Youngstown Daily Legal News

Appeal denied for man who declared himself a robber

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: January 12, 2015

A man who reportedly declared himself a robber during his offense lost his appeal recently when the 12th District Court of Appeals ruled that the evidence against him was adequate to support his convictions.

Following a jury trial, the Butler County Court of Common Pleas found Reginald Palmer guilty of aggravated robbery, felonious assault and grand theft.

In his appeal, Palmer alleged that the trial court convicted him against the manifest weight of the evidence and allowed improper evidence against him.

The three-judge appellate panel disagreed.

“After carefully reviewing the record, we find that the jury did not lose its way in convicting appellant of aggravated robbery with a firearm specification, felonious assault, and grand theft,” Judge Michael Powell wrote on behalf of the appellate judges.

Palmer’s case stemmed from the armed robbery of Jamey Arnold on Sept. 24, 2013.

Arnold testified that on that date, he and his estranged wife Katie Henry drove to an abandoned house in Hamilton, Ohio to buy a laptop from a man Henry knew as “Reggie.”

Henry allegedly knew Reggie from a homeless shelter, but he was living in an abandoned house at the time.

Henry told the court that she had been to the house before and did not think anyone lived there except for Reggie.

When they arrived, Arnold reportedly stayed in the car while Henry entered the house with Reggie.

Henry said she returned to the car after Reggie refused to sell the laptop.

Case summary stated that as the couple was about to leave, Reggie approached the car and told them he wanted to discuss the laptop.

Arnold said he let him into the backseat and they talked about the laptop while Reggie smoked.

He said they were just talking until Reggie suddenly pulled out a gun and struck Arnold in the head with it.

Arnold described the gun as a chrome-colored revolver. Henry described it as silver.

While Arnold was heavily bleeding, he said Reggie ordered him out of the car and he was able to crawl out.

As he crawled toward the back of his car, he dropped his cellphone and Reggie followed him.

He said Reggie ordered him to relinquish his phone and when Arnold refused Reggie pointed the gun at him and fired a shot.

Henry was on the ground on the other side of the car and testified that she heard the shooting but did not see it.

She then heard Reggie get into Arnold’s car and say “he doesn’t get robbed, he robs or he’s a robber” before fleeing the scene in Arnold’s car.

Henry said her purse, coat and ID were in the car.

Arnold was treated for his head wound, which required seven staples. He also sustained a chipped tooth and experienced severe headaches that required subsequent hospital trips.

Arnold was unable to identify his attacker but Henry positively identified Palmer in a photo lineup and at trial.

Two other witnesses were nearby when they heard the altercation.

A woman testified that she heard someone repeatedly yelling “you think you’re going to rob me, b****. You can’t effing rob me. I’m the mothereffing robber.”

She then heard a gunshot, a car door and tires squealing as the car left.

Her friend, Tim Klein, testified that he heard screaming and then saw Arnold being pushed from the car.

He said he saw Palmer hit Arnold a few times. He also said Palmer told Arnold “you’re not the robber, I’m the robber” before pointing a gun at Arnold and firing it once.

He then made eye contact with Palmer before Palmer fled.

Klein described the gun as a revolver with a “grayish” steel tint and identified Palmer in a photo lineup and in the courtroom.

Investigating officers testified that they found Arnold’s car behind a building on Ludlow Street shortly after the robbery.

A search of the area yielded Palmer’s shirt, the vehicle’s keys, Henry’s ID and Arnold’s phone.

They also stated that a shoeprint found on the scene matched the distinctive diamond pattern on the bottom of Palmer’s shoes at the time of his arrest.

Although the handgun was not recovered, attorney Gregory Hatcher testified that a shiny black handgun and several bottles of prescription pills were stolen from his office prior to the incident.

The pill bottles were reportedly found under Palmer’s cot in the abandoned house.

DNA testing also revealed Arnold’s blood on Palmer’s shoes.

The jury found the evidence sufficient to show Palmer’s identity as the assailant and found him guilty.

The trial court sentenced him to 12 years in prison and he appealed.

In his first proposition of law, Palmer argued that Hatcher’s testimony should not have been permitted as it showed other bad acts.

However, the appellate judges found that the trial court instructed the jury to disregard the fact that a break-in occurred and use the testimony only to show that a gun and prescription pills were taken.

They held that the testimony’s relevance as identifying material outweighed any potential prejudice.

“We find that Hatcher’s testimony was properly admitted to show identity under Evid.R. 404(B) as the identity of Arnold’s assailant was an issue at trial,” Powell stated.

Palmer next argued that the DNA evidence should have been suppressed because he did not receive the report until a few days prior to trial.

The record showed the state disclosed the evidence as soon as it received it and that the trial court offered Palmer a continuance to prepare for that evidence. Palmer declined that offer because he was insistent to keep his speedy trial rights, which the appellate judges noted would not have expired for another month.

“The fact that defense counsel declined to pursue the curative measures offered by the trial court does not entitle appellant to a finding that the trial court should have imposed the strictest remedy available, namely excluding Hall’s testimony,” Powell wrote.

Finally, Palmer challenged the weight of the evidence against him.

However, the judges found that two witnesses identified him, DNA evidence linked him to the crime and shoe prints linked him to the scene.

They ruled that the jury was in the best position to determine witness credibility and declined to disturb its ruling.

“In light of all of the foregoing, we find that appellant’s conviction for aggravated robbery with a firearm specification, felonious assault, and grand theft were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.”

Presiding Judge Robert Ringland and Judge Robin Piper concurred.

The case is cited State v. Palmer, 2014-Ohio-5491.

[Back]