FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 16CR093262
GIOVANNA V. SCALETTA-BREMKE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and NATASHA RUIZ GUERRIERI,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
J. CARR, Judge.
Defendant-Appellant Anthony W. Davis appeals from the
judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. This
In connection with a homicide, Davis was indicted on two
counts of murder, two counts of felonious assault, one count
of tampering with evidence, and two counts of having weapons
while under disability. The murder and felonious assault
counts each included a firearm and repeat violent offender
specification. The charge for tampering with evidence
included two accompanying firearm specifications. Ultimately,
the State dismissed one of the firearm specifications
accompanying the tampering with evidence charge.
Davis filed a motion to suppress alleging that police
elicited his initial statements without providing the
warnings set forth in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.
436 (1966). Thus, Davis argued that his later
post-Miranda statements were also inadmissible as
fruit of the poisonous tree. The State opposed the motion and
a hearing was held. The trial court issued a journal entry
overruling the motion to suppress. The trial court found the
officer's testimony credible and concluded that the
public safety exception applied. Thus, the trial court
determined that the officer's initial questioning
inquiring about a weapon did not require Miranda
The matter proceeded to a jury trial. Davis was found guilty
of the charges and specifications in the indictment and was
sentenced to an aggregate term of 25 years to life in prison.
Davis has appealed, raising a single assignment of error for
TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS BECAUSE
THE INITIAL QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT ROSE TO THE
LEVEL OF CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION AND IS SUBJECT TO
MIRANDA. (Emphasis added.)
Davis argues in his sole assignment of error that the trial
court erred in failing to suppress Davis' statements.
Specifically, he maintains that the police officers were
required to Mirandize him prior to asking him about
whether he had any weapons. Additionally, Davis asserts that
the trial court's factual finding concerning what was
asked of Davis was not supported by competent, credible
evidence. Davis asserts that, during the initial questioning,
he was asked where the gun was and maintains the trial
court's finding that Davis was asked if he had any
weapons was not based on credible ...