State v. Darr

Citation: 2018 Ohio 2136Docket: 17CA011107

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; June 4, 2018; Ohio; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Timothy Darr appeals his convictions and sentences from the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, which included multiple charges related to a high-speed motorcycle chase and subsequent altercation with law enforcement. Trooper Corey Resendez observed Darr speeding and attempted to initiate a traffic stop, but Darr fled, ultimately abandoning his motorcycle and attempting to escape on foot. During the encounter, Darr refused to comply with the trooper's commands and reached for a handgun in his waistband, leading to a physical struggle. Darr was indicted on multiple counts, including felonious assault and various firearm-related offenses. His motion to suppress evidence was denied, as he argued that the trooper lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him. The court ruled that the trial court's findings were supported by credible evidence, allowing the appellate court to uphold the decision without deference to the trial court's conclusions. Darr was found guilty of most charges and sentenced to 14 years in prison. He raised three errors in his appeal, particularly focusing on the admissibility of evidence under the attenuation doctrine regarding the initial traffic stop.

The trial court determined that Trooper Resendez lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Mr. Darr for speeding but denied Mr. Darr's motion to suppress evidence, concluding that the attempted traffic stop did not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment because Mr. Darr did not stop in response to the trooper's actions. The court supported its finding with evidence showing that, despite slowing down, Mr. Darr did not come to a full stop but instead maneuvered around another vehicle. Mr. Darr did not contest the court's conclusion that his speed provided reasonable suspicion for the trooper to stop him, leading to the upholding of the denial of his motion to suppress.

Mr. Darr raised multiple assignments of error, claiming the jury erred in convicting him of three-year firearm specifications and felonious assault due to a lack of credible evidence demonstrating a voluntary act in displaying the weapon or attempting to harm the trooper. He asserted that the jury lost its way in its findings. The appellate court's review process involves weighing evidence and assessing witness credibility to determine if a manifest miscarriage of justice occurred. Mr. Darr argued that he did not voluntarily display his firearm, asserting that it became visible only when he tripped. The jury ultimately found him guilty under firearm specifications related to various charges, including felonious assault.

Trooper Resendez recounted that upon approaching Mr. Darr, he ordered him to show his hands. Mr. Darr only displayed his left hand and reached for a handgun hidden in his waistband. After securing Mr. Darr, he claimed he was only retrieving the gun as it was sliding down his pants. However, Resendez stated that Mr. Darr never relinquished his grip on the firearm during their struggle, which left the trooper vulnerable to physical attacks. The jury found sufficient evidence that Mr. Darr brandished the gun and used it to facilitate charges of felonious assault, assault, resisting arrest, and obstructing official business.

Mr. Darr contested his felonious assault conviction, arguing a lack of evidence that he attempted to harm Trooper Resendez with the handgun. Resendez observed Mr. Darr reaching for the firearm, prompting him to tackle Mr. Darr to neutralize the threat. Despite Mr. Darr's intention to pull out the gun, he struggled to maintain control, hitting the trooper in the head. Resendez described Mr. Darr's stance as a "low ready position," indicating readiness to aim and fire. The jury's conclusion that Mr. Darr knowingly attempted to cause harm using a deadly weapon was upheld.

All of Mr. Darr's assignments of error were overruled, affirming the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. A special mandate was issued for execution of the judgment, with costs taxed to the appellant. The judgment entry will be filed, and notification will be sent to the involved parties.