STATE OF OHIO,

f" P aint €ff-Appeli ee,

vs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHfQ,^ ^ '`^ 'f ;^^ ^.^ f R%i " :^.v'

CASE NO.

On Appeal from the LakeCourt of Appeals, 'Eleventh Appelia#eDistrict

-WJJLT,AM -0^T..T,T,WpRTi] JR P,

C.A. No. 2013-L-122

Defendant-Appel kant.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DELAYED APPEAL OFDEFENDANT-APPELLANT ^WTLLIAM 0. STALLWURTI1, JR,

WILLIAM 0. STALLWURTii # 650-401Lake Erie Correctional InstitutionP. 0. Box 8000Conneaut, OH 44030-8000

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, PRO SE

e•-.

f^ f 3+, f;^ r; 4 r.

" ^^" ° ^^ ff ^

:..^ : ,.. r ,. ,wt: i , .,3,

^^..ssf. ^,.s^ r^:

s tJ^^c

CiIAR.LES E. COULSC}1V (0008667)LAKE County Prosecutor145 MATN STREET P.O.Box 490PAINF'SVILLE, 011I0 44077

, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: STATE OF OHIO

LE:T 7 0E'MJAN 0 8 2015

CLERK OF COURTSUPREME CaURT C.lF ®HI®

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

STATE OF OHIQ

PPaintiff-AppelEee,

CASE NO.

On Appeal from the LakeCourt of Appeals, Fleventh AppellateDistrict

vs.

WILLIAM g. ST^^^^^RT^T4---^^?

Uefendant Appellartt.

C.A. No. 2013-L-122

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DELAYED APPEAL OFDEFENDANT-APPELLANT _ WILLIAM 0. STALLW02T1J.-JR .

Now comes the Defendant-Appellant, Wi Il iam 0, S t allwo r r.h , acting pro

se, and respectfully moves the Court pursuant to Rule 7.01(A)(4) to grant leave to file a

delayed appeal and a notice of appeel. This case involves a felony and more than 45

days has passed since the decision of the Court of Appeals was filed in this case. A

memorandum is attached.

R.espeetfully submitted,

Defendant-Appellant, pra se # ,Lake Erie Correctional InstitutionP.O. Box 8000Conneaut, OH 44030-8000

If this Court grant me leave tof'ife a delayed appeal, I would present the following

proposifions of law for review:

The tx:ia:L court erred when it found that Appellant was in possession

of a firearm and said finding was against the manifest weigh of evidenci

`I' he tri a'L cauT 1 e.rred whenI,,-a.bi.tat:i:or and said finding was aglri.^i,st the mevide.nce:

est weigh of the

The trial court erred when it denied A prr^llant's repeated requests toex^ u^ preju a icial evi ence o argumenLs etweeT-Appe. ant and ^tis,^i.r^.fri:er^c^ that said ^^rieldrtce was not pzobat;ive of the. mattex beforet -'Fe_c^-I i: t;_

Further, Affiant sayeth naught.

Def.endant-Appeilani:, pro se

Sworn to and subscribed ir9 my presence, a notary public, this 2 47"c1ay of

20t '1 r trr

iiiti^^tr.r^[a

o ztt^^^.^;^ Dej)orah 5ilva5yPJcrfary Pubilc, SEafe af Ohio

r^t, Renordec1 in Asht^bula CatintyMy Uorrrnissicin Expires

Moi'ch 26, 2019

it found t?-:at Appellant trespassed i-ri a

1%1.

NotGry Public

iii

MEMORANDUM

On the 30 day of Septembcr , 20 14, the Eleventh

District Court of Appeals filed its Decision and Journal Entry in the above-styled case. A

copy of the Court of Appeals Decision and JournaC Entry is attached to this rnotiran..

Appellant was unable to file a notice of appeal and memorandum in support of

jurisdiction within 45 days of the Court of Appeals Decision and Jraurnal Entry, and now

states the reasons for his delay,

Ap ea.l counsel failed to forward a co. yaft,he EIeventh Appgjda tI7a.strict Upini.on in .a timely fashion which caused the Appellantto file 7, at e.

2

Ef this Court grant leave to file a delayed appeal, Defendant would present the

faliawing proposi#ians of law for review:

Same as page M.

3

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing argument and authorities, Defendant-Appellant prays the

Court grant leave to file a delayed appeal and notice of appeal,

i=tespecfiFuily submitted,

Defendant-Rppellarrt, pro se # §jLake Erie Correctional InstitutionP. C?. Box 8000Canrteaut, OH 44030-8000

CER1"SFtCAT'E C]F SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion For Leave To File Delayed

Appeal has been sent by U.S. Mail, first-class postage prepaid, to Lake County

Prosecutar Charles E. Coulson ( 0008K6 7 ) i n s ItreP-0.Bvx 490 Painesville, Ohio 44077

onthis day af Decernber , 20 14,

Defendant-Appellant, pra se

4

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF 0H1C3

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO.

Plaintiff-Appellee, On Appeal from the LakeCourt of Appeals, Eleventh AppellateDistrict

vs. C.A. No. 2013-L-122

Mf.T.IAM __SZALU_0RT11 rR,

Defendant-Appellant.

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DELAYED APPEALOF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WILLTAM Q, 5TAT,T-WS^B^`t^7R.

being first duly sworn according to the laws of theState of Ohio, depose and assert a sworn statement pursuant to S.Ct. Prac. R.7.01{A}(4)(ii) of the basis for the claim in support of my Motion for Leave to File a DelayedAppea9,

My name is ^.iU!n o, sta.Ilw=th, Jr. . I am the Defendant-Appellant in theabove-styled case. I have first-hand knowledge of and am competent to make thefollowing statements.

On the 30 day of September ,20 14 , the Court of Appeals filedits Decision arfd Journal Entry in the above-styled oasc. A copy of the Court of AppealsDecision and Journal Entry is attached my Motion for Leave to File a Delayed Appeal.

I was unable to file a notice of appeal and memorandum in support of jurisdictionwithin 45 days of the Court of Appeals Decision and Journal Entry because of thefollowing reasons:

Appeal Counsel failed to forward a copy of the Eleventh Appellate51str1c.t Qpa.nion in ati,me1y t:•ashion which caused the Appellantto':'t:i^e late .

STATE OF OHIO,

Piairttiff-

WVS_

V'Iiri,.LIAit+'i 0. STALt,V`1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

LAKE COUNTY' OHIO

INIONt ^ ^.---- -

acoUpT t^^ ^^^^ALS

Yvr e

^ AKE C0 U IVTY, 0H10

Mt?. 2013-t.,-i 22

MAUSESN i3. KELLYJR., CLERK oF,CC?UR'r

Criminal Appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 13 CR000218.

Judgment: Affirmed.

Chartes E. Coulsan, Lake County Prosecutor, and 7'eri R. Daniel, Assistant Prosecutor,Lake Gounty Aadmtnistratfion Butlding, 105 Masn Street, P.O. Box 454, Painesville, OH44077 (For Plaintiff-;Appaiiee).

Laura A. DePledge, qePladge Law Office, Inc., 7408 Center Street, Mentor, OH44080 (For Defendant-Appellant).

COLLEEN MARY O'TOC3LE, J.

{51} William 0. Staliworfih, Jr., appeals from the judgment entry of the Lake

County Court of Common Pleas, entered on a jury verdict, sentencing him to a total •of

66 months imprisonment for a saries of crimes, principally relating to possession of a

firearm, feiony trespass, and misdemeanor assault. He contends his convictions

r-eiat[ng to,pvssessfon of a firearm, and fafony trespass, are against the manifest weight

of the evidence. He further contends he was unduiy prejudiced when evidence was

introduced regarding several assaults he made on his girife+snd. Finding no merit in

these contenfions, we affirrn.

(¶2) In the early morning hours vf.lanuary 8, 2013, Mr. Stallworth was drinking

heavily at the 306 Lounge in Mentor, Ohio, accompanied by his girlfriend, Sarah

1lyanche, and her friend, Melissa Miller Romeo. At a certain point, Mr. Stallworth and

Ms. Wanchv retired to the smoker's patio, and started fighting. Leonard Gales, another

patron on the patio, saw Mr. Stallworth flash the butt end of a pistol, which was tucked

either in a jacket pocket, or Mr. StaliwQrth's walstband. Mr. Stallworth pushed Ms.

Wancho into some patio furniture. At triaf, Mr. Gates could not positjvely ident[fy Mr.

Stallworth as the man he saw with the gun on the patio, but did testify he appeared

simtlar,

{T3} Mitchell Tenerove was at the 306 Lounge playing pool with his friend, Mait

l^'laie. He saw Mr. Stallworth push Ms. Wancho down on the paflo. He testified that

after that, the couple came back in the bar, and e)cited out the front.

(T4) Mr. Ma ►o heard, but did not see, the fight on the patio. However, he

testified that Mr. Stallworth and Ms. Wancho later had another fghf in the bar, during

which Mr. Stallworth knocked her down. He further testified he saw Mr. Stallworth

knockout another patron, who was trying to diffuse the situation.

fl[5} John Estok was drinking and playing Keno at the 306 Lounge that

evening. He saw Mr. Stallworth eame in from the patio at one potnt, and start yelling

that someone had stolen his gun. Mr. Estok testified that Mr. Stallworth threatened the

other patrons of the bar unless his gun was, returned. Mr. Estok also saw Mr. Stallworth

hit Ms. Wancho in the bar, and knockout a man who tried to Intervene.

2

{Iff6j Joey MacDonald was the bartender that morning. She heard about the

fight on the patio, and went outside, but was told by another patron the matter had

calmed down. She went back into the bar. Sometime thereafter, Mr. Stallworth, whom

she knew as BJ, came in from the patio, and started fihreafening the other patrons,

demanding to know who had stolen his gun. Ms. MacDonald calmed him down. Ms.

Wancho had come in frrom the parking lot, and demanded that Mr. Stallworth return the

keys to her van, Mr, Stallworth replied by repeatedly demanding Ms. Wancho return h€s

gun. Eventualiy, Ms. Wancho grabbed her keys back, and Mr. Stallworth threw her into

a tai3le. Ms. MacDonald called 911. She testified that 'another regular, Denny

Richdreek, tried to calm the situation, and Mr. Stallworth responded by knocking him

out.

{917} Ntr, Richcreek testified he was trying to guide Mr. Stallworth out of the bar,

having been told of the fight en the patio, and seen the assault of Ms. Wancho in the

bar, when Mr. Stallworth knocked him out,

€118) Ms. Romeo is a friend of Nis, Wartcho. She saw Mr. Stallworth throw Ms.

Wancho into the furniture on the patio at the 306 Lounge. Ms. Romeo then went to the

front parking lot, and made calls to other friends, to get a ride home. She was

unsuccessfui. Ms. Wancho came 6ut front, and told Ms. Romeo to get into the van. Mr.

Staliworth came out, took Ms. Wancho's keys from the ignition, and returned inside, Ms.

Wancho following him.

179} Ms. Romeo remained in the parking lot. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Wencho

refiurned,.artd they started driving down St. Rta. 306. Police cars came streaming by,

and Ms. Wancho called someone to warn the police were coming. She turned the van

3

around, and went to a gas station • near the 306 Lounge, where Mr. Staliworth was

waiting. He insisted they return to the bar to get his gun. Ms. Wancho did so, but poEice

had closed the bar.

{110} The trio then drove svuth on St. Rt.e. 306. Mr. Stattworth and (u1s.Wancho

started fighting again, so she turned onto a side street, Hodgson Road, and stopped.

Mr. Stallwerth and Ms. Wancho got out of the van, and started hlfting each other, so Ms.

Romeo left, and started walking back to St. Rte. 306. She saw Mr. Stallworth and Ms.

Wancho run between some hoiuses, in the direction of the main road, so she returrted to

the van, to find the keys, and drive home. The keys were not in the van, but Ms. Romeo

found Ms. Wancho's cell phone, which she took. Ms. Romeo then started back toward

St. Rte. 306. She faund Ms. Wancho at the corner of Hodgson and the main road, And

returned the cell phone, but refused a plea to help feok for Mr. Staltworth. Ms. Romeo

walked along St, Rte. 308 in the direction of her home, until a state trooper picked her

up and drove her.

(111) Brian Zak lives with his Wi€e and two-year old son at 7305 Hodgson Road.

Around 2:00 a.m. January 8, 2013, the baby had woken, and the Zaks were up trying to

put him back to sleep. The dog started barking, and Mrs. Zak looked out the front

window, and saw a couple arguing. Mr. Zak also looked out, and saw the couple as

waell, a black male, and a white female. They were standing outside a van. After •a

moment, the man ran between some houses on the other side of the street, followed by

the woman. The man was wearing a jacket, and the woman was wearing a light colored

jacket with a fur hood,

4

$1I12) The couple eventually returned, and continued arguing in front of the Zak

residence. The man then headed west. The woman with whom he was arguing had

been joined by a second woman. They also walked west; then returned, and headed

hack toward St. Rte. 306. The man did not return. Eventually, the womar► in the

hooded jacket returned to the van, and started talking on her cell phorte. Police arrived

and spoke with the woman. Eventually, a tow truck came and removed the van.

{113} Jerry Schemm lives at 7198 Taft Avenue, several houses away from the

Zak residence, with his wife and teenage son. Shortly after 2:00 a.m., January 8, 2013,

Mr. Schemm was awoken by his dog barking in the garage. Mr. Schemm went

downstairs to calm the dog. He did not tum on the lights. On reaching the foyer

heading to the garage, he heard the door of the bathroom located in the foyer shut. He

assumed his wife had also gone downstairs to check on the dog, and had entered the

hathroom.

[114} Having calmed the dog, Mr, Schemm.want back inside, and looked out the

front door to-sae if he could discover what had disturbed her, A police cruiser was

parked in front of his house. Retumlng to the foyer, he was surprised to see the

bathroom door still closed. He took a broom, and pushed the door open with its handle.

ins€da, he discovered a short, stocky black male Wi#h a cell phorga. The only light was

provided by the cell phone's face. Mr. Schemm testiried the intruder was dressed in a

black hooded sweatshirt, and smelled of aPcohci. The intruder told Mr. Schemm the

pOltcC' were after him; that he W'aS trying to contact a friend to pick him up; and, that he

wOuld give Mr. Schemm $150 for aid in escaping. Mr. Schemm yelled at the intruder to

get out of the house, and started pushing him toward the front door with the broom, Mr.

5

Schemm could not get the intruder to exit by the front door: instead, the intruder said he

would go out by the door he entered. The intruder headed back to the garage, and

exited by another door.

(T.15} Though Mr. Stallworth is short and stocky, Mr. Schemm could not identify

him at trial as the intruder. Further, Mr, Stallworth was wearing a dark winter jacket

when he left the 306 Lounge, not a black hooded sweatshirt.

{110} Officer Brian Fekete was the driver of the police cruiser parked in front of

the Schemm house on the morning of January 8, 2013. He had been ordered to

respond to the area to look for Mr. 5tailwerth, as a result of the fight at the 306 Lounge,

He testified that Mr. Stallworth was the only black male for whom the Mentor Police

were looking that morning.

{517} March 18, 2013, the Lake County Grand Jury returned an indictment in six

counts against Mr. Stallwcrthi Count 1, illegal possession of a firearm in liquor permit

premises, a fifth degreb felony in violation of R,G. 2923.121; Count 2, having weapons

while under disebili.ty, a third degree felony in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3); Count 3,

assault, a first degree misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A); Courit 4, trespass in

a habitation when a person is present or likely to be present, efourth degree felony in

violation of R.C. 2911.12(B); Count 5, obstructing official business, a second degree

misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2921.31; and, Count 6, having weapons while under

disability, a third degree felony in violation of R.C. 2923, 13(A)(2). September 5, 2013,

Mr. Stallworth was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to aCC charges. Discovery practice

ensued.

6

[$18} The rnafter came on for trial October 15, 2013., the jury returned a verdict

of guilty on ail ccunts October 18, 2013.

{119} Sentencing hearing was held October 25, 2013. The trial court merged

the two counts for having weapons while under disability for sentencing purpQses. it

sentenced Mr. Stallworth to 12 months irnprisonment for possessing afircarrn in liquor

permit premises; 36 months for having weapons while under disability; and, 18 months

for trespass In a habitation when a person is present or likely to be present. The terms

run consecutively. The trial court further sentenced Mr. Stallworth to 180 days

imprEaonrrtent for assau[f, and 90 days for obstructing official business, the terms

running concurrently with each other and with the felony sentences.

{920} This appeal timely followed, Mr. Stallwcrth assigning three errors. The

first reads: "The trial court erred when it found that defendant was in possession of a

firearm and said finding was agaiilst the manifest weight of the evidence." In support of

this assignment of error, Mr. Stallworth notes that Mr. Ga(es, the only person claiming to

see a gun at the 306 Lounge, could not positively identify Mr. Stallworth as the

possessor. He further points outhe made no direct threats to shoot anyone at the 306

Lounge. He admits to being drunk at the time, and implies his statements about losing

a gun were a result of his intoxication.

(121) As this court stated in State v. 5chice, 1 Ith L ist. !_ake No. 93-LRQ82Y 1994

Ohio App. LEXIS 5882, *13-14 (Dec. 23, 1994);

($22) `[M]anifest weight' requires a review of the weight of the evidence

presented, not whether the state has offered sufficient evidence on each element of the

offense.

7

€T23} "'In determining whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the

evidence, "^* **) the court reviewing the entire reco rd, welghs the evidence and all

reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in

resolving conflicts in the evidenc'e, the jury clearly lost its way and created such a

manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial

ordered. „ (Citations omitted. * * *") (Emphasis sic.)

{1124} A judgment of a trial court should be reversed as being against the

manifest weight of the evidence "tonly in the exceptional case irt which the evidence

weighs heavily against the conviction,,,, State v. TI7orxxpkirts, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387

(1997), quoting State v. N!a'rtirr, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ist Dist.1983). Further, we note

the jury is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses. State v. Def-fass,

I0Oftio St.2d 230, paragraph one of the syllabus (1967).

(52S) Applying these standards, we cannot find the jury lost its way in convicting

Mr. Stallworth of all the firearm related charges. Admittedly, Mr. Gales could not

posi#ively identify Mr. Stallworth as the person he saw with a gun - but other witnesses,

and a DVD made from security video at the bar, establis-hed Mr. Stallworth was the

person who pushed Ms. Wancho on the patio, and that was the. person Mr. Gales said

had the gun. Mr. Estok and Ms. MacDonald both testified that during Mr. Stailworth°s:

rampage through the bar during which he committed another assault on Ms. Wancho,

and the assault on Mr. Richoreek, he was yelling that his gun had been stolen, and he

wanted it back. Ms. Romeo testified Mr. Stallworth wanted to return to the bar to get his

gun, when she and Ms. 11Varrcho picked him up at the gas station after the brawl.. The

jury could lnfer Mr. Stallworth had a gun when he entered the 306 Lounge that night,

8

{$26} The first assignment of error lacks merit,

g$27} The second assignment of error reads; "The trial court erred when it found

that defendant trespassed in a habitation and said finding was against the manifest

weight of the evidence." Mr. Stallworth observes that Mr. Schemm could not identify

him as the intruder at trial. He emphasizes that Mr. Schemm testified the intruder wore

a black hooded sweatshirt, and that he wore a dark winterlaeket.

$$28) Agein, we disagree that the jury lost its way regarding the trespass

charge. The photographs and pictures in evidence do indicate Mr. Stailwarth was

wearing a dark jacket, without a hood. HQwever, the only light in the bathroom where

Mr. Schemm discovered the intruder was provided by the latter's cell phone, and Mr.

Schemm might be excused for not looking too closely at the intruder's dress. The

intruder offered to give Mr. Schemr`n $150 to help him escape from the police. Through

Ms. Romeo's test'rmony, it was estahdished that Mr. Stallworth knew the police were

looking for him. Officer Fekete parked his cruiser in front of the Schemm house

because the police specifically thought Mr. Stallworth was in the area, Officer Fekete

testil:ied Mr. Staitworth was the only black male fcr whom the Mentor Police were

searching that rnorning, and the intruder in the Schemm house was a short, stocky

black male - like Mr. ;l;ailworth.

fJ29}. The second assignment of error lacks merit.

f530} The third assignment of error reads: "The trial court erred when it denied

defendant's repeated requests to exclude prejudicial evidence of arguments between

defendant and his girlfriend that said evidence was not probative of the matter before

the ccurt." Mr. Stallworth argues the trial court vioiatbd Evid,R. 403(A) by allowing the

9

state to introduce evidence regarding his assaults on. Ms. Waneho,1 He notes he was

niat charged with any crime for these assaults, and argues the evidence - consisting of

fiestimany, the DVd of the surveillance video, and still photos derived from the video --

unfairty prejudiced him, improperly causing the jury to punish him for these uncharged

crirnes. The state counters that the evidence relating to the assaults on Ms. Wancho

was not unfairly prejudicial as required for exclusion under Evid.R. 403(A). !t further

argues it was properly admissible under Evid.R, 404(B).

(1131} "The admission or exclusion of relevant evidence rests within the sound

discretion of the trial court." State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173, paragraph two of the

syllabus (1987). Regarding this standard, we recall the term "abuse of discretion" is one

of art, connoting judgmerat exercised by a court which neither comports with reason, nor

the record. State v. Ferranto, 112 Qhio. St. 667, 576-678 (1925). An abuse of discretion

may be found when the triaf court "applies the wrong legal standard, misapplies the

correct legal standarc#, or relies on clearly erroneous findings of f'act." Thomas v.

Gleveland, 176 Ohio App,3d 401, 2008-phica-1720, W15 (8th Dist.)

($32) "Evid.R. 401 states: "'Relevant evidence" means evidence having a.rty

tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination

of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.'

{%33} "Evid.R. 402 provides: `Ail relevant evidence is adrnissiEa6e, except as

otherwise pravided by the Constitutpon of the United States, by the Constitution of the

S.tafe of Ohio, by statute enacted by the General Assembly not in conflict with a rule of

the Supreme Court of Ohio, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme

Court of Ohio, Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.'

1. Defense counsel made a standing objection tc all of this evidence.

10

{Iff34} tsi=vicf.R. 403(A) states: 'Although relevant, evidence is not admissible if its

probative value is substantially ootweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of

confusion of the issues, or of misleading the jury.'Y' State v. Heynes, ?'ith Dist,

Ashtabtala No. 2(}12-A-0032, 2013-^')hro-2401 , 152-54.

{lff35} Evid R. 404(B) provides, in pertinent part: "Evidence of other crimes,

wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show

aetion in oonformity therewitit, It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such

as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or

absence of mistake or accidertt."

{ ,̂36} We respectfully disagree with the state that Evid.R. 404(B) appiies to thiscase.

{V71 `YEvid.R. 404(B) applies initially to iimit the admission of other acts

evidence that is `extrinsic' to the crime charged, See Jordan v. Dayton Testing Lab.,Irrc,, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19741, 2004-Ohio-2425, T48 (Ohio courts have held thatEvid.R. 404(B) only excludes extrinsic evidence). Accordingly, acts intr-insiC to thealleged crime do not ta!l under Evid.R. 404(B)'s limitatifln on admissible evide nce«YI

State v. Plevyak, '1 fi th aist. Trumbull No. 2013- r-D051, 2014-C3h io-2889, ff46 (Cannon,P.J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment only in part).

N38) "When other acts are 'inextricably intertwined' with [an] offense, those acts

are said to be intrinsic to the alleged crime. In other words, acts that are 'inextricably

intertwined' aid u-nderstandirtg by 'complet(ing) the story of the crime on triai.' UnitedStates V. Siegel,

536 F.3d 306, 316 (4th Cir.2008). `Evidence of other crimes is

admissible when evidence of the other crime is so blended or connected with the crime

11

on trial as the proof of one crime incidentally involves the other crime, or explains the

circumstances, or tends logically to prove any element of the crime charged.' State v.

Long, 64 Ohio App.3d 615, 617, *** (9th Dtst.1989)." (Emphasis added,) ( Parallel

citation omitted.) !d at ff47,

(¶39} In this case, prior to jury selection, the trial court indicated it would allow in

evidence regarding the assaults on Ms. '11Vancho pursuant to Evid.R. 404(B). After

considerable testimony, and immediately following that of the barteridor, Joey

MacDonald, defense counsel renewed his objection to any evidence regarding these

assaults, during a sidebar. At that point, the learned trial court indicated the evidence

would come in as inextricably intertwined with the crimes charged. We agree.

($40) The balance of the crimes charged occurred as part of a bar fight initiated

by Mr, Stailworth. Naturally, most of the other witnesses only saw or heard part of what

occurred, Thus (for instance), without the DVD of the bar's security videos, it would be

extremely difficult for the jury to grasp the sequence of events. The DVD shows that Mr.

Staliwarkh left his jacket on the patio after his initial assault on Ms. Wancho, to pursue

her to her van in the parking iat. It further reveals that when they re-entered the bar,

they went to retrieve his jacket on the patio.2 ifi was after this that Mr. Stallworth

stormed back into the bar, and began confronting people. This is when he began

insisting his gun had been stolen, according to testimony. Further, his assault on Ms.

Wancho inside the bar was due to his belief she had stolen the gun, according to the

testimony of Ms. MacDonald, the hartender. The evidence of the assaults on iills.

Wancho explains the circumstances under which the firearm related charges occurred,

as well as the assault on Mr. Richcreek.

2. The DVD ind Ecates Mr. 5ta31worth pushed Ms. Wancho again when they were gattirig his jaoket,

12

(541) The evidence of the assaults on Ms. ►IVanchcr was relevant and probative.

Thus, under Evfd,R, 403(A), it could flniy be excluded for causing unfair prejudice,

confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. This evidence clarifled the issues, and

provided guidance to the jury with how the events accurred. "With regard to the rEsk, of

pre}udice, it must be shown that the prejudicial effect was unfair because it might have

provided the jury with an improper basis for rendering its decision." State v. Cvmfock,

'iIth Dist. Ashtabula No. 96-A-0058i 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 3670, *30 (A.ug. 15, 1997).

Mr. 5fa1[worth's contention is the evidence of his assaults on Ms. Wancho inflamed the

jury's passions, causing them to convict him of allegedly unproven crimes. We

disagree. The trial court gave a curative instruction, which the jury presumbly

followed, See, eg., State v. Anthony, 1 Ith Disf. Lake No. 2013-i..-421, 2013-C3hio-5652,

qT39. More significant(y, this evidence helped establish a proper basis for the firearmcharges and assault charge for which Mr. Stallworth was actually convicted.

{J42} The third assignment of error lacks merit.

{T43} The judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

CYNTF{!A WESTCOTT RICE, J,,

THOMAS R.WRIGHT, J.,

concur.

13

I t.

STATE OF OHIO

COUNTY OF LAKE

STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appe#tee,

^ IN TltE COURT OF APPEALS)S,S.^ ELEVENTH DISTRICT

JUDGMENT ENTRY

CASE NO. 2013vL-122

-vs-

'9ftifILLIAM 0. STALLWORTH, JR., FILEDRT T OF APP^ALS

F

COU

oL13eferrdan# AppelCant.

MAU8SEN o. ^^^,^.YCLERK OF COURT

LAKF- COUNTY, OHIO

For the reasons stated in the Opinion of this court, the assignments of

error are without merit. The order of this court is that the judgment of the Lake

County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against appel#ant,

JUDGE CCQ^,L^E f^ ` C3CL^FC^R fiH^ +^ RT'