The Akron Legal News

Man who fired shots toward group of kids loses appeal

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: February 21, 2014

A panel of judges in the 8th District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas when it found that Marcus Hill’s convictions for felonious assault were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Hill’s convictions arose out of an Oct. 24, 2012 shooting incident in Cleveland.

He was indicted on three counts of attempted murder and three counts of felonious assault with firearm specifications in relation to three separate victims.

The victims, Lindsey and Destiny Baldwin and Anthony Donner, all testified at a bench trial.

Danielle Edwards, the mother of Lindsey and Destiny, also testified. She said she received a phone call advising her that a few neighborhood children were fighting at the local corner store.

After receiving the call, Edwards said she drove to the store, believing her kids would be there.

Edwards, however, never made it to the store.

Before she left her parking lot, she saw a group of children coming towards her apartment building yelling, “Here they come.” She said she saw her kids in the group.

Three young men, later identified as Hill, his codefendant Dionta Willis and a minor, T.Y., were seen running toward the group of children.

Edwards testified that Hill was shooting at the group of about 30 people.

She said she saw “fire coming out of the gun” and that she heard about five or six gunshots but no one was hurt.

Edwards called 911 and identified Willis as the shooter when he was apprehended at the scene.

Later, she acknowledged that only Hill had a gun and that he was the only one shooting at the children.

Lindsey and Destiny told the court that Hill was the only shooter.

Earlier that evening, they had been at the corner store watching Hill fight another boy.

On cross-examination, Lindsey admitted that there was “bad blood” between him, Hill and Willis.

Responding police apprehended Willis about 100 yards from the scene of the shooting and performed a test for gunshot residue, which came back negative.

A forensic scientist in trace evidence testified regarding gunshot residue tests he performed on a jacket belonging to Hill.

He stated that the tests came back negative but explained that a negative gunshot residue test “does not necessarily mean that someone did not fire a gun.”

Det. Kyle White testified that police collected four used .40 caliber shell casings at the scene.

However, a .22 caliber revolver was found in Hill’s apartment after the execution of a search warrant. Police testified that the gun did not match the shell casings recovered from the scene.

Neither Hill nor Willis presented any witnesses in their defense and the trial court subsequently returned guilty verdicts against Hill on all three felonious assault charges along with one and three-year firearm specifications.

Willis was acquitted of all charges while Hill was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of six years.

Upon appeal, Hill offered only one argument, stating that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

In support of that claim Hill argued that his convictions were inconsistent with the trial court’s acquittal of Willis on the same charges.

He also contended that the lack of any forensic evidence or weapon linking him to the shooting entitled him to have his convictions overturned.

“The acquittal of Willis on all charges does not warrant the conclusion that Hill’s conviction on the same charges was against the manifest weight of the evidence,” wrote Judge Kenneth Rocco on behalf of the court of appeals. “The state’s evidence was stronger against Hill than against Willis.”

Judge Rocco noted that several witnesses testified they never saw Willis with a gun, while some stated that he was also shooting.

Hill, however, was identified as the shooter by all of the witnesses.

Although some testimony was inconsistent, Judge Rocco held that the credibility of the witnesses was for the trier of fact to decide.

“Nor does the absence of a weapon or forensic evidence tying Hill to the shooting warrant overturning Hill’s convictions, where, as here, credible eyewitness testimony identified Hill as one of the shooters,” wrote Judge Rocco.

Judge Rocco cited court precedent, which has held that testimonial and circumstantial evidence are enough to support a conviction.

Hill also contended that testimony regarding the “bad blood” between him and Lindsey was unnecessary and prejudicial, but the court of appeals disagreed.

“The animosity between Lindsey and Hill and any motive on the part of Lindsey or his family members to testify untruthfully was simply one fact for the court to consider in evaluating the credibility of the witness testimony,” wrote Judge Rocco.

After reviewing the entire record, the appellate panel concluded that Hill’s arguments lacked merit and it upheld the decision of the Cuyahoga County court unanimously.

Presiding Judge Frank Celebrezze and Judge Eileen T. Gallagher concurred.

The case is cited State v. Hill, 2014-Ohio-387.

[Back]