Summary
The Ohio First District Court of Appeals affirmed Travis Durbin’s convictions and sentence for felonious assault arising from an incident in which a woman was dragged and run over by a van. The court rejected his arguments concerning other-bad-act evidence, admission of arrest video, sufficiency of the evidence, and manifest weight of the evidence. The visible portion of the opinion discusses the admission of evidence relating to Durbin’s drug use and statements made during recorded jail calls.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court plainly erred by admitting evidence of Durbin's drug use and inflammatory statements about Detective Kreider under Evid.R. 404(B).
- Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion by admitting body-worn-camera video of Durbin's arrest as evidence of flight, concealment, and consciousness of guilt.
- Whether sufficient evidence supported Durbin's conviction for felonious assault under R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), including the knowingly and serious-physical-harm elements.
- Whether Durbin's felonious-assault conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Holdings
- The trial court did not commit plain error by admitting evidence of Durbin's drug use because the evidence was relevant for the nonpropensity purpose of establishing motive, and Durbin could not show outcome-determinative prejudice.
- A statement that qualifies as an admission of a party opponent and is therefore not hearsay is not automatically admissible; a separate analysis is required to determine whether the statement is admissible under Evid.R. 404(B) and the general rules of evidence.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting a portion of the body-worn-camera video depicting Durbin's arrest because it was relevant to his concealment and flight as evidence of consciousness of guilt.
- Sufficient evidence supported Durbin's conviction under R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), and the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Key quotations
“We thus hold that, even if Durbin’s statements about Detective Kreider were admissions of a party opponent, a separate analysis was necessary to determine if the statements were admissible under Evid.R. 404(B).” (¶ 62)
“The law is clear that evidence of an accused’s flight or concealment is admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt.” (¶ 70)
“He was therefore “aware that [his] conduct [would] probably cause a certain result.” See R.C. 2901.22(B).” (¶ 77)
Factual background
N.H., who was five months pregnant, accepted a ride from Durbin after being released from the Hamilton County Justice Center. During the ride, Boreing grabbed N.H.'s purse as she exited the van, and Durbin drove while she was dragged by the vehicle and subsequently run over. N.H. suffered bruised ribs, a punctured heart, and scrapes and bruises requiring several days of hospitalization. Video, eyewitness testimony, 9-1-1 recordings, cellular-location evidence, and testimony from N.H., Boreing, and Durbin connected Durbin to the vehicle and incident.
Procedural history
Durbin was charged with aggravated robbery, robbery, and two counts of felonious assault arising from an incident in which N.H. was dragged and run over by a vehicle. Following a jury trial, he was found guilty of both felonious-assault counts, while the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on the robbery counts; those counts were later dismissed. The trial court merged the felonious-assault counts and imposed sentence on the count under R.C. 2903.11(A)(1). The First District affirmed.