Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Carter

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Allen

April 3, 2017

STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
MARKELUS Q. CARTER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

         Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. CR2014 0139.

         Judgment Affirmed.

          F. Stephen Chamberlain for Appellant.

          Jana E. Emerick for Appellee.

          OPINION

          SHAW, J.

         {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Markelus Q. Carter ("Carter"), brings this appeal from the September 22, 2015, judgment of the Allen County Common Pleas Court sentencing Carter after he was found guilty in a jury trial of Aggravated Murder with a firearm specification in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A) and R.C. 2941.145(A), and Having Weapons While Under Disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3), a felony of the third degree. On appeal, Carter argues that there was insufficient evidence presented to convict him, that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence, that the trial court erred by denying his request for a mistrial based upon an altercation that occurred in a holding cell between Carter and a State's witness, that the trial court improperly allowed evidence of the altercation to be introduced during the trial, that the State committed discovery violations, that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments, and that Carter received ineffective assistance of counsel.

         Facts and Procedural History

         {¶2} On April 17, 2014, Carter was indicted for Aggravated Murder with a firearm specification in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A) and R.C. 2941.145(A) respectively, and Having Weapons While Under Disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3), a felony of the third degree. It was alleged that Carter shot and killed Kenneth Warrington shortly after 5 a.m. on February 23, 2009. Warrington had a relationship with Carter's ex/the mother of Carter's children, Sonya Burkholder (nka "Hughes"). Warrington was shot six times just outside of Sonya's residence in Lima, Ohio. Carter pled not guilty to the charges.

         {¶3} After a lengthy pre-trial process that included, inter alia, multiple suppression hearings and a competency evaluation, Carter's case proceeded to a jury trial, which was held September 8-22, 2015. At trial the State presented the testimony of 30 witnesses and over 150 exhibits, then rested its case. Carter presented the testimony of 8 witnesses and in excess of 30 exhibits, then rested his case. Ultimately the jury found Carter guilty of Aggravated Murder with a firearm specification and Having Weapons While Under Disability, all as indicted.

         {¶4} Carter was sentenced to life in prison without parole on the Aggravated Murder charge, a three-year consecutive prison term on the firearm specification, and a three-year concurrent prison term on the Having Weapons While Under Disability charge. A judgment entry memorializing Carter's sentence was filed September 22, 2015. It is from this judgment that Carter appeals, asserting the following assignments of error for our review.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 1

         THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR PREJUDICIAL TO THE DEFENDANT BY FAILING TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF AN ALTERCATION BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND A GOVERNMENT WITNESS IN A HOLDING CELL OF THE COURT DURING TRIAL AND ALLOWING A VIDEO OF THAT ALTERCATION TO BE PLAYED FOR THE JURY DURING THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE IN CHIEF.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 2

         THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR PREJUDICIAL TO THE DEFENDANT BY OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR MISTRIAL FILED ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2016, BASED UPON RULE 16 DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS AND BRADY DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS RELATED TO TESTIMONY OF A GOVERNMENT WITNESS ON FIREARMS.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 3

         THAT THE CONVICTION OF THE DEFENDANT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, WAS BASED UPON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 4

         THAT THE PROSECUTION STATEMENTS IN CLOSING ARGUMENT MISSTATE THE EVIDENCE AND RISE TO THE LEVEL OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND REQUIRE A REVERSAL.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 5

         THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL DUE TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

         {¶5} For ease of discussion, we elect to address the assignments of error out of the order in which they were raised.

         Third Assignment of Error

         {¶6} In Carter's third assignment of error, he argues that there was insufficient evidence presented to convict him of Aggravated Murder with a firearm specification and Having Weapons While Under Disability. Carter also argues that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

         Standard of Review

         {¶7} Whether there is legally sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict is a question of law. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). Sufficiency is a test of adequacy. Id. When an appellate court reviews a record upon a sufficiency challenge, " 'the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.' " State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54, 2004-Ohio-6235, ¶ 77, quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.

         {¶8} By contrast, in reviewing whether the trial court's judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellate court sits as a "thirteenth juror" and examines the conflicting testimony. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997). In doing so, this Court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all of the reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the factfinder "clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered." Thompkins at 387. Furthermore, "[t]o reverse a judgment of a trial court on the weight of the evidence, when the judgment results from a trial by jury, a unanimous concurrence of all three judges on the court of appeals panel reviewing the case is required." Thompkins at paragraph 4 of the syllabus, citing Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 3(B)(3).

         Relevant Statutes

         {¶9} Carter was convicted of Aggravated Murder, which is codified in R.C. 2903.01(A), and reads, "No person shall purposely, and with prior calculation and design, cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy."

         {¶10} A firearm specification was attached to the Aggravated Murder, which is codified in R.C. 2941.145. It requires that "the offender had a firearm on or about the offender's person or under the offender's control while committing the offense and displayed the firearm, brandished the firearm, indicated that the offender possessed the firearm, or used it to facilitate the offense."

         {¶11} Carter was also convicted of Having Weapons While Under Disability for possessing the weapon he used in the murder of Kenneth Warrington. Having Weapons While Under Disability is codified in R.C. 2923.13(A)(3), and reads " * * *[N]o person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance, if * * * [t]he person * * * has been convicted of any felony offense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking in any drug of abuse[.]

         Evidence Presented

         a. Testimony Regarding Events Prior to the February 23, 2009 Murder

         {¶12} Carter and Sonya Burkholder had two children together, Tarah and Markelus. The children and Sonya lived with Carter until 2004 when Sonya's mother became "gravely ill, " so Sonya moved in with her. After Sonya's mother died, Sonya stayed in her mother's former residence until Sonya lost the house in 2007. At that time, Sonya moved back in with Carter; however, it was not to rekindle a romantic relationship. Rather, according to Sonya the relationship was platonic and she and Carter lived more as "roommates." While staying at Carter's residence, Sonya slept in her daughter Tarah's room with her.

         {¶13} Despite the fact that Sonya indicated she and Carter did not have a romantic relationship in 2007, Sonya testified that Carter was very controlling. Sonya indicated that Carter had been that way during their relationship when they were previously together, not allowing Sonya to socialize on her own. Additionally, Sonya stated that Carter did not give her a key to his home when she moved in during 2007 and that Carter had to let her in the house or she would get locked out.

         {¶14} While living with Carter in late 2007, Sonya was working as a security shift supervisor for Allied Barton Security Services, which did security for the Husky Refinery in Lima. Through her job, Sonya developed a friendship with Kenneth Warrington, who worked at the refinery. Sonya indicated that she did not tell Carter about her friendship with Warrington.

         {¶15} On December 15-16, 2007, Sonya and Warrington exchanged flirtatious emails, which were included in the record at trial. Sonya testified that Carter was good with computers and got into her email and found her exchanges with Warrington. The day after the email exchange, December 17, 2007, Sonya worked second shift at her security job and returned to Carter's home, showered and went to bed in Tarah's room. According to Sonya, Carter woke her up that night, extremely angry, and told her to pack her bags and get out.[1]

         {¶16} Sonya stated that Carter had a gun in his hand, that he followed her down the stairs, and that Carter struck her across the jaw with the gun.[2] Sonya stated that she went outside and flagged down a police officer who happened to be in the area and told the officer what happened. The officer then approached Carter's residence but Carter would not come outside or let the officers see the children. As a result of being informed that Carter had a gun, that children were inside, and that police were refused access to check on the safety of the children, more officers were called to the scene.

         {¶17} A four-hour "stand-off then ensued wherein Carter had multiple phone conversations with a police hostage negotiator. On the calls, some of which were recorded and played for the jury, Carter denied that his children were being held hostage, but he would not come outside and would not let the police see the children. On the calls Carter talked about honor and dishonor and how an honorable person should not have to go to jail. Meanwhile, the police attempted to keep him calm. Eventually the situation ended peacefully and Carter was taken into custody. Although an "air gun" was found inside Carter's home, no actual firearm was located at that time. No charges were brought against Carter as a result of the "stand-off incident.

         {¶18} After the December 2007 incident, Sonya moved out of Carter's residence and moved in with friends Krista and Don Bodiker, who also worked security at the refinery. Sonya stayed with the Bodikers until late-summer/early fall of 2008 when she moved into a house at 436 McKibben Street in Lima.

         {¶19} While living with the Bodikers, Sonya sought and received a civil protection order ("CPO") against Carter based primarily on the "stand-off incident. Carter contested the CPO and appealed the granting of that CPO to this Court. We affirmed the CPO in Burkholder v. Carter, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-08-20, 2008-Ohio-4644.[3]

         {¶20} Meanwhile, after he was not charged as a result of the December 2007 "stand-off incident, Carter was in contact with the Lima Police Department seeking to have Sonya charged for filing a false report or making false claims regarding the incident. That case was eventually assigned to a detective, though the detective testified that it was low priority and he did not look into it for a while.

         {¶21} During 2008, Sonya and Warrington's relationship deepened and according to Sonya the relationship became sexual for about two weeks in the summer of 2008. When Sonya moved out of the Bodikers' residence and into her own house on McKibben Street around August of 2008, Warrington occasionally stayed at the residence.

         {¶22} Throughout Warrington's relationship with Sonya, Warrington was married to Faye Warrington. Warrington and Faye had been married since 1983. Faye testified that Warrington told her about his relationship with Sonya when it began. Faye testified that despite the affair she did not want a divorce because Warrington still brought his paycheck home and Faye was hopeful that they would reconcile. Warrington did eventually move out of the marital residence though, and it was Faye's understanding that Warrington stayed either at his uncle's residence or at Sonya's residence.

         {¶23} Faye testified that she did not tell her family about Warrington's infidelity, choosing instead to speak with her minister about it. Faye indicated that she did not want others to change their opinion of Warrington. However, Faye testified that her family found out about Warrington's affair because they had received anonymous letters informing them of the situation. Faye testified that she did not know who wrote the letters, but she had received phone calls from Carter informing her of the relationship between Warrington and Sonya, which Faye already knew about.

         {¶24} Faye testified that Carter called her many times, sometimes at two or three in the morning stating that Warrington's truck was at Sonya's residence.[4] Faye testified that on one of the calls in the weeks prior to Warrington's death in February of 2009, Carter stated that he was going to give Warrington "one more chance" and that Carter stated he was going to call Warrington and tell him to stay away from Sonya. (Trial Tr. at 339). Faye asked whether Carter was threatening Warrington and she testified that Carter did not respond.

         {¶25} Similarly, the Husky Refinery received a call that was linked to Carter in early January of 2009. A man identifying himself as "Mark Carter" called the refinery requesting company policies regarding the use of property for employees engaged in an extramarital affair, specifically Sonya and Warrington. Pam Callahan answered the call for Husky and she stated that although the caller stated that he needed the information for a lawsuit and he sounded professional, she did not believe it was legitimate.

         {¶26} On February 18, 2009, the detective who had looked into Carter's claims that Sonya should be charged for making a false report regarding the 2007 "stand-off incident informed Carter that he had looked into the matter and he recommended that no charges be filed against Sonya. The detective informed Carter that he turned the case over to the city prosecutor's office, which agreed with him. The detective indicated Carter was not happy with the results.

         b. Testimony Regarding the Murder and its Investigation

         {¶27} On February 22, 2009, Sonya saw Warrington at work and Warrington indicated that he needed a key to her residence because Sonya had mistakenly taken Warrington's off of the counter and he did not have his key at the time. It seems that at that time the two worked different shifts that overlapped at the end of Sonya's and the beginning of Warrington's. According to Sonya, the two were not romantically involved at the time but Warrington still stayed at her residence occasionally and he kept some work uniforms in her son's room.[5] Sonya testified that when she gave Warrington her key it was the last time she saw Warrington alive.

         {¶28} Sonya testified that she left work and went to pick up Tarah at Carter's residence. Sonya indicated that Tarah had sent Sonya a text message earlier asking if Warrington was coming over to Sonya's that night and Sonya found it odd. Sonya testified that she asked Tarah about the text message but Tarah did not know anything about it. Sonya then returned with Tarah to her home at 436 McKibben and went to sleep.

         {¶29} Work records established that Warrington clocked out of the refinery at 5:04 a.m. on February 23, 2009. Sometime shortly thereafter, Warrington was shot six times just outside a side entrance of Sonya's home.

         {¶30} Donald Hovest, who was picking up trash on his route on a street close to 436 McKibben, heard the gunshots in his general area. He indicated that the gunshots occurred after 5 a.m., sometime possibly around 5:20. He reported the gunshots to police, which dispatched officers related to possible gunshots in the area at 5:18 a.m. Police responded to the area but officers did not observe anything relevant at that time.

          {¶31} Rosalind Johnson was asleep on her couch across the street from 436 McKibben and was awakened by the noise from the gunshots. She looked out her window and saw a person coming out of the alley with a "hoodie jacket on, a camouflage jacket." (Trial Tr. at 819). However, Johnson did not see any actual shooting and she simply went back to sleep.

         {¶32} Sonya woke up at 6 a.m. on February 23, 2009, and noticed that Warrington's truck was parked at her residence but he had not come inside. After waking up Tarah and mentioning that it was odd, Sonya discovered Warrington's body just outside and screamed. Tarah called 9-1-1 after checking Warrington for a pulse. The 9-1-1 call was played for the jury.

         {¶33} Police responded to the scene and began an investigation. It was ultimately determined that Warrington's death was a homicide resulting from six gunshot wounds. The shots were to his chin, right forearm, left chest, right buttock and two in the back. There were 12 holes total because all six bullets exited Warrington's body. The investigation further revealed that Warrington was shot by Winchester 9mm bullets. Shell casings and bullets were collected at the scene. Warrington was discovered with $160 on him, which officers felt ruled out a robbery, along with a gym bag and a cooler. Photographs of how and where Warrington was found just outside Sonya's door were included in the record.[6]

         {¶34} While at Sonya's residence surveying the scene, one officer noticed that there was an electric bill for Carter on the counter and the officer recalled the 2007 "stand-off incident.[7] Officers then wanted to get into contact with Carter. The detective that handled Carter's allegations against Sonya for filing a false report, Sergeant Godfrey, indicated that he had Carter's phone number so he called Carter around 8 a.m. and generally asked Carter to come into the station. When Carter answered, Carter asked if Sergeant Godfrey was calling because there had been some movement on his case with Sonya. At that time Carter was told to just come in without any further information being provided to him and Carter said he would be in shortly.

         {¶35} A half-hour passed and Carter had not come in, so Sergeant Godfrey called Carter again and said something had happened to "Kenneth" and Carter needed to come in. Carter stated that he did not like the sound of that but would come to the police station as soon as he finished a work-related errand.[8]

         {¶36} Before Carter came to the police station, Carter called his attorney Ken Rexford's office to ask if something had happened to him since Carter was informed that something had happened to "Kenneth." Leah Rexford, the attorney's wife who also worked at the law firm, informed Carter that nothing had happened to Carter's attorney Ken Rexford. Carter made another call to Rexford's office shortly thereafter where Carter was "inconsolable" and talking about something happening to his baby.

         {¶37} As Carter drove around to apparently complete his errands that morning, he was being followed by Detective Timothy Clark who was not in a marked cruiser. Detective Clark noticed that Carter's license plates did not match and he called for a marked cruiser to stop Carter. A patrol officer then did stop Carter and Detective Clark approached and told Carter that he wanted Carter to come in for questioning. According to one officer, Carter then "exploded in emotion, " as he kept talking about his baby, meaning his daughter Tarah. Officers were surprised by Carter's demeanor and assured Carter that Tarah was fine but Carter kept referring to her.[9] After being repeatedly assured that his daughter was fine, Carter then voluntarily went to the police station for an interview.

         {¶38} During Carter's interview, he stated that the night prior to Warrington's murder Sonya picked up Tarah sometime after 10 p.m. and took Tarah to Sonya's residence. Carter stated that he went to bed after watching shows on his computer and then woke up at 6 a.m. to his alarm clock. Also during the interview, Carter admitted to owning a .357 but denied owning a 9mm at that time. Carter told the police that they could have his .357 and he allowed the police to do a gunshot residue test on his hands.

         {¶39} Carter was under a disability for a prior conviction[10] and could not own a firearm, so the police indicated they were going to search his house to get the .357. A search warrant was then obtained and executed on Carter's residence to look specifically for weapons. Two guns were located at Carter's residence at that time along with a box of Winchester 9mm ammunition with some of the bullets missing. Testing later indicated that the bullets were consistent with those that killed Warrington, although they were relatively common bullets. However, testing indicated that neither of the firearms that were found at Carter's residence were used in the murder. Similarly, neither of those firearms were the subject of the Having Weapons While Under Disability charge in this case. Rather, the murder weapon, which was never found, was the firearm related to the charge.

         {¶40} As the investigation continued on the day of the murder, a second search warrant was executed on Carter's residence looking for anything related to a homicide. On Carter's kitchen table, a number of papers were found together including a copy of the private emails between Warrington and Sonya from December of 2007, a copy of the CPO Sonya had obtained against Carter, and a copy of the related police report from the December 2007 incident. There was also a document officers described as a "script" that appeared to correspond to the phone call that had been made to the Husky Refinery in January related to Sonya and Warrington's affair.

         {¶41} In addition to this paperwork, officers located camouflage clothing, which was later tested for gunshot residue ("GSR"). A short sleeve camouflage shirt and a long sleeve camouflage shirt both tested positive for GSR despite Carter stating in his interview that he had not fired a gun in years. Rosalind Johnson indicated that the camouflage pattern was consistent with what she had seen from her window on the morning of the murder. However, neither of the camouflage shirts contained a hood, which she had mentioned seeing. Nevertheless, officers also located a pair of gloves on a table and the gloves tested positive for GSR as well.

         {¶42} Various electronics belonging to Carter were seized during the search and analyzed. On one of Carter's digital cameras, there were images of streets in Lima and a picture of Warrington's truck parked outside of Sonya's home at 436 McKibben dated January 9, 2009. A forensic search of Carter's computer revealed he had been on the county auditor's website for information on the property at 436 McKibben and that he had been looking at a map of the surrounding area. In addition, there were google searches performed for Sonya Burkholder and Kenneth Warrington. A separate "palm" device also contained an address for Kenneth and Faye Warrington as well as a phone number, which had a *67 designation by it indicating that the number had been used while dialing *67 to block the caller ID.

         {¶43} On the day of the murder Carter was arrested for Having Weapons While Under Disability, which is separate from the same charge in this case. When Carter was taken into custody, he requested to speak with Sergeant Godfrey for a second time that day. Another interview of Carter was then conducted, and that interview was played for the jury. In the interview, Carter had some kind of 'tic, ' or seizure-like occurrence that the officers did not believe was genuine. Little of relevance came out of the interview.

         {¶44} While Carter was incarcerated for Having Weapons While Under Disability, Joey Moore, another inmate, stated that he heard Carter discussing the murder investigation. Moore testified at trial that Carter said that police found 16 grams of crack at his residence but they did not find a Mac-10 firearm that Carter claimed to have disassembled. A ballistics expert from BCI testified that a "Mac-10 style" firearm would be one of over 130 possible 9mm firearms that could have been consistent with the firearm that fired the bullets that killed Warrington.[11] Joey Moore also testified that Carter indicated that he had killed his girlfriend's boyfriend.[12] Police found Moore's statement credible because he was fairly accurate in the amount of crack that was found at Carter's residence and it was not something Moore could have known otherwise.

         {¶45} Also while Carter was incarcerated, he contacted a friend named Carlotta Williams and requested that she visit him. When she did, Carlotta testified that Carter held up a note asking her to tell the police that she was with him from 1:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. on the day of the murder. Carlotta refused and stated that the alibi Carter was requesting her to provide was false. She also stated at trial that she had seen Carter with a gun resembling a Mac-10 before when she was shown a generic demonstrative picture of a Mac-10 style firearm, though she said she had little familiarity with firearms.

         {¶46} Stephen Upham, another inmate who was incarcerated with Carter, testified that Carter told him about the murder. Upham testified that Carter indicated that he had gotten into an argument with the mother of his children and her boyfriend got mad and threatened Carter's children. Carter told Upham that a couple of weeks after this incident Carter shot the boyfriend. Upham testified that Carter indicated he watched the victim for a couple of weeks coming and going and that he was wearing camouflage and a paintball mask when he committed the murder.

         {¶47} Notably just before Upham testified, he was mistakenly placed in the same holding cell with Carter during a brief recess in the trial. Upham asked Carter how his trial was going, and stood up, then Carter assaulted Upham. A video of this incident was introduced into evidence.[13]

         Sufficiency of the Evidence

         {¶48} At the conclusion of the State's case, which consisted of 30 witnesses and over 150 exhibits, Carter made a Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal. Carter's motion was overruled by the trial court. Carter now contends on appeal that the State presented insufficient evidence to convict him of Aggravated Murder, the accompanying firearm specification, and Having Weapons While Under Disability.

         {¶49} Although Carter claims that there was insufficient evidence to convict him his actual arguments related to his convictions seem to be that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence because he contends that the State's testimony was not credible and that Sonya was more likely to be the killer than Carter. These arguments go to weight of the evidence rather than sufficiency.

         {¶50} Nevertheless, to the extent that Carter is arguing that there was insufficient evidence presented to convict him, we do not find Carter's arguments well-taken as the State produced ample evidence to establish each element of Aggravated Murder, the accompanying firearm specification, and Having Weapons While Under Disability. In fact, the State presented substantial circumstantial evidence against Carter. Notably, the Supreme Court of Ohio has stated that, "direct evidence of a fact is not required, and circumstantial evidence may be more certain, satisfying, and persuasive than direct evidence." State v. Jackson, 57 Ohio St.3d 29, 38 (1991).

         {¶51} In this case the State clearly established evidence of a motive and it also clearly established a plan for Carter to murder Warrington based on Carter's statements to Faye, the pictures Carter took essentially casing the area around Sonya's residence, and the searches Carter did on his computer. Warrington was shot six times just as he was returning to Sonya's from work, indicating that the murder was not an accident and that the killer had been waiting for him to return and aware of his schedule, which is essentially what Carter told Upham.

         {¶52} The State also presented evidence of a witness who saw someone near the scene at the time of the gunshots wearing camouflage and Carter was found in possession of camouflage clothing and gloves that had GSR on them. Corroborative of this evidence was the fact that Carter told Upham that Carter had committed a murder while wearing camouflage and a paintball mask.[14] Further, Carter possessed bullets of the same type and caliber that were used to kill Warrington.

         {¶53} Moreover, multiple jailhouse witnesses testified that Carter admitted to killing someone and Carter also sought out a friend to manufacture an alibi. Additionally, on the day of the murder officers remarked on the repeatedly odd behavior of Carter during ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.