State v. Dewalt
2020 Ohio 5504 (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appellate court will affirm a criminal conviction if, after viewing the evidence in the 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 (sufficiency of the evidence), and if the jury did not clearly lose its way or create a manifest miscarriage of justice in resolving conflicting evidence (manifest weight of the evidence).
Facts:
- On July 27, 2019, Amy DeWalt was in the shower at the home she shared with her husband, Adam DeWalt, on Opal Avenue in Louisville, Ohio, when she heard him yelling and a window break.
- Adam DeWalt told Amy DeWalt to "get some stuff and get out" because he didn't want her to get hurt.
- As Amy DeWalt drove out of the driveway, Adam DeWalt came out of the garage firing a pistol in the air.
- Amy DeWalt drove to a nearby high school and called 9-1-1, reporting that Adam DeWalt had a .45 pistol and was suicidal.
- Lieutenant Chris Stillwagon and other law enforcement officers responded to the DeWalt residence, where they heard gunfire and observed smoke coming from the front of the home.
- Officer Michael Stephey heard a barrage of gunfire from the residence and later found his police cruiser hit by bullets; Deputy Keaton Sausman felt bullets pass her head and hit her cruiser; and Officer Zachary Taylor described hearing shots fired directly at him.
- Adam DeWalt threw a Molotov cocktail that landed inside the front window of his home, filling the interior with smoke, before he emerged shirtless with the pistol in hand and was taken into custody.
- During police processing, Adam DeWalt was recorded stating that he wanted to die, would plead guilty to attempted murder, and would have continued shooting at law enforcement officers all day if the smoke had not forced him out.
- Adam DeWalt used at least four operable firearms during the incident, and bullets from his weapons struck the homes of eleven neighbors, causing property damage and injuring Judith Juskiw, who ripped open an incision after falling due to the gunfire.
Procedural Posture:
- Adam Keith DeWalt was charged by superseding Indictment filed December 12, 2019, with multiple felonies, including three counts of Felonious Assault, one count of Aggravated Arson, and eleven counts of Improperly Discharging a Firearm, with accompanying firearm specifications.
- DeWalt's jury trial commenced on December 16, 2019, in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas (trial court).
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty to all counts and specifications in the indictment.
- On December 30, 2019, the Stark County Court of Common Pleas sentenced DeWalt to an aggregate minimum prison term of 37 years up to a maximum prison term of 39 1/2 years.
- DeWalt, as the Defendant-Appellant, appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals, Stark County, Ohio, Fifth Appellate District, arguing his convictions were against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does sufficient evidence exist to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Adam Keith DeWalt committed felonious assault against peace officers, aggravated arson, and improperly discharging a firearm at or into a habitation, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution? 2. Were Adam Keith DeWalt's convictions for felonious assault, aggravated arson, and improperly discharging a firearm against the manifest weight of the evidence, such that the jury clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice?
Opinions:
Majority - Gwin, P.J.
1. Yes, the evidence was sufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Adam Keith DeWalt committed felonious assault against peace officers, aggravated arson, and improperly discharging a firearm at or into a habitation, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. For felonious assault, the court found that while merely pointing a gun is insufficient to prove intent to cause physical harm, "something more" is required and can be inferred from surrounding circumstances. DeWalt's actions of firing barrages of bullets, hitting police cruisers, and officers' testimony describing bullets "zinging" past them and being directed at them, along with DeWalt's post-arrest statements, allowed a rational jury to infer an attempt to cause physical harm. For aggravated arson, the court reasoned that DeWalt knowingly created a substantial risk of serious physical harm by creating, lighting, and launching a firebomb in the direction of law enforcement officers, regardless of whether the throw was inept or if anyone was near the immediate point of impact. For improperly discharging a firearm, the court affirmed that venue does not need to be proven in express terms and can be established by all facts and circumstances, noting DeWalt's concession that his residence was in Stark County, the offenses were part of the same criminal course of conduct, and testifying neighbors lived in Louisville, Ohio, which is in Stark County. The court concluded that a reasonable person could have found DeWalt guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for all charges. 2. No, Adam Keith DeWalt's convictions for felonious assault, aggravated arson, and improperly discharging a firearm were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the jury did not clearly lose its way or create a manifest miscarriage of justice. The court emphasized that the jury, as the trier of fact, is responsible for assessing witness credibility and resolving conflicting evidence, and appellate courts must afford substantial deference to these determinations. Given that the jury heard the witnesses, viewed evidence including body camera footage, considered cross-examination, and heard defense arguments and explanations for DeWalt's actions, a rational basis existed for their decision. The court found no indication that the jury lost its way or created a manifest miscarriage of justice, concluding that the evidence did not weigh heavily against the conviction. The jury fairly and impartially decided the matters and was convinced of DeWalt's guilt.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high bar for appellate courts to overturn jury verdicts based on sufficiency or manifest weight of the evidence, particularly when law enforcement officers provide direct testimony of threats and the defendant makes incriminating post-arrest statements. It clarifies that intent for felonious assault can be inferred from actions and verbal threats, even without direct aiming, and that "substantial risk" for aggravated arson does not require actual harm or perfect execution of the dangerous act. Furthermore, the ruling reiterates that venue, while a necessary element, can be proven by circumstantial evidence and does not require explicit testimony if the facts clearly point to the proper jurisdiction, especially when offenses are part of a course of criminal conduct.
