Youngstown Daily Legal News

Appeal of robbery, assault convictions rejected by court

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: December 2, 2013

The 11th District Court of Appeals recently ruled that a man convicted of felonious assault and aggravated robbery had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a police interrogation room.

A three-judge appellate panel also determined that the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas’ failure to suppress the statements made by Jacquavis Williams in the interrogation room was harmless error.

Williams also argued that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that his offenses should have merged for sentencing, but his assignments of error were overruled.

The Trumbull County grand jury indicted Williams on one count of second-degree felonious assault and one count of first-degree aggravated robbery, both with firearm specifications.

The indictment stemmed from a robbery that occurred at a market in Warren, Ohio on April 12, 2011.

Det. Wayne Mackey of the Warren Police Department was the lead investigator on the case.

He testified that, during the investigation, a DNA sample was taken from a bottle the victim said had been brought to the counter by the shooter during the robbery, but the initial investigation yielded no results.

Four months after the robbery took place, the police received a report from the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation regarding a DNA match.

The report indicated that DNA from a major and minor contributor had been recovered from the bottle found at the scene.

Mohammad Darwish, the store owner and victim, was identified as the major contributor, and the report stated that Williams was “most probably” the minor contributor.

A warrant was issued for Williams’ arrest and later that same day, he turned himself in at the police department.

Mackey testified that at that point, Williams was in custody and not free to leave.

Williams did not request a lawyer but wanted his mother present during the police interview so Mackey escorted the two into an interview room located in a secure, non-public area of the police station.

Case summary stated that there were no windows or mirrors in the room and no sign indicating that a recording may be taking place.

Mackey testified that there was a video and audio recording device hidden in the thermostat, which he turned on before he left Williams and his mother alone in the room with the door closed while he went to retrieve a Miranda form.

The device recorded a conversation between Williams and his mother during which Williams admitted being at the market on the day of the shooting.

He assured his mother that he was innocent and claimed that he frequented the store even after the shooting took place. Williams insisted he was being “railroaded.”

However, when Mackey entered the room to conduct the interview, Williams stated that he did not know or remember if he had been at the store on the exact date the victim was shot and robbed.

He told Mackey that he was a regular customer at the market, where he usually purchased the same chips, drink and Black and a Mild cigar, but he denied that he was the shooter.

Before his trial, Williams filed a motion to suppress the statements that were recorded while Mackey was out of the room.

After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion, holding that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the interview room.

A jury trial commenced on March 12, 2012 during which Darwish, the owner of the market, testified.

He said the market is a neighborhood store and that he knows most of his customers.

Darwish recounted that, on the day of the incident, a tall, 180-pound man with a tattoo on his neck came into the store and brought a bottle of blue Guzzler and a bag of chips to the counter. The man also asked for a Black and Mild cigar.

Without warning, the man shot Darwish and demanded money.

Darwish gave the man cash from the lottery ticket register and then retrieved more money from the store office. The assailant then headed out of the store and fled.

Darwish was hospitalized for one week due to injuries from the bullet that shattered his hand and tore through his stomach.

A DNA analyst for the BCI testified at trial that Williams could not be excluded as a contributor to the DNA found on the bottle at the crime scene.

Another BCI analyst testified that the fingerprints found on the bottle did not match Williams.

Four months after the shooting, Darwish and his wife were shown a photo array of possible suspects, but neither one of them could identify Williams.

Nevertheless, the jury found Williams guilty as charged and he was sentenced to an aggregate term of 20 years in prison.

Upon appeal, Williams argued that the trial court should have suppressed the recording of statements he made to his mother in the interview room and the appellate court agreed.

“Williams asserts that he was entitled to an expectation of privacy and that the surreptitious recording of the conversation between Williams and his mother violated (his) rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” wrote Presiding Judge Timothy Cannon for the court of appeals.

The appellate panel held that, under the Fourth Amendment, a communication cannot be intercepted if there is an actual and justifiable expectation of privacy from the government.

According to the majority of previous cases, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in police stations, including the interrogation rooms.

“Other courts have found a reasonable expectation of privacy in a police interrogation room under facts similar to those presented here,” wrote Judge Cannon, noting that conversations where a defendant has requested privacy are not admissible in court.

Judge Cannon said the problem in Williams’ case was that the interrogation room had no indication that one could be monitored or recorded.

“Except for the tables and chairs, it was an empty room, with no windows or other means of viewing into the room,” he wrote. “It is not reasonable to suggest that most people would expect a thermostat to be a video and audio recording and monitoring device.”

The appellate panel held that, if the police truly believed that no reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy in that room, the recording equipment should not need to be disguised.

Instead, the room was designed to make it seem as if activity was not being recorded.

“As a result, a reasonable person, regardless of his status, would have an expectation that he is not being monitored,” Judge Cannon wrote. “Thus, the statements should have been suppressed.”

Despite that conclusion, the court of appeals held that the trial court’s failure to suppress Williams’ statements amounted to harmless error because William’s proclaimed his innocence during his conversation with his mother.

“Therefore, Williams’ statement to his mother that he had been in the store that day was actually beneficial in light of the DNA evidence adduced at trial, as it established a justification for his DNA being present on the bottle found at the scene,” Judge Cannon concluded.

The appellate panel also ruled that Williams’ conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and that his convictions should not have merged for sentencing because his offenses were not committed with the same animus.

Judge Diane Grendell concurred in a separate opinion, stating that Williams did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the police interrogation room.

Judge Colleen O’Toole concurred in part but wrote a dissenting opinion in which she argued that Williams’ convictions should have been merged because they were allied offenses of similar import.

However, Williams’ sentence and the judgment of the Trumbull County Court was ultimately affirmed.

The case is cited State v. Williams, 2013-Ohio-5076.

[Back]