised an affirmative defense
under R.C. 2901.05 is to inquire whether the defendant has introduced sufficient evidence which, if
believed, would raise a question in the minds of reasonable [jurors] concerning the existence of such
issue.” State v. Melchior, 56 Ohio St.2d 15, 381 N.E.2d 195 (1978), paragraph one of the syllabus;
see also State v. Hendrickson, 4th Dist. Athens No. 08CA12, 2009-Ohio-4416, ¶ 24 (quoting
Melchior). Evidence is sufficient where a reasonable doubt of guilt has arisen based upon [the
affirmative defense].” Melchior at 20. “If the evidence generates only a mere speculation or
possible doubt, such evidence is insufficient to raise the affirmative defense, and submission of the
issue to the jury will be unwarranted.” Id. Thus, “[a]s a matter of law the trial court cannot give a
jury instruction on an affirmative defense if a defendant fails to meet this burden.” State v.
Schwendeman, 4th Dist. Athens No. 17CA7, 2018-Ohio-240, 104 N.E.3d 44, ¶ 19.
{¶ 24} Appellant cites the definition of “tend” in support of his argument that a less
demanding standard should apply under newly amended R.C. 2901.05. Black’s Law Dictionary
defines “tend” as follows:
1. To be disposed toward (something). 2. To serve, contribute, or conduce in
some degree or way; to have a more or less direct bearing or effect. 3. To be
directed or have a tendency to (an end, object, or purpose).
TEND, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th Ed. 2019). R.C. 2901.05(B)(1) states that, to place the burden
on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an accused did not act in self-defense, evidence
ADAMS 19CA1095 9
must be presented that “tends to support that the accused person used the force in self-defense.”
Placed in context, the phrase “tends to support” does not connote that a new standard should apply to
the determination of whether a defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction. In order for
evidence that “tends” to support an affirmative defense, it must be sufficient to raise a question in the
mind of a reasonable juror, as is already required under the existing standard set forth in Melchior.
Here, appellant did not meet this standard.
{¶ 25} “To establish self-defense, a defendant must prove the following elements: (1) that the
defendant was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray; (2) that the defendant had
a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his only
means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force; and (3) that the defendant did not
violate any duty to retreat or avoid the danger.” State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 24, 759 N.E.2d
1240 (2002); citing State v. Robbins, 58 Ohio St.2d 74, 388 N.E.2d 755 (1979), paragraph two of the
syllabus.
{¶ 26} In the case sub judice, we find no evidence to create a question in the minds of
reasonable jurors regarding the first and third elements—that appellant was “not at fault in creating
the situation giving rise to the affray” and did not violate his duty to retreat. Here, the appellee
presented evidence that a protection order had been issued and that order did not permit appellant to
have contact with Thatcher and their daughter. Moreover, a deputy sheriff informed appellant about
the existence of the protection order, and appellant even testified that he knew of the order, but
nevertheless continued to contact the protected persons after the order’s issuance. Appellant also
testified that he left Thatcher’s residence on the morning of the incident because the police had been
called and he knew that he should not be there. It is also undisputed that when Lowe arrived at
ADAMS 19CA1095 10
Thatcher’s residence, appellant was sitting in his truck. Had appellant not been at the residence, or
had he remained in his truck, the altercation would not have occurred. Instead, appellant exited his
truck, grabbed a knife and jumped into Lowe’s truck. This evidence establishes that appellant was
at fault in creating the situation that gave rise to the altercation.
{¶ 27} Appellant also argues, citing State v. Smith, 136 Ohio St.3d 1, 2013-Ohio-1698, 989
N.E.2d 972, that he was not bound by the protection order because proper service had yet to be
effectuated. However, the legislature explicitly overruled Smith when it amended R.C. 2919.27,
which criminalizes the violation of a domestic violence protection order. PROTECTION
ORDERS—VIOLATION, 2017 Ohio Laws File 10 (Sub. S.B. 7) (“The amendments made by this
act to division (D) of section 2919.27 of the Revised Code are intended to supersede the holding of
the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Smith (2013), 136 Ohio St.3d 1, so that unperfected service of a
protection order or consent agreement does not preclude a prosecution for a violation of division (A)
of that section.”). R.C. 2919.27(D) provides:
In a prosecution for a violation of this section, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove
that the protection order or consent agreement was served on the defendant if the prosecution
proves that the defendant was shown the protection order or consent agreement or a copy of
either or a judge, magistrate, or law enforcement officer informed the defendant that a
protection order or consent agreement had been issued, and proves that the defendant
recklessly violated the terms of the order or agreement.
{¶ 28} In the case sub judice, the evidence affirmatively established that a law enforcement
officer informed appellant about the protection order’s existence. As a result, the protection order
was effective, and appellant could be held criminally liable for a violation of the order.
{¶ 29} Appellant further claims that his own testimony set forth sufficient evidence to put the
question to the jury of whether he acted in self-defense. In particular, appellant testified that when
ADAMS 19CA1095 11
Lowe pulled into the driveway, he exited his truck with a knife and appeared to be agitated. In
response to Lowe’s actions, appellant grabbed a knife and exited his truck. Appellant testified that
he and Lowe faced each other, that appellant threw the first punch with his free hand, caused Lowe
to backpedal, but despite the punch, Lowe did not run or turn his back until he succumbed to the
fatal abdominal wound.
{¶ 30} We believe, however, that none of appellant’s testimony undermines the evidence that
appellant was at fault in creating the situation that gave rise to the fight. See State v. Nichols, 4th
Dist. Scioto No. 01CA2775, 2002-Ohio-415 (Jan. 22, 2002) (“Ohio courts have long recognized that
a person cannot provoke assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of
self-defense.”). Appellant appears to argue that Lowe shares some responsibility for the events that
led to their confrontation. While the evidence might arguably support such a finding, what matters
for purposes of appellant’s assertion of self-defense is whether appellant was at fault and here, all of
the evidence, including appellant’s testimony, supports that finding. Lowe allegedly exited his truck
with a weapon, but appellant did the same. Moreover, by his own admission appellant initiated the
violent contact with Lowe, which did not cease until Lowe’s death. Hendrickson at ¶ 27 (“[T]he
‘not-at-fault’ requirement generally means that the defendant must not have been the initial aggressor
in the incident.”) Here, we find no evidence adduced at trial from which a reasonable juror might
infer that appellant was not at fault in creating the situation that gave rise to the fight.
{¶ 31} Additionally, no evidence exists that appellant complied with his duty to retreat to
avoid the use of lethal force. “[I]n most cases, ‘a person may not kill in self-defense if he has
available a reasonable means of retreat from the confrontation.’” State v. Thomas, 1997-Ohio-269,
77 Ohio St.3d 323, 326, 673 N.E.2d 1339, 1342; quoting State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St.3d 247, 250,
ADAMS 19CA1095 12
551 N.E.2d 1279 (1990). Appellant testified that his truck was not blocked in Thatcher’s driveway
and, as a result, he could have moved his truck and left the residence at any time. In other words,
appellant had a reasonable means of retreat. His failure to make an attempt to retreat is another
reason why the evidence did not tend to support the view that he acted in self-defense.
{¶ 32} In sum, we believe that the trial court’s denial of the self-defense jury instruction did
not constitute an abuse of discretion. See Hendrickson at ¶ 24 (“A trial court does not err by
refusing to instruct on self-defense when the defendant fails to produce sufficient evidence to support
that defense.”).
{¶ 33} Accordingly, based upon the foregoing reasons, we overrule appellant’s first
assignment of error.
II.
{¶ 34} In his second assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred by
allowing evidence that Evid. 404(B) prohibits. In particular, appellant argues that the trial court
should not have admitted testimony that appellant had made threats to Thatcher and had a domestic
violence protection order issued against him days before the incident. Appellant reasons that the
State sought the admission of the protection order only to show that appellant is a violent person who
had the capability or demeanor to commit a murder.
{¶ 35} In response, the State argues that the protection order is relevant to appellant’s
contention that he acted in self-defense and is, therefore, admissible in evidence.
{¶ 36} “The trial court has broad discretion in the admission or exclusion of evidence;
appeals of these decisions are reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard of review.” State v.
Fannon, 2018-Ohio-5242, 117 N.E.3d 10, ¶ 65 (4th Dist.). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the
ADAMS 19CA1095 13
trial court makes a decision that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.” State v. Johnson,
4th Dist. Ross No. 17CA3615, 2018-Ohio-3720, ¶ 13. “Relevant evidence” is “evidence having any
tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action
more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Evid.R. 401. “Generally,
all relevant evidence is admissible.” State v. Clay, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 11CA23,
2013-Ohio-4649, ¶ 34, citing Evid.R. 402.
{¶ 37} Appellant relies on Evid.R. 404(B) which provides:
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a
person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be
admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent,
preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. * * *
Evid.R. 404(B). “‘[E]vidence of other crimes may be presented when “they are so blended or
connected with the one on trial as that proof of one incidentally involves the other; or explains the
circumstances thereof; or tends logically to prove any element of the crime charged.”’” State v.
Wilkinson, 64 Ohio St.2d 308, 317, 415 N.E.2d 261 (1980), quoting United States v. Turner, 423
F.2d 481, 483-484 (7th Cir.1970), quoting United States v. Wall, 225 F.2d 905, 907 (7th Cir.1955).
{¶ 38} Evid.R. 403(A) provides that relevant evidence “is not admissible if its probative
value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice[.]” Unfair prejudice is not
“‘damage to a defendant’s case that results from the legitimate probative force of the evidence; rather
it refers to evidence which tends to suggest decision on an improper basis.’” State v. Lang, 129
Ohio St.3d 512, 2011-Ohio-4215, 954 N.E.2d 596, ¶ 89, quoting United States v. Mendez-Ortiz, 810
F.2d 76, 79 (6th Cir.1986).
{¶ 39} In the case sub judice, the State had to face the possibility that it would have the
ADAMS 19CA1095 14
burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that appellant did not act in self-defense. R.C.
2901.05(B)(1). As mentioned, supra, the three elements required to establish self-defense are: “(1)
the defendant was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray; (2) the defendant had
a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his only
means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force; and (3) the defendant did not violate
any duty to retreat or avoid the danger.” Barnes at 1244. Here, we believe that the protection order
is relevant to the first and third elements.
{¶ 40} In our analysis of appellant’s first assignment of error, we concluded that insufficient
evidence was presented with respect to the first element of appellant’s self-defense claim. We did
so in large part because the evidence established that appellant appeared at Thatcher’s residence in
violation of a protection order. As for the third element regarding the duty to retreat, it is
well-established that “there is no duty to retreat when one is assaulted in one’s own home.” State v.
Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323, 327, 673 N.E.2d 1339, 1342-43. This exception to the duty to retreat
extends to the use of lethal force in self-defense against a cohabitant with an equal right to be in the
home. Id. at 328, 1343. In this case, the evidence showed that appellant at one time resided, on
and off, with Thatcher at her residence—the same residence where appellant killed Lowe.
Consequently, whether the residence remained appellant’s residence is relevant to his contention that
appellant acted in self-defense. However, through the introduction of the protection order into
evidence, the State established that appellant did not reside with Thatcher. To the contrary,
appellant was prohibited from going to Thatcher’s residence. Thus, the protection order is relevant
to the first and third elements of appellant’s contention that appellant acted in self-defense.
{¶ 41} Accordingly, we believe that the admission into evidence of the protection order did
ADAMS 19CA1095 15
not violate Evid.R. 404(B) because it was not admitted to prove appellant’s bad character and that he
acted in conformity therewith, but instead to prove that he did not act in self-defense. The
admission of the protection order did not violate Evid.R. 403(A) because the risk of unfair prejudice
did not substantially outweigh its probative value. The protection order is relevant to two of the
three elements required to establish the affirmative defense of self-defense. Moreover, the prejudice
caused to appellant’s self-defense claim was not unfair, i.e., it did not suggest the jury reach a
decision based on an improper basis. Thus, because the admission of the protection order did not
violate Evid.R. 404(B) or Evid.R. 403(A), we believe that the trial court’s decision to allow it to
come into evidence did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
III.
{¶ 42} In his third assignment of error, appellant asserts that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not object to admission of the protection order and the
alleged threats that preceded it.
{¶ 43} The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of
the Ohio Constitution provide that defendants in all criminal proceedings shall have the assistance of
counsel for their defense. The United States Supreme Court has generally interpreted this provision
to mean a criminal defendant is entitled to the “reasonably effective assistance” of counsel.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); accord Hinton v.
Alabama, 571 U.S. 263, 272, 134 S.Ct. 1081, 188 L.Ed.2d 1 (2014) (“defendants are entitled to be
represented by an attorney who meets at least a minimal standard of competence”). To establish
constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) that his counsel’s
performance was deficient and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense and
ADAMS 19CA1095 16
deprived the defendant of a fair trial. E.g., Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687; State v. Myers, 154 Ohio
St.3d 405, 2018-Ohio-1903, 114 N.E.3d 1138, ¶ 183; State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233,
2012-Ohio-2577, 971 N.E.2d 865, ¶ 85. “Failure to establish either element is fatal to the claim.”
State v. Jones, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 06CA3116, 2008-Ohio-968, ¶ 14. Therefore, if one element is
dispositive, a court need not analyze both. State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378, 389, 721 N.E.2d
52 (2000) (stating that a defendant's failure to satisfy one of the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
elements “negates a court’s need to consider the other”).
{¶ 44} In the case sub judice, appellant cannot show that his counsel’s failure to object to the
admission of the protection order into evidence prejudiced his defense. As we discussed with
respect to appellant’s second assignment of error, the protection order was relevant and admissible
under the Ohio Rules of Evidence. As a result, even if appellant’s trial counsel had lodged an
objection, the protection order would have nevertheless been admitted into evidence over that
objection. Appellant therefore cannot establish any prejudice attributable to counsel’s failure to
object.
{¶ 45} Consequently, based upon the foregoing reasons, we overrule appellant’s third
assignment of error.
IV.
{¶ 46} In his fourth assignment of error, appellant asserts that his convictions are against the
sufficiency and the manifest weight of the evidence. In particular, appellant argues that the evidence
established that he acted in self-defense, or that he committed only voluntary or involuntary
manslaughter, not murder.
{¶ 47} The appellee responds that the witnesses and exhibits establish sufficient evidence for
ADAMS 19CA1095 17
each element of the offense, and, moreover, the jury’s verdict is not against the manifest weight of
the evidence.
{¶ 48} “When a court reviews a record for sufficiency, ‘[t]he relevant inquiry is whether,
after viewing 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.’ ” State v.
Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12, 2014-Ohio-1019, 9 N.E.3d 930, ¶ 146; quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio
St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus; Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,
99 S.Ct. 2781 (1979). “The court must defer to the trier of fact on questions of credibility and the
weight assigned to the evidence.” State v. Dillard, 4th Dist. Meigs No. 13CA9, 2014-Ohio-4974, ¶
27; citing State v. Kirkland, 140 Ohio St.3d 73, 2014-Ohio-1966, 15 N.E.3d 818, ¶ 132.
{¶ 49} In determining whether a criminal conviction is against the manifest weight of the
evidence, an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable
inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the
evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that
the conviction must be reversed. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541
(1997); State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, 960 N.E.2d 955, ¶ 119.
{¶ 50} “Although a court of appeals may determine that a judgment is sustained by sufficient
evidence, that court may nevertheless conclude that the judgment is against the weight of the
evidence.” Thompkins at 387. But the weight and credibility of evidence are to be determined by
the trier of fact. Kirkland at ¶ 132. A trier of fact is free to believe all, part, or none of the
testimony of any witness, and appellate courts generally defer to the trier of fact on evidentiary
weight and credibility issues because it is in the best position to gauge the witnesses’ demeanor,
ADAMS 19CA1095 18
gestures, and voice inflections, and to use these observations to weigh their credibility. Dillard at ¶
28; citing State v. West, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 12CA3507, 2014-Ohio-1941, ¶ 23.
{¶ 51} In the case sub judice, appellant was convicted of two counts of murder: (1) R.C.
2903.02(A) for purposely causing the death of another, and (2) R.C. 2903.02(B) for causing 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,” in this case felonious assault.
{¶ 52} Felonious assault, a second-degree felony, is defined under R.C. 2903.11:
(A) No person shall knowingly * * *:
* * *
(2) Cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another or to another’s unborn by
means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance.
R.C. 2903.11(A)(2). R.C. 2901.22 defines the relevant mental states as follows:
(A) A person acts purposely when it is the person’s specific intention to cause a
certain result, or, when the gist of the offense is a prohibition against conduct of a
certain nature, regardless of what the offender intends to accomplish thereby, it is the
offender’s specific intention to engage in conduct of that nature.
(B) A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person is aware that the
person’s conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain
nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when the person is aware that such
circumstances probably exist. When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is
an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person subjectively
believes that there is a high probability of its existence and fails to make inquiry or
acts with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the fact.
{¶ 53} Appellant first argues that the evidence established that he acted in self-defense.
However, as we discussed in our analysis of appellant’s first assignment of error, we agree with the
trial court’s conclusion that the evidence adduced at trial did not warrant a self-defense jury
ADAMS 19CA1095 19
instruction.
{¶ 54} Appellant’s other argument is that the evidence is insufficient to convict him for
anything other than voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. Here, appellant did not deny that he
stabbed and killed Lowe. Therefore, the only question regarding the sufficiency and weight of the
evidence concerns appellant’s mental state.
{¶ 55} In the case sub judice, we believe that the State presented substantial competent and
credible evidence to support the jury’s finding that appellant purposely caused Lowe’s death.
According to appellant, before he exited his truck Lowe had already exited his truck and stood with a
knife in hand. However, appellant’s testimony is not consistent with the testimony of the other
eyewitnesses—Klover Thatcher, Shauna Thatcher, and Alliysa Thatcher. Their testimony, along
with other evidence, instead supports the inference that appellant exited his truck with the specific
intent to kill Lowe.
{¶ 56} Klover Thatcher testified that she was on the phone with appellant when Lowe
arrived. She testified that appellant told her “Oh, there’s Willie I’m going to fucking stab that
mother fucker.” Thatcher then observed appellant exit his truck and grab a knife.
{¶ 57} Shauna Thatcher, Klover’s daughter, brought clothes to appellant and stood by his
truck immediately before the incident. When Lowe arrived, appellant told Shauna to go inside the
house. Shauna further testified that Lowe was not yet parked in the driveway when appellant exited
his truck, grabbed a large knife and began to pursue Lowe. According to Shauna, the two men faced
off in the grass in front of the house, at which time she heard Lowe say to appellant, “Matt, you don’t
want to do this.” Shauna then ran inside her home, locked the door, looked out the window and
observed appellant throwing his hands up and down, with the large knife in hand. After that,
ADAMS 19CA1095 20
Shauna covered her eyes and ears and did not see the fight.
{¶ 58} Alliysa Thatcher, also Klover Thatcher’s daughter, testified that when Lowe arrived,
appellant exited his truck and jumped in the back of Lowe’s truck. Lowe then “came around and
[Appellant] pushed himself off [Mr. Lowe]’s truck and started chasing [Mr. Lowe].” To get away
from appellant, Lowe ran backwards with his hands up. Alliysa did not see anything in Lowe’s
hands and he ended up running to the porch. Appellant and Lowe then met at the bottom of the
stairs, where Alliysa observed appellant swing his arms. She could not see Lowe or his actions on
the stairs.
{¶ 59} Taken together, this testimony supports a finding that appellant exited his truck in
order to kill Lowe, not to defend himself. In these accounts, appellant is the aggressor. Appellant
initiated the encounter and, when Lowe suggested to appellant that he reconsider what he was doing,
appellant instead persisted. Even appellant testified that he first used force by punching Lowe.
{¶ 60} The intent to kill may also be inferred from the weapon that appellant chose to use.
Appellant opted to use a very large knife. Among the many injuries to Lowe, the coroner testified
that Lowe received two stab wounds to his left lower abdomen that penetrated deep into his body.
One wound sliced Lowe’s intestine in half and cut through a significant portion of his mesentery, the
tissue that supplies blood to the intestines. The second stab wound lacerated Lowe’s abdominal
aorta and inferior vena cava. The coroner explained that the aorta “is the main artery that comes out
the top of the heart sending off branches to the head, the arms, and then it goes all the way down
along your spine and then branches off to your legs.” Lowe’s aorta was almost completely severed
at his spine, just before it split off to his legs. The inferior vena cava, the major vein that brings
blood from the legs along the spine and back to the heart, was also almost completely severed.
ADAMS 19CA1095 21
These stab wounds caused massive internal blood loss. A reasonable juror could infer from
appellant’s choice of weapon, and the deep, penetrating wounds to Lowe’s abdomen, that appellant
attacked him with the intent to kill.
{¶ 61} In the case sub judice, it was the jury’s prerogative to reject appellant’s version of
events and infer, from the testimony and evidence adduced at trial, that appellant acted with the
specific intent to kill Lowe. R.C. 2903.02(A). The same testimony and evidence also supports the
jury’s finding that appellant knowingly caused physical harm to Lowe, which was the proximate
cause of his death, to support appellant’s conviction under R.C. 2903.02(B).
{¶ 62} Thus, in light of the foregoing, we cannot conclude that appellant’s convictions are
against the manifest weight of the evidence, that the jury lost its way, or that appellant’s convictions
constitute such a manifest miscarriage of justice that they must be reversed. Moreover, “[w]hen an
appellate court concludes that the weight of the evidence supports a defendant’s conviction, this
conclusion necessarily also includes a finding that sufficient evidence supports the conviction.”
State v. Adkins, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 13CA17, 2014-Ohio-3389, ¶ 27. Accordingly, we reject
appellant’s claim that sufficient evidence does not support the convictions.
Outcome: Therefore, based upon the foregoing reasons, we overrule appellant’s fourth
assignment of error and affirm the trial courts’ judgment.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: