Youngstown Daily Legal News

Appeals rejected for man who shot two women's boyfriends

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: October 18, 2013

A Franklin County appellate panel released an opinion late last week affirming a man’s convictions after he shot two women’s boyfriends in separate incidents.

The 10th District Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly joined the two indictments for Lamar Bass.

It further held that the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas gave correct jury instructions and properly convicted Bass for his role in the shootings.

Bass’ convictions stemmed from two separate incidents on different days and involving different victims.

The first occurred on Aug. 24, 2011, when Bass shot Anthony Taylor.

According to the facts of the case, Taylor was the boyfriend of Bass’ “white girl Courtney.”

Taylor allegedly refused to give Courtney money to purchase drugs from Bass and in response Bass shot him.

The second indictment alleged that on Sept. 12, 2011, Bass kicked down the door of his ex-girlfriend’s apartment and shot her new boyfriend.

Police were unable to apprehend Bass immediately after either shooting but eventually located him sitting in a parked car near the home of his ex-girlfriend’s father.

Bass was arrested following a seven or eight-minute car chase and sent to trial in the common pleas court.

The state requested that the indictments be merged for trial on the grounds that the same gun was used in both incidents.

The trial court held an oral hearing and granted that request.

A jury found Bass guilty as charged and he was sentenced to 21 years in prison.

On appeal, Bass first argued that his indictments should not have been merged.

The three-judge appellate panel held that indictments may be joined if they are of the same or similar character.

It maintained that Bass’ indictments both came from shooting incidents that happened only a few weeks apart and utilized the same weapon.

“In short, we find that the offenses charged in the two indictments are similar, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the state’s motion,” Judge John Connor wrote for the court.

Still, Bass argued that he was prejudiced by the decision to join the indictments because the first indictment involved drug trafficking and unfairly affected his second indictment, which had nothing to do with drugs.

The appellate judges agreed that the evidence concerning Bass’ drug activities would not have been admissible in a separate trial for the second indictment.

They held that the evidence may potentially have improperly influenced the jury.

However, they found that both the victim and Bass’ ex-girlfriend offered eyewitness testimony that was supported by physical evidence gathered at the scene, prior threats, and Bass’ flight from police.

The trial court then gave the jury detailed instructions regarding the separate indictments and their ability to find Bass guilty or not guilty of any one or all of the offenses charged.

“Presuming that the jury followed the instructions, as we are required to do in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the possibility of jury confusion was extremely remote,” Judge Connor stated.

The judges further ruled that the evidence related to each indictment was simple and distinct, rendering the trial court’s decision to join the indictments permissible.

Bass next argued that the trial court failed to properly inform him that his sentences for the two indictments would run consecutively.

During sentencing, the trial judge specifically listed the prison term for each separate charge when addressing Bass.

When Bass expressed confusion, the judge stated that the total prison term would be 21 years.

Bass again expressed confusion and asked for the total sentence as to both indictments.

“That’s the total sentence on both cases. Twenty-one years. Twenty-one years,” the judge stated.

Upon review, the 10th District judges held that the common pleas court clearly informed Bass that he would be serving 21 years and would be 48 years old when he was released.

“The record demonstrates that defendant understood that his sentences were consecutive, and the sentencing entries are consistent with the sentence imposed in open court,” Judge Connor wrote, overruling Bass’ claim.

The judges did agree, however, that the trial court failed to address the required findings before issuing consecutive sentences.

“This case is hereby remanded to that court to consider whether consecutive sentences are appropriate under H.B. No. 86 and, if so, to enter the proper findings on the record.”

Judge Lisa Sadler and retired Judge John McCormac joined to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Bass, 2013-Ohio-4503.

[Back]