State v. McDermitt

Citation: 2022 Ohio 2422Docket: 2021CA0052

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; July 14, 2022; Ohio; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case State v. McDermitt, 2022-Ohio-2422, the Ohio Fifth Appellate District upheld the Stark County Court of Common Pleas' judgment convicting Jason Allen McDermitt of aggravated murder with a firearm specification and menacing by stalking. The appeal, filed by McDermitt, challenged the April 22, 2021 judgment. 

Prior to the murder of M.F., who was an operations manager at FedEx Ground, McDermitt exhibited obsessive behavior towards her, including bringing her food and drinks, surreptitiously photographing her, and collecting screenshots of her social media posts. His fixation was noted by co-workers, including Mary and Mikki, who expressed concern over his excessive discussions about M.F. Additionally, he misrepresented their relationship to others, claiming they were close friends and implying a desire for more than friendship. 

M.F. moved in with her boyfriend J.S. shortly before her murder, and during a birthday party for her daughter, McDermitt's behavior raised alarms, particularly noted by M.F.'s mother, C.R., who observed him closely following M.F. and interacting inappropriately with her family and guests. The court ultimately affirmed the conviction based on the evidence of McDermitt's stalking and obsessive conduct.

On October 8, 2020, M.F. contacted her mother, C.R., distressed over a workplace incident involving McDermitt and two coworkers who accessed her unattended phone. After initially lying, McDermitt admitted his involvement, prompting M.F. to sever ties with him, seek another job, and block him on social media. Despite her clear rejection, McDermitt became increasingly obsessive, attempting to communicate through mutual acquaintances and continuing to text her. Observers noted a change in McDermitt's behavior, indicating he was depressed and neglecting himself.

On October 24, 2020, M.F. and McDermitt had their last exchange, where she questioned how he knew her whereabouts. On October 28, M.F. was scheduled for a 2:30 A.M. shift. The night prior, she sent a text to C.R. indicating she was awake and would call after work. However, when J.S., M.F.’s partner, checked on her later, he found her dead in her car from gunshot wounds, with no sounds of gunfire heard.

C.R. was informed of the police presence at M.F.'s home and subsequently discovered her daughter's death. She suggested to law enforcement that someone from FedEx might be involved. McDermitt clocked into work at 2:59 A.M. that day, where coworkers noted an improvement in his demeanor. He mentioned to a colleague that he and M.F. had resumed communication, which raised suspicion among his peers due to his prior behavior. McDermitt expressed awareness of M.F.'s absence without concern and left work around 10:00 A.M. He was later seen washing his car at a Sheetz gas station, running it through the wash multiple times despite inclement weather.

McDermitt visited his parents' house on October 28 to give his mother a belated birthday gift and received devastating news via a text about M.F.'s murder, which caused him to become extremely upset. He initially left to go to a friend's house but returned shortly after. During a phone call with Mikki, he expressed distress over M.F.'s death and claimed they had recently rekindled their relationship, raising Mikki's suspicions. The call was interrupted by deputies identifying themselves at McDermitt's door, prompting him to hang up. He later discussed the murder with Mary, denying that M.F.'s boyfriend was involved. Following the murder, McDermitt stayed at his parents' home and requested friends' company, despite Mark noting the oddity of this after the deputies collected DNA samples from him.

On October 30, deputies returned with a warrant for his father's guns and McDermitt's car. Mikki, present during the warrant discussions on October 31, noted McDermitt's concerns about the car's "black box" potentially linking him to the crime. McDermitt speculated about the possibility of his spare key being stolen and used in the murder. While shopping for vigil supplies, he disclosed explicit details of a previous sexual encounter with M.F., a topic he had not previously mentioned to Mikki. 

On the way to the vigil, McDermitt inquired about traffic camera operations and stopped to buy M.F.'s favorite coffee, requesting a tribute sticker. At the vigil, he intrusively engaged with M.F.'s family, complimenting E. and giving her a stuffed toy, while ignoring C.R.'s repeated requests for him to leave their vehicle until Mark intervened. Throughout these interactions, McDermitt displayed a lack of emotional response.

C.R. returned to M.F.'s residence the day after M.F.'s death to collect E.'s belongings and observed McDermitt and another man outside M.F.'s car. When questioned, McDermitt claimed they were there to put a letter on a memory board for a vigil. On the morning of the murder, Deputy Christopher Connelly arrived at the scene where M.F. was found deceased in her car, with head injuries and a bullet strike to the passenger-side door. A .22 caliber bullet was retrieved from the car, and J.S. was swabbed for gunshot residue, which returned negative results. Investigators, including Detective Rocco Ross, searched for surveillance cameras but found none in the area. 

Deputy Eric Brown examined tire tracks and mud splatter near M.F.'s home, linking them to McDermitt's Ford Focus, which could have obscured visibility of M.F.'s front door. Brown's detailed report was peer-reviewed, but he was unable to extract data from the vehicle's restraint control module. After seizing McDermitt's car, Ross noted its unusually clean condition and obtained video evidence of McDermitt washing it that morning. A K9 named Milo detected explosive residue inside McDermitt's vehicle but not at M.F.'s home. 

Investigators accessed McDermitt's phone, which showed he was at his apartment until he left for FedEx around 2:49 a.m. An alarm was set on the phone for 1:20 a.m. Although McDermitt claimed not to own any firearms, his parents confirmed he had been at their home before and on the day of M.F.'s murder.

Ross analyzed traffic and business surveillance footage near M.F.'s residence, identifying a Ford Focus with a bent front license plate traveling in the vicinity around 1:37 a.m. on the relevant date. This vehicle matched McDermitt's Ford Focus, which was similarly found to have a bent license plate upon seizure. Additional footage captured the same vehicle leaving and returning to McDermitt's apartment consistent with his work schedule.

Both McDermitt's and M.F.'s phones were examined by the Bureau of Criminal Investigation, revealing messages that indicated a turbulent relationship following an incident on October 8, 2020. McDermitt expressed multiple apologies and a desire to meet, but M.F. preferred to communicate via text. Their last exchange occurred on October 24, 2020, after which there was no further contact.

McDermitt's phone contained applications that allowed him to screenshot M.F.'s Snapchat photos without her knowledge, including images of her and conversations from Skype where he presented himself as a different persona. Notably, he wrote fictional stories involving M.F., incorporating her likeness and detailing a supposed sexual encounter.

An autopsy performed by Dr. David Dolinak revealed that M.F. died from two gunshot wounds to the head, both fatal, with .22 caliber bullet fragments recovered from her body. Larry Mackey from the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab examined firearms seized from McDermitt's father's safe, all .22 caliber, including a revolver, suggesting a revolver may have been used due to the absence of shell casings at the crime scene.

Bullet fragments from M.F.'s brain and hair were too deformed for comparison, but a bullet found in M.F.'s car door allowed some analysis. All recovered projectiles were .22 caliber lubaloy-coated lead bullets, with the door bullet showing a right twist and six distinct lands and grooves. Expert Mackey excluded several handguns (Ruger, Chiappa, Beretta) as potential sources for the door bullet but could not exclude the Heritage Rough Rider revolver, indicating uncertainty about its involvement. Although .22 caliber bullets were found at McDermitt's parents' residence, none were lubaloy-coated.

McDermitt was arrested for M.F.'s murder on November 4, 2020, and indicted on December 17, 2020, for aggravated murder (R.C. 2903.01(A), unclassified felony with a firearm specification) and menacing by stalking (R.C. 2903.211(A)(1), fourth-degree felony). He pleaded not guilty and opted for a jury trial from April 2 to April 8, 2021. The prosecution presented evidence, while McDermitt's defense included testimonies from family and a coworker, who claimed he was not angry with M.F. and lacked knowledge of her schedule. McDermitt's parents testified about his gun familiarity and physical limitations post-surgery, asserting that only his father had access to the gun safe.

The jury found McDermitt guilty of aggravated murder and the firearm specification but reduced the menacing by stalking charge to a misdemeanor after determining he did not trespass. He was sentenced to life without parole for aggravated murder, three years for the firearm specification (consecutive), and 180 days for menacing by stalking (concurrent). McDermitt subsequently appealed, raising six assignments of error related to prosecutorial misconduct, the admission of certain evidence, and the trial court's decisions on motions and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict.

Counsel for the appellant withdrew the first assignment of error, which relied on evidence outside the record, and it was not considered. The second and third assignments of error were addressed together, focusing on the trial court's admission of other acts evidence, specifically a Skype conversation. The court found no error in the trial court’s decision. The admission or exclusion of evidence is at the trial court's discretion, which should align with procedural and evidentiary rules. An abuse of discretion occurs only if the decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. 

Evid. R. 404(B) restricts the admission of evidence related to other crimes to prevent character inference in actions. However, such evidence may be admissible for legitimate purposes like motive or intent, provided reasonable notice is given. R.C. 2945.59 allows for the introduction of acts showing motive or intent, even if they indicate another crime. The Supreme Court of Ohio has established a three-step test for the admissibility of other acts evidence: 1) relevance to the case; 2) whether the evidence is used to prove character or for a legitimate purpose; and 3) whether its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. 

Motions in limine are precautionary rulings by the trial court to prevent prejudicial evidence and are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.

To establish an abuse of discretion, a trial court's decision must be found unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable, rather than simply erroneous. A trial court has broad discretion regarding evidence admissibility, provided it adheres to procedural and evidential rules. McDermitt contested the trial court's allowance of Skype conversation evidence between him and others, asserting it was irrelevant and constituted improper character evidence, as outlined in his pretrial motion in limine. The trial court initially questioned the authenticity of the Skype evidence and deemed it more prejudicial than probative, indicating it was not closely related to the charges. However, it stated that if McDermitt's counsel opened the door during trial, the evidence could be admitted on rebuttal.

During cross-examination of Detective Ross, McDermitt's counsel highlighted that McDermitt had photos of various women, which led the state to argue that this questioning opened the door for the Skype material's admission, as it could demonstrate McDermitt's obsession with M.F. Ultimately, after reviewing the Skype evidence, the trial court concluded it was relevant to demonstrate motive and identity, particularly relating to circumstantial evidence in determining the murderer’s identity. The court decided against allowing the Skype exhibit for jury consideration but intended to issue a limiting instruction regarding the material’s use. The state subsequently recalled Detective Ross to testify only about the Skype interactions involving M.F., with the jury instructed to consider this information solely for motives or identity.

McDermitt's argument regarding the inadmissibility of Skype material as other acts evidence under Evid. R 404(B) is addressed, noting that only the portion related to M.F. was permissible. The evidence included McDermitt's fantasy stories featuring M.F., which established his obsession and was relevant to the charges. McDermitt's claim that the trial court erred by reversing its ruling on admissibility without explanation is rejected, as he acknowledged that a ruling on a motion in limine is tentative and subject to change. The trial court had indicated that its ruling could change if the defense opened the door to the Skype material, which they did by questioning about other women on McDermitt's phone. The court later found the Skype evidence relevant to establish identity and motive. McDermitt’s assertion of unfair surprise due to discovery rules is dismissed, as he did not claim the state withheld the Skype material. Additionally, the court's rationale for the reversal is found in the trial transcript, where it clarified that the Skype material was relevant following its review. Consequently, McDermitt's second and third assignments of error are overruled. In his fifth assignment of error, he raises another challenge under 404(B) and R.C. 2945.59, regarding testimony from a former manager about complaints against him, but fails to provide a transcript reference, violating App.R. 16(D).

References in appellate briefs must cite specific pages of the record, such as "Answer p. 7" or "Transcript p. 231." Abbreviations are permitted, and if evidence is contested, citations should point to the transcript pages where the evidence was addressed. The appellant is responsible for substantiating their assigned error with legal authority and record citations; it is not the court's role to construct a basis for the appellant's claims. Noncompliance with appellate rules can be detrimental to the appellant's case. Federal courts emphasize the need for concise guidance in briefs, as judges cannot be expected to sift through the record without clear direction. The Ohio Supreme Court has highlighted the importance of including page references to support factual assertions, stating that the burden of identifying relevant facts should lie with the parties rather than the court. In addressing an assignment of error, the state suggested which witness may be relevant, referring to testimony from McDermitt's witness, Daniel Spence, regarding disciplinary actions related to a phone incident.

A disciplinary decision was made by the HR business partner and her manager, which the individual followed without alteration. During the proceedings, it was clarified that M.F. was not the first complainant, and an objection regarding this matter was overruled by the court. McDermitt contended that the line of questioning aimed to portray him as a stalker; however, it lacked completeness as there was no follow-up regarding complaints or specific acts. His fifth assignment of error was dismissed. 

McDermitt's fourth and sixth assignments of error were addressed together, arguing that the trial court improperly denied his Crim. R. 29 motion for acquittal on the menacing by stalking charge and that his convictions were unsupported by sufficient evidence. Despite his failure to comply with App.R. 16(D) by not citing the record, the court considered his arguments. 

Crim. R. 29 outlines that a court must acquit if evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction, with the standard established in State v. Bridgeman indicating that acquittal is not merited if reasonable minds can arrive at differing conclusions regarding the evidence. The sufficiency review involves assessing if the evidence, when viewed favorably for the prosecution, could support a conviction. The manifest weight review requires a thorough evaluation of the record to determine if the jury made a significant error in judgment. McDermitt's argument regarding the denial of his Crim. R. 29 motion for acquittal on the menacing by stalking charge was presented.

Count two of the indictment against McDermitt charges him with menacing by stalking under R.C. 2903.211(A)(1) and (B)(2)(c). This statute defines menacing by stalking as knowingly causing another to fear physical harm or experience mental distress through a pattern of conduct, which involves two or more closely related actions. Specifically, it is classified as a fourth-degree felony if the offender trespasses on premises where the victim resides, works, or attends school. Mental distress is defined under the statute as any significant mental illness or condition necessitating treatment.

The statute does not specify what constitutes "closely related in time," but relevant case law suggests that the totality of circumstances must be considered. In trial proceedings, the state highlighted incidents demonstrating a pattern of conduct, including an October 8, 2020 incident where McDermitt and coworkers accessed the victim's phone and McDermitt's subsequent presence at the victim's home on October 28, 2020, with intent to harm. 

The court found that reasonable minds could differ on whether the state proved every element of menacing by stalking beyond a reasonable doubt, thus affirming the trial court's decision to deny McDermitt's motion for acquittal. On appeal, the state asserted that there was ample evidence of McDermitt's obsessive behavior, reinforcing the claim of a pattern of conduct established by the aforementioned incidents.

The jury's failure to find that McDermitt trespassed on M.F.'s property led to the rejection of the state's claim that his presence constituted a second incident of stalking. Instead, McDermitt was convicted of misdemeanor menacing by stalking under R.C. 2903.211(A)(1). Testimony from M.F.'s mother, C.R., highlighted McDermitt's erratic behavior at an August 2020 birthday party, where he closely followed M.F. and introduced himself inappropriately to guests, causing M.F. distress. Two months later, M.F. reported an incident where coworkers, including McDermitt, invaded her privacy by accessing her phone without permission, leading her to seek a new job and sever ties with him. McDermitt continued to reach out despite M.F.'s clear disinterest, including a text about her trip to Columbus and acknowledgment of being removed from her Snapchat friends. The jury considered the evidence of emotional distress, confirming McDermitt's conviction for misdemeanor menacing by stalking was justified. Additionally, McDermitt was convicted of aggravated murder under R.C. 2903.01(A), with evidence suggesting he was obsessed with M.F., collecting her images and discussing her obsessively. Evidence also included the phone incident at FedEx which led to disciplinary actions, M.F.'s desire to end their relationship, and McDermitt's subsequent depression over the situation.

McDermitt was aware of the victim's work schedule and residence, and evidence included: (1) his car matched mud splatter and tire tracks at the crime scene, (2) he washed the underside of his car on the murder day, (3) traffic cameras captured a vehicle like his in the victim's neighborhood during critical times, (4) the murder weapon could originate from his father's gun collection, and (5) explosives odor was detected in his car. McDermitt did not challenge the charge's elements but raised several points: J.S. withdrew consent to search his home while McDermitt consented to searches of his apartment, car, and home; he did not implicate J.S. as capable of the murder; there were other potential suspects; J.S. claimed not to hear gunshots; McDermitt's father lacked specific ammunition; the seized gun could not be definitively matched to crime scene bullets; his wrist surgery hindered his ability to use a firearm; and the victim's online activities could have attracted other suspects. Despite inconsistencies in witness testimonies and vehicle identification, the jury could accept or reject evidence as they deemed appropriate. Circumstantial evidence was considered equally valid as direct evidence, and it was concluded that the evidence sufficiently supported McDermitt's aggravated murder conviction, which was affirmed by the court.