Login | July 16, 2025
Judicial panel says witness' decision to testify against close friend heightened her credibility
JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: July 27, 2012
A 10th District Court of Appeals panel recently ruled that testimony from two witnesses of a bar shooting was enough to uphold a man’s murder conviction.
The three-judge appellate panel rejected Regis Dickerson’s claims that Roshanna Perry’s testimony against him should not be viewed as credible because she initially lied to police about a shooting at Woods Bar in Columbus before stating that Dickerson had been the shooter.
“A reasonably juror, however, could have found that Perry’s decision to testify against her close friend actually heightened her credibility. Perry began her testimony in tears, saying it was difficult for her to testify against appellant because she ‘loved him like her brother,’” 10th District Judge Lisa Sadler wrote for the court.
Case summary states that Perry was in Woods Bar on August 17, 2010 when she said she got into an altercation with an acquaintance.
Perry testified that she hit the man in the head and that after he left, Corey Hart, whom she knew through a friend, approached and asked “You good?” She said this offended Dickerson and he began arguing with Hart and then, without warning, pulled out a gun and shot Hart.
Perry stated that she fled the scene and then returned to care for Hart. The following morning she misinformed police about the shooter’s identity but later contacted them and said it was Dickerson.
Mikaelle Edwards, Dickerson’s cousin, also testified that she witnessed Dickerson arguing with Hart before he pulled out a silver revolver and shot him.
Both witnesses denied seeing Hart threaten Dickerson or carrying a weapon.
A jury of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas found Dickerson guilty of murder with firearm specifications and sentenced him to 18 years to life in prison.
Dickerson appealed to the 10th District, claiming the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the testimony from Perry and Edwards could not be taken as credible.
The appellate judges found that Perry’s original statements to police did not automatically qualify her testimony as incredible. They held that she gained credibility from her close relationship with Dickerson and that it was the jury’s right to determine her overall credibility.
“A jury is not prevented from believing a witness ‘simply because the witness may have been, to some degree, uncooperative with the police,’” Sadler stated, citing the 2009 10th District case State v. Jennings.
They also dispelled Dickerson’s contentions that Edwards could not be credible because she admitted to drinking and smoking marijuana on the night of the shooting. They found that Edwards was not found to have memory impairment from the night and her testimony was supported by other sources.
“Edwards’ testimony was largely consistent with that of Perry; both denied seeing Hart threaten appellant or display any weapons, and both testified seeing appellant fire a single shot to Hart’s abdomen,” Sadler continued.
“For the reasons stated above, appellant has failed to establish that his conviction was unsupported by sufficient evidence or against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
Fellow 10th District judges Judith French and Julia Dorrian joined Sadler to form the majority.
The case is cited State v. Dickerson, case No. 2012-Ohio-3268.
Copyright © 2012 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved