Youngstown Daily Legal News

Appeals rejected for man who held ex-girlfriends at gunpoint

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: December 23, 2013

A man’s convictions for holding his ex-girlfriends at gunpoint and shooting one of them in the ankle were affirmed recently after the 10th District Court of Appeals found they were properly supported by the evidence.

Irvin Brown was convicted of felonious assault and two counts of kidnapping in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas following a trial in which his former girlfriends testified that he held them at gunpoint in their homes, tormented them and forced them to pray and recite Bible verses.

Laurika Starks and Andrea Bostic were neighbors and both of them told the court that they met Brown in the fall of 2011.

Starks and Brown began their relationship in November 2011 but Starks ended things the following January, saying Brown “had issues within himself and he was being argumentative.”

Brown then briefly dated Bostic. She said she asked Brown to leave her apartment and ended the relationship on Feb. 12, 2012 because she did not want him around her children.

Brown left the apartment and went to Starks’ home because the two were still friends.

Starks testified that Brown ignored her for most of the day, focusing on his laptop and talking to family and various people on Facebook.

She noticed that he was upset and eventually he put a gun in her face, though the events leading up to that were disputed.

Brown pulled the gun around midnight and Starks said she was terrified and could not leave.

She tried to talk Brown into leaving the apartment but he forced her to pray multiple times while pointing the gun at her and asked her if she loved Jesus and if she loved Tupac.

Brown eventually left the apartment around 2 or 2:30 a.m. and Starks said she could hear him throughout the night arguing with himself.

After Brown left Starks’ home, he returned to Bostic’s home around 2:30 a.m., according to the facts of the case.

She said Brown told her that he “scared the hell out of your neighbor” and that “I just put the gun to her head.”

Bostic said Brown fired a warning shot to see if anyone would respond, but Starks denied hearing any shots fired.

Bostic told the court Brown put the gun to her chin, made her pray, repent and state Bible verses while calling her names.

He eventually shot her in the ankle and she tried to hide the injury with a blanket because she said she did not think Brown knew he had hurt her.

When Brown saw the wound, he continued to ask Bible questions and told her she better answer or he would “blow your damn head off.”

Bostic was eventually able to flee the house and went to a neighbor’s home.

Her children’s father, who had the kids during the incident, called the police and Bostic was treated for her injuries.

After the incident, Brown sent Bostic several letters stating there were no drugs involved but “the devil took his mind” and that he was sorry. The letters also asked Bostic to forgive him and marry him and he promised to get help.

At trial, Brown claimed he did not mean to shoot Bostic and that the gun discharged by accident.

However, the state presented evidence about the trajectory that conflicted with that line of defense and showed reports that the gun was tested dozens of times and would not discharge accidentally.

The jury found Brown guilty of felonious assault and two counts of kidnapping.

On appeal, he argued that the prosecutor made improper comments during his closing arguments that deprived him of a fair trial.

Upon review, the three-judge appellate panel found that the prosecutor made statements at the start of the trial that indicated the jury would not hear a sufficient explanation of why Brown had a gun or why he continued to contact Bostic if he did not shoot her.

During closing, he told the jury, “You heard no explanation for the trajectory of the bullet other than this tug-of-war which is pure conjecture and does not fit the evidence. And no explanation for how this firearm could be tested in 12 different ways and not go off. No explanation.”

Brown argued that the statements improperly put a burden on him to testify. The judges, however, disagreed.

“The prosecution is addressing the jury in a future tense referring to appellant’s counsel’s explanation of the evidence that would occur in appellant’s closing argument or in the past tense during the prosecution’s rebuttal. These statements do not amount to prosecutorial misconduct,” Judge Gary Tyack wrote for the court, dismissing Brown’s first assignment of error.

Brown then contended that his convictions were against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence.

The judges first determined that the evidence was sufficient because the state presented testimony from both of the alleged victims as well as evidence of gunshot residue of Brown’s hands, testimony about the bullet’s trajectory and tests of the gun showing it would not accidentally discharge.

They then addressed the manifest weight claims.

Brown argued that there were inconsistencies in the women’s testimonies.

Still, the judges ruled that those inconsistencies were minor and did not detract from other consistent evidence in the case showing that Brown had a gun in the women’s homes, was angry and emotional, and ultimately shot one of the women.

“The evidence does not support appellant’s argument that the jury clearly lost its way or even the defense’s theory that the gun went off accidentally. After reviewing the entire record with caution and deference to the role of the trier of fact, we find that the verdict is not against the manifest weight of the evidence,” Judge Tyack stated.

He was joined by Presiding Judge William Klatt and retired Judge Thomas Bryant.

The case is cited State v. Brown, 2013-Ohio-5391.

[Back]