The Akron Legal News

Man who killed Youngstown State football player at 1996 party loses appeal

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: February 14, 2014

A three-judge appellate panel in the 7th District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas recently, denying a defendant’s motion for a new trial.

The defendant, Eric Moore, was found guilty of aggravated murder and attempted aggravated murder after an altercation at a party in Youngstown turned violent.

Moore was sentenced to life imprisonment on the aggravated murder charge, 10 to 25 years for the attempted aggravated murder and three years each on the firearm specifications that accompanied the murder charges.

In his direct appeal to the 7th District, Moore argued that he was denied a fair trial because of the court’s “open and obvious bias” against and included claims that the court committed reversible error and that his counsel was ineffective.

That appeal was overruled and counsel for Moore subsequently filed a delayed motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence in the common pleas court.

That motion was overruled and became the subject of Moore’s most recent appeal, in which he argued that his motion for a new trial should have been granted because his counsel was ineffective for failing to first file a motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial.

Moore also argued that two witnesses, Butler Johnson and Elizabeth Williams, had offered coerced written statements and subsequent testimony against Moore in order to avoid prosecution.

The entire case stemmed from a dance that was held at The Pub on the campus of Youngstown State University on Jan. 27, 1996.

Several YSU football players attended the event, including the victim, Jermaine Hopkins.

While at the dance, an altercation erupted when football player William Walker’s girlfriend accidentally bumped into Timothy Slocum, Moore’s co-defendant.

A fight ensued and YSU police eventually arrived and canceled the dance, ordering everyone to leave.

Slocum, however, continued to make threats, saying that he would be back and was going to kill the men involved in the fight.

According to the case summary from Moore’s first appeal, the football players went to a house party while Slocum and his friends went to a local bar.

After a short stay at the bar, Slocum left the bar with Moore and several others and proceeded to the house party held by the football players.

When Slocum arrived at the party, one of the football players asked him to leave, but Slocum insisted on seeing the men involved in the original fight.

Punches were thrown, shots were fired and Jermaine Hopkins was hit in the head and killed.

Elizabeth Williams provided police with a statement in which she indicated that she witnessed Moore shoot the gun.

Two other witnesses said they saw Moore approach the party with a gun in his hand and that he was the one who fired the deadly shot.

In his motion for a new trial, Moore attached an affidavit that indicated Williams’ and Johnson’s testimony was coerced.

He also claimed that his motion was filed outside of the 120-day time limit because he was prevented from discovering the new evidence during his incarceration.

Upon appeal, Moore argued that his counsel was deficient in failing to first seek and obtain leave from the trial court before filing his untimely motion for a new trial.

“Suggesting that he was also prejudiced by his counsel’s deficiency, Moore further asserts that but for counsel’s failure to file for leave, this court would not have construed Moore’s motion as a petition for post-conviction relief,” wrote Judge Gene Donofrio on behalf of the court of appeals.

Moore contended that, had his attorney filed for leave, he would have, at the very least, been entitled to a hearing on his request for a new trial.

The state conceded that Moore’s counsel failed to obtain leave but it argued that, based on the record, the trial court would have denied the motion even if leave had been obtained.

“In this case, the performance of Moore’s counsel was neither deficient nor prejudicial,” wrote Judge Donofrio, who noted that the filing of the motion 15 years after the conviction raised “the question of timeliness.”

“Moore’s post-trial incarceration does not justify his failure to discover the allegations contained within the affidavit earlier.”

Judge Donofrio held that Moore was present at his own trial and heard the testimony from Johnson and Williams, therefore, he should have known at the time that their testimony was false.

“Consequently, it was upon Moore to exercise reasonable diligence to make efforts to obtain an affidavit from one of them establishing the fact of their false testimony and the reasons for it a lot sooner than 15 years following his conviction,” wrote Judge Donofrio.

The appellate panel concluded that, even if Moore’s counsel had sought leave, the result before the trial court would have been no different.

Presiding Judge Mary DeGenaro and Judge Joseph Vukovich concurred.

The case is cited State v. Moore, 2014-Ohio-358.

[Back]