Youngstown Daily Legal News

Man who threatened police officer multiple times loses appeal

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: December 5, 2013

The 9th District Court of Appeals ruled recently that a Summit County man’s convictions for retaliation, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and aggravated menacing were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, affirming the trial court’s guilty findings.

The three-judge appellate panel also ruled to reverse the case in part, finding that the Summit County Court of Common Pleas did not consider whether the offenses were allied offenses of similar import and the case was remanded for the court to make the proper findings.

The defendant, Michael Brown, was indicted based on events that took place on March 19, 2011, however, the case stemmed from a long relationship between Brown and Officer Howard Vaughn of the Akron Police Department.

Vaughn and Brown were acquainted with each other from high school and, according to case history, the two did not have any problems until February 2000.

Vaughn testified at trial that the issue began when he received a call from a female friend that someone had broken into her car.

Vaughn went over to her home to investigate and while he was doing so, Brown came to the front door and began yelling.

Brown then threatened to shoot Vaughn’s truck and strongly expressed his dislike for the officer.

Eventually, Brown pulled out a gun and told Vaughn that they could settle their dispute at a nearby playground.

As a result of that incident, a warrant was issued for Brown’s arrest.

Vaughn next encountered Brown in 2006, when he was stopped at a red light on his way home from church.

Brown pulled up next to the officer, laughing, and threatened to hurt him. Vaughn drove away after Brown made the comment.

In 2007, another encounter took place during which Vaughn was working an off-duty job at a liquor store.

Brown allegedly walked in to the store and swore at Vaughn and, on his way out, threatened Vaughn with physical harm.

Brown was arrested when he continued yelling threats in the parking lot and threatening to “destroy” Vaughn.

In March 2011, Vaughn and Brown encountered each other once again, and those events led to Brown’s latest arrest.

Vaughn testified that he had gone to an Acme shop and happened to park next to Brown’s vehicle.

As he walked in front of Brown’s car, Brown began swearing at him.

Vaughn told Brown that he was praying for him and Brown responded by saying he was “going to spray (Vaughn’s) house with bullets.”

During trial, Vaughn indicated that he was afraid the threats were genuine and he worried for his family’s safety.

He stated that Brown knew where he lived and had confronted him with a gun on prior occasions.

He proceeded to walk in the store behind Brown and called police but, when they arrived, Brown had left.

Police officers went to Brown’s home in an attempt to locate him. Eventually, Brown came outside and identified himself.

When asked if he could give details about the incident at Acme, Brown became agitated and began using expletives.

He began to make threats against the police in general and against Vaughn specifically.

The police told him he was under arrest but, at that point, Brown turned to go back into his home.

An officer pulled him by his wrist into the front yard and, according to testimony from officers at the scene, Brown then took a fighting stance.

Brown was tackled and arrested and witnesses at the scene testified that the police officers never hit or kicked him.

Brown also testified at trial and maintained that, through every encounter with Vaughn, he tried to avoid a confrontation.

During the first incident, Brown stated that Vaughn pulled out his gun and held it to Brown’s head and then stood in the street screaming as Brown drove away.

At the liquor store, Brown held that it was Vaughn who followed him out into the parking lot.

Brown also denied making any threats during the 2011 encounter at Acme and stated that, when the police came to his home, they stated that Vaughn would “end up shooting him someday,” and then hit him while he was on the ground and not resisting.

After a review of the record, the court of appeals did not agree with Brown’s argument that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

“The majority of Mr. Brown’s argument focuses on credibility issues,” wrote Presiding Judge Eve Belfance for the court. “Notably, Mr. Brown does not generally assert ... that if it was reasonable to believe the state’s witnesses’ testimony, the evidence would not support a conviction under the charged offenses.”

The appellate panel found that credibility determinations played a critical role in the jury reaching it’s decision but it also noted that the jury was best able to assess the demeanor of witnesses and evaluate their testimony based on their conduct in open court.

“Mr. Brown essentially asserts that his version of events is more believable than Officer Vaughn’s,” wrote Judge Belfance. “In this case, we cannot say that the jury lost its way in finding Officer Vaughn’s version of events more credible than Mr. Brown’s.”

While it was possible that Vaughn fabricated the allegations when he placed his calls to the police dispatch, the court of appeals held that the jury could have reasonably found Vaughn to be more credible since he did in fact report the information.

“Contrary to Mr. Brown’s suggestion, even if the jury believed he engaged in appropriate conduct, such does not require the conclusion that Mr. Brown would not resort to illegal means to express his outrage,” wrote Judge Belfance.

The appellate panel concluded that Brown’s behavior could reasonably have been perceived as violent and threatening in nature and that his “turbulent behavior” persisted even after he was warned to desist.

“After reviewing the record, we cannot say the jury lost its way,” wrote Judge Belfance.

Brown’s convictions were affirmed but the appellate panel found that the trial court failed to conduct a similar import analysis before sentencing.

The case was remanded for the Summit County court to make the proper findings.

Judges Beth Whitmore and Jennifer Hensal concurred.

The case is cited State v. Brown, 2013-Ohio-5112.

[Back]