The Akron Legal News

Court rejects arsonist's claim that 3-year-old son started fire

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: December 23, 2013

The 5th District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas this week when it ruled that a defendant’s arson conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

A three-judge appellate panel also upheld a conviction for endangering children and found that the defendant, Kayla Ayers, did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.

According to the facts and procedural history of the case, the Massillon Fire Department responded to a fire at Ayers’ residence on Oct. 3, 2012.

The fire was extinguished in the basement of the home.

Ayers maintained throughout the proceedings that her 3-year-old son started the fire.

“Appellant’s son did not appear to have any smoke exposure or soot on his person,” stated Judge William Hoffman, writing on behalf of the court of appeals.

Ayers had a cut on her hand which she claimed she got while she was trying to get her son out of the home.

She appeared to have smoke exposure and tested positive for soot residue on her person.

Inspector Reginald Winters of the Massillon Fire Department testified during Ayers’ trial that he ruled out an electrical shortage as a possible cause of the fire.

He stated that a mattress was the point of origination and that there were two distinct start points for the fire at two separate ends of the mattress. He concluded that the fire was not an accident.

Ayers told investigators that her son started the fire while playing with a cigarette lighter.

“She seemed lethargic and unable to answer the questions posed,” according to the court’s summary.

Ayers claimed that she was in the basement folding clothes when she noticed the lighter in her son’s hand.

Shortly after that, she said she noticed a fire on the bed, grabbed a blanket and began fanning the flame.

When the situation worsened, Ayers stated that she went to retrieve a glass of water but on her way back, she tripped, breaking the glass and cutting her hand.

When asked why she didn’t call the fire department, she said she could not find the phone.

At the time, Ayers lived with her father and his family. Before the fire, the two had discussed finances and her father informed Ayers that she had not been contributing to the household financial situation.

The situation “deteriorated” and Ayers’ father eventually told her to leave the house and care for her own family, but Ayers refused.

The father testified at trial that he then informed Ayers that he would be leaving and, in response, she threatened to burn the house down.

A neighbor testified that he heard Ayers threaten to burn down the house if her father left.

Karen Ball, Ayers’ friend from church, also testified during the trial, telling the court that she visited the residence the night of the fire to pick up the children for a church activity.

Ball said she knocked on the door and received no answer but that she heard voices inside.

She also said Ayers’ purse was on the back porch, leading her to believe that she was in the home.

Later that night, Ball returned to the house and saw flickering in the window. When Ayers exited the house she told Ball that her son had started the fire.

At the conclusion of the trial, Ayers was convicted of arson and endangering children. She was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of seven years.

Upon appeal, Ayers challenged the convictions as against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence. She also claimed that her trial counsel was ineffective.

“Appellant was convicted of aggravated arson, in violation of R.C. 2909.02(A)(2), which reads, ‘No person, by means of fire or explosion, shall knowingly ... create substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person other than the offender (or) cause physical harm to any occupied structure,” wrote Judge Hoffman.

The appellate panel noted that Ayers gave inconsistent statements regarding her actions, which contained “unexplained physical impossibilities.”

It pointed to the fact that the fire was started with an open flame at opposite ends of a mattress and that her son did not test positive for any soot on his person.

Likewise, it held that Ayers created a substantial risk to the health and safety of her child.

“Based on the above, we do not find the jury lost its way and viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crimes proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” wrote Judge Hoffman.

The court of appeals proceeded to reject Ayers’ argument that her counsel was ineffective for failing to properly cross-examine Inspector Winters.

The first draft of Winters’ report stated that the fire originated on the first floor of the residence.

The final draft contained the amended and correct location of the fire in the basement.

Ayers contended that her attorney should have addressed the discrepancy during cross examination but the appellate panel disagreed.

“Appellant’s defense at trial centered upon her son starting the fire, not where the fire started or developed,” wrote Judge Hoffman. “Accordingly, we find appellant has not demonstrated prejudice as a result of the alleged professional error of trial counsel.”

The judgment of the Stark County court was affirmed unanimously with Presiding Judge Scott Gwin and Judge Patricia Delaney concurring.

The case is cited State v. Ayers, 2013-Ohio-5402.

[Back]