The Akron Legal News

Conviction upheld for man who shot, killed cancer-stricken brother

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: October 11, 2013

A 3rd District Court of Appeals panel recently affirmed a murder conviction for a man who shot and killed his brother.

The three-judge appellate panel affirmed the Allen County Court of Common Pleas judgment finding James Ream guilty of murder after he turned himself into police and told a sheriff’s deputy “he had gotten into a situation that he couldn’t get out of and he shot his brother.”

According to case history, the deputy then went to Ream’s home and found his brother’s body in a bedroom.

The deceased man was laying face down with a blanket over him and a kitchen knife on top of the blanket.

Responding officers testified that it appeared as though the body had been dragged to the bedroom.

Sgt. Gregory Crites of the Allen County Sheriff’s Office said he spoke to Ream shortly after he turned himself in.

During that interaction, Crites said Ream explained that he shot his brother, Ronald, because Ream had lost a number of good jobs after he took time off to care for Ronald, who had cancer.

Ream later spoke with Det. Mark Baker in an interviewing room.

Baker read Ream an advice of rights form and Ream signed it, agreeing to talk to Baker.

The record shows that Ream agreed to give Baker “some basics, but I do need a public defender or somebody to tell me what I should be saying, what I shouldn’t.”

Baker told Ream he could stop answering questions at any time, and Ream continued to talk.

Two days later, Baker spoke to Ream and, again, Ream mentioned needing counsel but immediately followed by telling Baker he would “be happy to talk to you and fill in the gaps.”

Baker asked a line of questioning to verify that Ream did not want to call an attorney and Ream said he was willing to discuss the events leading up to the shooting.

Baker said he did not want to pressure Ream or force him to talk about anything and Ream indicated that was not the case.

Prior to a trial in the Allen County court, Ream indicated that he would be calling Dr. Matthew Ziccardi as an expert witness to explain that Ream suffered from a form of amnesia immediately following the shooting.

The state argued that Ziccardi’s methodology was unreliable and that the testimony was irrelevant. The trial court agreed and prohibited Ziccardi from testifying.

At trial, the state presented evidence that immediately after the shooting, Ream went to a gas station, a McDonald’s, spoke to his family and cleaned up blood at the crime scene.

It also introduced several photographs of the crime scene and of Ronald’s body.

In his own defense, Ream testified that Ronald had kicked him out of the house that day.

He explained that his brother had a violent temper, often picked fights with him and described him as “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.”

He said as he left the house with a stack of clothes and his gun case, Ronald lunged at him with a kitchen knife.

Ream said he then pulled the gun from the case because he feared for his life.

He explained that he “blanked out” and could not remember all of the details.

The jury found him guilty of murder and the trial court sentenced him to 18 years to life.

On appeal to the 3rd District, Ream argued that his statements to Baker should have been suppressed because he asked for an attorney and was not given one.

“Ream never clearly and unequivocally invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel during either interview. Although Ream asked that counsel be present for any questions concerning events that he did not remember, he nevertheless made it clear he wanted to talk to Detective Baker about the events leading up to the shooting, and the events which he could remember,” 3rd District Judge Richard Rogers wrote for the court.

The appellate judges found that Baker had specifically asked Ream about his right to counsel and had told him he was not required to answer questions.

Still, Ream continued the interview willingly. The judges, therefore, overruled his assignment of error.

Ream next argued that Ziccardi’s testimony was erroneously banned.

The judges agreed that Ziccardi’s testimony would have been relevant because the state heavily focused on Ream’s actions after the shooting.

However, they further found that Ream failed to show that Ziccardi’s testimony was reliable.

“As a result, we cannot find that the trial court erred in finding that Ziccardi’s opinion was unreliable,” Judge Rogers stated.

Ream further contended that the photos introduced were gruesome and prejudicial.

The judges found that the photos properly depicted the crime scene and showed that Ream shot his brother several times.

They therefore ruled the photos were relevant and properly admissible.

The judges next addressed Ream’s claim that the trial court should have given jury instructions for lesser-included offenses.

They held that a defendant may only request instructions for self-defense or a lesser-included offense, but ruled that the evidence cannot support both lines of defense.

“Ream argued numerous times that he acted in self-defense,” Judge Rogers wrote.

The judges found that Ream’s opening statement argued that he acted in self-defense and if Ream had not shot his brother that he would be dead and Ronald would have been on trial.

“Since Ream argued at trial that he acted in self-defense when he shot Ron, the trial court did not err in denying Ream’s request for jury instructions for lesser included offenses,” Judge Rogers continued.

“Having found no error prejudicial to Ream in the particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.”

Presiding Judge Vernon Preston and Judge Stephen Shaw concurred.

The case is cited State v. Ream, 2013-Ohio-4319.

[Back]