2N ^ IIE SUPRETME COU.RTOF OFtIO

STATE OF OH10,

On Appeal 11'rom iheB c I m ^^^t C ^^n't-^ C 0 ^Ftof Appeals, SeventhAppellate District

P12huzfiff-Appellee;

V.

WILLIAM ^AA' CEE SATTERFI^'LDR

^^^e ^- i d a n t - A p p, e ^^a ri t.

Court of AppealsCase No. 12-BEd22

M.EMORA:NDUM I^,j SI7PPO:^ ^ OF JURISDICTIONOF ^^^ELL^kI^ '!,' W:LL1,A-Ar., jAY CEE SsmT"kURF^ELD

B^+^I,PA(-'JNT COUJi^ T Y P31OSECUTOR

`:Na^d^°:' - P ., FRY^ (0020542)

Y()Nr')K (00650618)Courthouse Aniit};_ No. I#4%aA West Mall"s_ S£zea

St. Clairs4Jilie, Oh=°-s^ 439^0T;(1J0) 699_177111': (740) 695°44 iW

Ct"3uInse:

SAMUEL H. SHAMANSKY COay LPA

SAMUT.x_, 1?. SHAMANSKY (00307 72)D0NA-1D L. REGF;NS31UI^^ER (0086958)COUN P'-. PET13RS (0089'768}Ks iYST i''^: '°^ . 11r r a, ^tb^^1N (0089760)523 South `"h:rd StreetColumbus, Oi`1io 43215

^ (614) 242-3-939

F; (614) 242-3999ETI"''8e1dl

Counsel for DefendantV-r'^^^peilant

^ry ^^ Ni ^ro fS ^r} .

/ .l ^iT^ ^ 1 '+.4

}i >3G^ /'>s^rcm^o

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents........................... .. . ..............<.,............,............,.......,...... ...<.....,,,....,..... %

I'able of 1°aL=thorities .... ..... ....................................... ................. .................................... .3

Exp€anatio.rf of Why This C:ase is o-l' Public or Great Ger:eraI I€^Atrrestand Invoives a Substa,.r^tia", Constitutional Quesiion ............................ ........: .................................4

Statement oE F.10 Case ................................................................. ..., .. .......,<....................<........,.4

Statemf^i-ft oftrse Faets ...................... .... . ....... ...................................... . ......... .. ........,.....A

Proposition of Law ....... ....................................................... .... .. ........................,.......9AN r1?PFLL,AT'T_. COURT ERRS WHERE 3'I' AFFIRIvSS ,4: CONVICTION £r-?A I'" WAS AGAINST"3'F-IE MANIFEST IVEIGH'I' oF?'1--1L EvxBENCE.

Cod1cfLlSioi2 ............................ . ...... ............ 3 3. . . <.. ........ .......................... ^• .. . < ..............,.............>. S

Certificate of Service ...........................................o ,...,.... ....,.....,,.........._,..........,.............: .,.,..... i 4

A^^c n d i:: ..................................... . . .. . ... .......... ........................................ ..... . ............,........,....... 1 15.OpErg7or, Seventh District t'ourt of Armeals ........................... .... ............,.....,1'xppx. ^E^it' >^s, Seventh I^istric^^ ^`ouxt of Appeals ,yr)ki}^..,^ ....,...... ... ,... .....- ......... ....... . t l.: I3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

C;ONSTITITTIONSe

The United States Constitution, Fifth Arnendment ......... ....... ............................................... ..4, 9

The 1JiiEted States Constitution, Fourteenth Am-endmenz .............. ................ . . .................4. 9

CASES:

State v. Banks ( 1992), 78 Ohio App.3d ?00'.......... ............... ....................... .. .. .. .... .. ...... .... .. ....10

State v, Martin (19213), 20 0hid> Apts.3d 172 ...........................>....................................................."x0,

State v. Re,blkison ( 1995), 1621 Ohio St. 486 ..... .. .. ................................................... ................ 10

State v. Thompkins (1997) , 78 Ohio St.3d 380 .................................. .........................................1 0

01`110 R^.VISE^ ^^^DE„

R. C. 2901.22 (A) . .. ... .. .. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . ..... .. .. . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . .. ....... . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . .. ... .. . . 9

R.C. 2903,01(.A,.) .................................................... . ...... ......................................................... . ..4

R.C. 2903.02(A) ............... ................... ...................................................... . ............... . .44 9

EXPLANATION OF Wil-TY THIS CASE IS OF PUBLIC OR GREAT GENEPIAA..INTEREST AN^ IN^OLV^^ ^ S-LTBSTAI^^^ iAl, CONSTITU-nONAL QUESTION

The circumstances of Appellant's case warrant review by this £:,ouit. `i'he Seventh

District Court of Appeals failed to reverse Appciraiit"s conviction, Mh.kch was agaiiist the

rnanifest weight of the evidence and violated bis right to due process as guaranteed by the Fiit<n

and Fourteenti€ An~ien.dmcnts to ttie i)niteu. States Constitution and comparable provisions of ihv

Ohio Constitution. Sd.ieh adecISio1? undermines the confidence of the gencrar public in Y17e

juc<se,ia$ system and is contrary to the fundamental prgriczi7lcs oi c;rzxr^inai law.

STA'`EMENTL)f ^fflF CASE

Appellant Willi-ain Jay Cee Satterfield was indicted on one couzZ t of a^^i°^.vate^i ^iu:d^::r in

vâ_olailort of R.C. 2903,01(<^.) with a ^;irn spect`iicat:on, and one count oi naurder in vi:';iat.ion. of

R,C. 290-3).02(A) with a gun spec:.fication, both unclassified felonies. The :nattvr cazrie before

the Belmont County Court of Comm; nP€eas for a jLiry trial on April 17, 2011 At t;Ae

conclusion of trial, Appellant was convicted ofonc count of murder with agur: specification.

Appellant -was sergtericcd or, May 7, 2012; to be incarcerated for a tenn of e:bhtfvelz years tr> life.

Appeil_aiit ti,^-kely filed notice of appeal to the Seventh District Co3,irt, of Appeals rn ,iund. 15,

2012. In his so,e assignrneixt of error, A;^p^;lia.nt ^.^^^;^,ieci that his c:oi.victioz^ was agai:ist the

m anife;st ivesght of the evidence. I 7pon. consicieratAcan of tile briefs and the oral artifuincnts of the

ipar'nies, the Seventls. Distrzct affi-ii-nied his conviction. Appellant now appeals that decisxon.

STATEIN'NILO:F LA^TS,

Ovel- the cotikse of?0i Am ADpe;ian¢ iivfed' with his girffricnd. at the Abby's Cressing

apartaneTit complex in St. Clairsville, Ohio. Grace Winv-rnan was a f0l1ovE;- geskdeait in the

complex aija her boyfriend, Kevin Smith, would occasionally stay withsier, kir. S.;ni_tiZ and Ms.

Wineman owned a iio^; they fe^,t^'ic^.^'ly allowed to €'"^.^>^c wild, baTkIn^^' and gti 4Vlsi g a the othei

4

residents. According to Ms. Winemuti, in t^^e two years she had otivned the dog, it "had got loos-,

a miiiior^ times.''

,-un October 6, 211, Ms. Wi,te-mi{sn and N-11r. SrEitin retw-ned to thie complex -tdom a

campfire at his rriother's 1^ome, ,^vhere the two of ther,a laad been drinking alcohol. According to

Ms. Wineman, Mr. Sinith had been geeHrg ill all day, aiid tbere:fare they decided to drive aver E:o

his cousin's home so he could smoke IT's.a.d`lil.ia13c i.. While gettf:lf4 ready to leive., Ms. WiI3.ezrsa;i

u.iit3wed the dog to gCg loose aga1L and :I?.aci.'W no aF.tS,mpt to catch it. ri'he tZ,vCi^ then traveled ?>CT his

.,ousir:.'s house, wliere Mr. Smith smoked marijuana. At trial, Ms. Wineman te:stified that si-ie a;d

).bot stnfii1C^'i mLnaquarSa, 'chomgh bh4s wasinci)Si.ZsistenL wi.1h aprevlnusly recorded statement i'Sz w3;iiCh

she aiiil2itfed to sbiioksrm a,j()lnt,

'While Ms. Winetraan. a^^d IN3Ir. Smith were szxio={ing marijuana witi; h3s cotisin, the dog

continued to ruAi free, ;Y•i-g9^ter^i:^g f'^ppelia^-^t's girl^riend. Accordingly, Ai^pe:I3as.tt attempted to

locate the exriAe:i. In 1ea:° that the dog would attack, he lcaoiz a crossbow with Ai,ni fl,r self-

defense, Wheri his efforts to locate the owner proved LtnSuc.cessU,Appeilant -,mac1e a telephone

call t.<`i dsua Sheri E^s DestC^t't^P;ieii,. . The to Lvt}IC)1?'t 12.^:y spoke ^^d(.`V..,C,'E' ^ . e.lilc..b1°x, to,^^' offi cer53. , z7l^tilv^C^e any

assistance and 5o, in the ear ly :noming hours of Octo'oc;r 7, Appellant: once m.oc°e left his

api{3tmerl't tt"3 seek the dog's ovV€'It r., Rs`.ts'3.er than the crossbow, he took a revolver zT? case the ,ni(3^

uata.cIed bim. By this ti_-ine, Ms. Wi-neman and Mr. Smith had returred to tiie comtiicY.

According to Appellant, he was able to m2a.k,f', cC1ntit:ct. with Mi:'. Smith during this second

searcii. Appellant observed that Mr. S{nith was skit.tisi: and a::tirzg in an e.ratic, h€,stfie, marine,z.

When Appellant 0.tLCk.iiiped tLI address 3.:.Ss °w'il'14Jenkv regarding Cile d;J,--,, Mr. Smith becCk.1i1e

verba,lIy abusive and threw crackers at hiir. 1-Ie -ilie.n slapped Appellant on the arm. sn., an

a.tteirfpt to defuse thc, s^tuatiC.;n-, Appellant began to walk back to his own apartment.

5

This version o-to events diit°ers from Ms. Wircm. aii's testgtnorry. Ac.cordi-nb to Ms.

Wiziernar-, Appellant cxme 111-.o the, door aiid .staz^ted yeil.in.g xnsWts at Mr. Sr:itA3, cafli>y; hini a

variety of narne,s. She also claims tha.i Appellant was z.old.frig abecr. Ms. Wi:_r:era.a13 pulled Mra

Sniich back into the ho-Lise, by the elbow ai-ici iie sat on the couch. Both Ms. Win.enian and the

State put great emp.aaszs on the assei-tion that Mr. Snnith removed his boots near crze front door to

the apartment. Appellant, Ms. Wine3Yian claims, coaitinued to yell i'rom outside.

Ms. Wineman also stated that she retamed to the kitchen to concir_,= c,3oaOng, wa,.,ize Mr.

Smith sai os'3, the couch, eating crackers and watching television. SLJmeLll.i3e thereafter, she kf^,'aIG.

Mr. Srnit:Z say, "Bill Satterfield, yor, as n`t ^ever been nothing bUt abitch your ent:re. ;ife. Oh, you

gfâ ^', agil.n'^'^ oti're going to shoot r^1e?" As Ms. Wineman exited the kI`icile:1, si1c claims to have

iieard ^gurxshot.. Irnrried3ately theredEter, she witnessed a second shot, which "!Jt up everything."

According to Ms. Wiziemart, she was a'ol° to observe numerous details about tise scene

d-arfTig the brief "f iash of light" from the second gunshot. First, sj'.-,v obst'.IvC'.d that Mr. S:(Y:itf3 was

kneeling on the co-Licia, which was positioned directly beneath awindotiv overlookirg the front

s^dewazlk. i-le was fac11^g backwai'da looking out the °,'v'i-i1dov€/ with his hand on the window frame.

She was also abi` to observe that Appellarit v,as standing "maybe three .eet" avray trotn die

wi:^dow. She firrther claimed that she could see Appellant holding the gurt at-id xooking angry.

Finally, she stated that Mr. Srnith fe13 over the back of the c^ouch, oLiE the wi_ladaw, arrd onto a

grill that was leaning up agaiiisc the side of'the apagtmerft.

Upoa-i cross-examina.tion, Ms. Wineman contan;ae^.i to assert that siie did not srnoke

marieuaria on the night of the stiooting, though she did admit: to usiaag marij uana in the past. She

also aci mow1edged tiaa.t the i3otrom- sill o.i` the wwindow was located a couple deet off"the gsou-nd.

Finally, Ms> W1nemi a:i admitted that on tf eni^ht of the shooting, she ioi::i law ec^forcen^e^Ic

6

authorities that she did not recall the exact details of what 11appened because she was too

t,:avi^a'r,izec€ to remember. It was oiily a^vc;ek iaLer, after Mr. Sriiitih had died, Lalat s^e bave

authorities the version of events that she repeated at trial.

Duriiig his vidc;o-re.corded interro^ataon on t^.^. nig^.t of the shooting, .^^p^^elE^.nt gave a

very different account ol- events, After Ms. Windman piil.led Mr. Smith baek Fi-ito the apartaraent

and closed the door, Appellant started to leave. Wi-iile refLtirr:ing '^onie, he observed Mr. Smiti3

open the front wir4dow ailcl start coming out afLer him. Ms. Winenian p-uIled Mr. Srnirh back into

the apartment abain. Ilawever, a few moments latero. he ea.ne oiit of the window completely,

approached Appelia:nt, and slapped him op. the side of the head. Appellant feared that Mr. Sm:ti"i

migiltt be;,ome, more violent so he took out his revolver and walked Mr. Srzgii-'tl back to the

window. The two continued to argue, vvit:i;. Mr. Smith standing on the windowsill while

Appellant kept hini at ba,y with the firearm.

Appellant stated that Mr. Smith taanted him about the ^u^. and struck his hand, causing

the cocked revolver to discharge tip i^xto the air. Appellant ofiee iiiare airried the gun at Mr,

Smith and urged him to desist. UI34.^.eter7.'e:.^^, Mr. Srf:lt,2 struck the 4^^111 twice rYlorf . ^ ia° See£>^1^^

tizne, the gun again accidentally dlseharged. '1" he baTl%et struck Mr. Smith in t€ie head and he feil

from his nlaee on the windowsill. Appe'llaiif, irn-meubateiy returned ±-(i his apartment, piaeed the

firearrn on ^the table amd' called 911 to repc;rt the aeeiclent. 'r-3e thep. wafted 'Dezow a :,treet ianip fC;r

authorities to arrive.

At tr7al., the State called several 'witi2e5ses to s-upport the credibility of Ms. Wsf3(',riiailys

testimony. According to Pienise Wheeler, Mr. Smith"s mother, both he and Ms. Winernan weiZt:

to her ^o-ne the night of the shooting for a L_^^e. S^^^^: reiterated tiiat Mr. Sr^^xGh was feelirag ill but

still drank a couple beer,s. As rer he left, Ms. Wheeler watched the frE,burn dovvin, Urxiil she heard

7

two bangs. She immediately became eonc€;me;d that M-r, Smith was rj-ivc^lved. Ss ie went over to

the apai-tment complex and stayed vaidi Mr. SmiVIn -wiuze el::Ie:rgeut;y Perso-ta;ze^ responded to thv

scene. Upsan. inciui*xy, Ms. Wheeler stated that Mr. Smith was not wearing boots and opined that

this was unusEda.l, as he was paranoid about `Ct3s i; e1 and always wore bJi3t4 t%d^.iez4- qols"ag outside.

She also commented that his socks were dry.

Da:,id Cassanta was the first officer on t'ne se,eue and testified that Mr. ^initi~ was foEh-ld

outside the apartrr>ent. He further testified that :'^ppe11ant admitted to siiocii:i;,z Mr. Smith.

Joseph Weaver, a trooper with the Ohio SLate ilighway Patrol, aiso testi fed, p:riauar;ty <in, regards

to several a.rMs. `JJhnerrfaii's hearsay stat4;m€:nts. tIL alsorrientiorsed ioeat3r-wMt'. Sa-n-ah's shoes

near the couch.

Dr. Abduirezak Shakir, a ioz•ensic pathologist, testifeci. that M,-. Smith died as a result caf

a gunsilc^^ wound to ffie iiead and that the bullet must have e.oitie ftoiYt the direction in which he

-was fuclng, ff-le also remarked that his examination did not reveal the presence €3fsoC$ or powder

stippIing, wh-ich u%oufd suggest that the gun was at least two feet Aro m Mr. Smith's head when

fired. Additionaiiy, iao stippling was preseiit oii Mr. Smith's hand, suggestiFgg that it was not in

the path of the bullet when fid•ed,

Dr. Shakir later acknowledged ttiat, while the injury toak place o^i Outober. 7, 2011, t'rj.e

autopsy was rtot performed unti, October 15, 20 i.1, over a week ia'rex, 1-le also admitted that tl-ie

wound was cleaned Wilite Mr. Smith. was irf the hospitall undergoing suA-gery. i~illally, Dr. Shakir

stated td^at his estij°rfata^a^. regarding 4iie distance eg the barrel c^t^tl^^e gun to .t,^r. iead v^^;

a gencra1 opinion.

Agent Edward i3a=.ila irom tlac Bureau of Criminal Ir<vestigatson and Ident i fication

("BCi&Ip) testified ab:3-Q.it his examination Vl tht; crime sCeE:'ie. Du3°i. ^or, the 15'3L^'sty^;t.1o:1; he was

8

unable to -ri_nd the first bullet fired by Appellant. Agent Lulla also no€ed that the blood trails on

the gr1l! and stain on the ';'a;oEifid indicated that KEVIY"D. Smith's body had rested on the grill at

some point and tl:e.-= ozi the ground long enough for a significant arnount of blood to saturate the

area. He also opined EhaL the source of the blood must have been behind the grill arici therefore,

that "u^'iiess [Mr. ,,3niYt1.:] was very tiSin ai1SAr,'oufd $-4 between thegri12 and tnl: waii, I'm assuming

he was -nsdde the window."

Upon cross-examination, A4ent L4.zl.fa admitted that he ciicA not take a single measurement

of tixe, scene. 1-fe also acirnitted that he had no idea where the brili was positioned be-fore he ioc.nd

it on the al:ol'ai'ld Fv1ti4 bEood trails 4'sri it. Agent L3.i:sla i'1:"fi..^e^r testified that he was utisti.i(; as io

`wxl.etheY or i.1E'it a tirearms expert could aietC',T"Pline the distance between a gunshot and a :}a2'e-s.K.in

wok;iId.

PROPOSITION OF LAW

AN APPELLATE ::OUR'I ' ERRS WHE^'^^, IT AFFIR?^^S A CONVIC^ HoN THAT Vv'ASAGAINST gIIE i@!^AMFEsTWE3GHTOF THE EV^DENCEv

The Fifth and Foufteenth Amendments to ti-ie United States Constitution guarantee tia.ai

no person shall be doprtved of iii:'u, liberty, or property, Mthout c€cie process o^'iaw. iln the in-sEart

case, Appellant was conv icted o-f murder in violation of R.C. 2903'.02(Al UT-Duderthe relevant

language of this statute, "[nflo person shall pu:poseiy eaase the death of another." A persoai ac ts

purposely "when it is his specific intention to cause a certain resuit, or, when the gist of the

offense is a prohibition against conduct of a certain nature, regardless of Nvhat the orier^der

intends to accomplish thereby, it is his specific intention to engage in conduct of that xiafiu7°e."

R.C. 2901.22(A). As there, was rio significant dispute as to the c;atzse oa Mr. Smith's death. the

only element in contention at trial was whether Appcl4ant had formed specific integrt to cause that

^eat17. Appellant submits that the State.fi,^ed to prove this element eieyoric, a reasonable doubt

9

a€id an accurate reading of the record demonstrates he was convicted agaiq. st the manzfest weight

of the evidez€ee in vie,atioii of his right to due proeess,

It is weii-establishe;d. that a kevfewzn.-, court rr:av reverse a verdict of guiltv where :t is

against the rtianifest weight of evidence. S`icate v#iohinsvn (1995). 1 62 Ohio St. 486, 487

(holdirig that altiio€.igh a verdict is sa_ppari:ed by sufficient evidenee, a court of appeals may still

detes jnir€e that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evicier<ce.); see alsv State v. Banks

i 1992), 78 Ohio ADp.3d 206 (lappiviii- the standards set 116orth in I;.ohins•on.). Wei(,.,ht of the

evidence ca€ieerns "the inclination ot'the greater amount of credible evidence, of-fered in a trial,

to support one side os the issue rather than the other." S'tate v. Thona^?tians (1997), 78 £;hic) St.3d

380, 38'1.

This Cot€rt has promulgated the proper standard for revie;ving challenges relating to the

rrzax ifest weight of the evider^ce;

':'he co€€rt< reviewing the e-ntire record, weighs fl7e evidence and all reasc3rFable€zifez:ences, eer€€siders the credibPhty of witnesses a€zd deterru€€fes :Vheihc;r i€:res:,lvir€g e;onflicts ir€ the evidenev. the [findcr of faet] elearlv lost zts wav and

L:3:-euted such a I.Yiatayfess miscarriage (?^Just€c's; that the coi'i:vlct€(3f2 nat'lsG be reversedand a new tri ai ordered.

Id. (cztsgig SS>cdtQ €^. lllczrr.4=t (1 9831, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175). Thus, Viie reviewing Loui-t in a

ma€iii-est -wvight challenge has the opportunity to colisider the entire record and ind.ependent=v

eva:f^uate the credibility of the witnesses. ilrb the exceptional case in which the evicle€-ice weighs

heavily against CC)rlv€s t1o€1, lhe cCiiArt may exercise its d3s;iet€:â 1arv vowe3' to order a €leW tr€aE. -1d.

When a court of appcass reverses a ^udgiment of a trial court ozi the basis that the verdict is

against the weight of the evidence, it sits as a-`thirteenth ^^.rc^r"' akad disagrees with the fact

iir'der's resolution :,t'the eozifl'zcti€ig teszimo€iv. TIzonpkfns, 78 Ohio St.3d, at 387.

10

In ar^ e>1brt to prove Appellant acted purposely, the State obi'ered tl-ie tes;.h:nony of Grace

Wiiiema,n. Ms. Wineman indicated that Appellant was dz-ui^l-, when he came to her apartment to

: ompiaaii- a.botzt $he dog and that he was shC)lz€ing and otherwise aetizig in abel:igerent manner.

However, as elearly der-nons=rated by the recorded 911 ca.lt, the testimony of responding officers,

a.id his video-recoj-cded interview, Appellant displayed absolutely no indicia of in-Eoxieatiort

immediately after this alleged behavior.

Ms. Wine.nar^ also e,iairned that she was able to observe Appeliarif shoot Vir. Smith

because the second shot "lit up everything." During her testimony, stie wer<t., into great detail

aboat the relative t.^ositiotinb of Appellant and Mr. Srniti:h, how the gu:l was held, where

Appellant was standing and the expression ot: his faee, ;^?a purportedly witnessed during a brief

<las^^ of light, Appellant stib^.its t:la'€ Ms. .^14Ji^.errmap could have observed each o^'tk^.ese detaiis ^.n

the brief mo:nent during which the guri fired, particularly since Mr. Smith's body was blocking

the window under either version of events.

indeed, immediately after th., sliooting, Ms. Winernan adn-zitled that she did not

remember what happened dtie to the t-raum aziz3ng nature of events. It was o€^ziy, awee3c later,

aft-er Mr. ;inith had died, tiaat she related her newly recalled versf.;n of events to aut'horitfes.

Ttii-s was aiso the tirst time she d dmFtted to her use of alcohol and m.arijuana on the night ol' the

shooting, the latter ofwhze,I^ she denied at trial.

Ms. Wineman further test9fi-ed that Appellant was standing approximately thuee 'feet a-wa:y

from Mr. Smith and holding the guii stig.titly over his liea{i wheri he fired. This testimony was

mar.,gi.zal1y supported by Dr. Shakir, who opined that the barrel of 'che gup. -rzEisi have been

aptsroxi-co.ateiy iwo feet from Kevin Smith's head Nxtlien fired due to a lack of observable

I I

stip p;ing. From tiiese facts, the State asked the jury to e.oTiciLzde that ttze shooting was

ir'cez?$ioaal.

However, other ffacts in evidezi-ce demonstrate th.at this versior of events was riot po:ssible,

iet alone plausible. First, and perhaps most tellingly, the bullet from the first shot was z3evef

found. f-lad Appc;llarit beer^; aiming at Mr. Sznith, ard his hand ziot'oeen sla.pped, the buixet wouid

have struck Smith, the window, exterior wal1, or somewhere in the interior of the apartment. s he

absei}e.e of such azi impact point cleariy indicaies that Appeilant's liazics was strzi k, caasing the

lytzn to accid.erztiy discharoe and the shot to go wide.

Second, the State's own witnesses diffez°ed or,,0hether o., zzot. it was possible to determine

the distance i'rom wiich Appeiiant's gun was fired. Dr. Shakir acknowledged that h's, opinion

was not precise azYd f€zrther aaiyilt.ted thai b.e exarnzixed the wou.nd a weeK agler the injury took

4place. By tdhen., the wo:1nd izad beeri cleaned in preparation for surgery and izad time to rzeai.

Edward i:,ulAa, the Sfate`s owii forensic investigaior, expressed doubis that the precise distarce

froz^^ gun barrel to unclothed skin co2zid be identified with any accaracy. Finally, even had the

gun been fired two feet from Mr. Smitb's head, flus faar- wou€ci not be incompatible with

Appellant's recoliectioz;t of : vez_cs, as such a distance wouid be well within striici;xg range.

The State failed put forth any plaassbse eypl.arzatiozz as to how Ms. Wineman's vezsios^ of

e-vezrts cotild be reconciled with knowrzfaccs. For example, the State did not offer aizy credible

reason for w1hy Mr< Smith fell forward over the back of a co-tzci-z, out a wir.d.ow, an;i onto agriii,

after bein,,,, struck in the i3ead by abuliet fired faorp a fyw feet away, rather than beizxg Icaocked

bac,.wa rd from the impact. The State also faiied to account adequately for the absezice of biooc€

or other forensic evider±ce oi-i the couciae windowsill, or any location within the apartn-tent., where

Ms. Winer:rzat^ clairns Mr. Smitrz was shot.

12

tz^. short, Ms. ^^Ti^^e^^.a^:'s version of events, fabricated a week after the death ^^4: Mr.

Smitb., was proven wholly urLretiacsie at trial. She admitted to drug and -icolio3 use on the night

of the shooting and later lied about it while tindcr oath. Additionally, Ms. Wine-,nan first told

authorities that siie dlia noi remember what happened, but later claimed to have remembered

xuyr-erous details about the scene. These observatious were made during a'or^ef f`iash of light,

from across the room, past the wiradow that was blocked by Mr. S^^2itli's body, and were

inconsistent witii the physical evidence. Indeed, the physical evidence indicated that Kevin

Smith was on the windowsill, rather ti-ian. in the room, wher he was shot.

The facts of tfiis case do not support a finding beyond a reascnablE, Cloubt that Appella.r^t

soraned specific intent to cause Mr. Siniti:'s death. tri contrast, the credible faets are at znost

inconclusive as to this eI°ua.c^^t. The oiiIy tes^ti^^onv that t^ ndec's to indicate Appeilant acted with

ititent ca.rne from ar! unreliable source -vv?io provided demonstrably ui>tiLie testimony. g'hercf`crre,

because Appellant was convictc:u ag^.irsst th: manifest weight of the evidence, the ^;ourt or

Appeals erred by affinning his convictaorl.

^^^^^^^^ON

'i'^i:e oilay evidence teriding to demonstrate that Appellant had Aor.lYsed the speei^'ic intent to

cause Kevir^^ Smith's death came froir the testimoiiv of Ms Win; maan. This testi^^^oiny was

irrecotaciiabl^; with physical evidence, demonstrably a.r^^-eiiabie and deceitful regardz^^g irrzporta,^t

eve-tits that took place the nbgbt of the shooting. As tb.e State presented t3o creciiNe evide^ace

dem. onstra.ting sbat Appellant acted pur^ose:ly in the death of°IVir. S,°aith and a'id credible c vicleiice

was to the coittrai'y, iie was convicted for murder against the ^7'it'I:Y31teSt weigSlt of the evidence.

aThus, the decision of the Seventh Appeiaate District was in ei•ror, undermining the public's

C:oiii1dt.':z-ice lil ti-ie validity of the JuCt3.c1al iystC'17.? and allowing an 1:t1;coY).stii;L^i;.oTl^k.3 c`312victiof^ tC'J

13

stand. Aeeordip-g;y, based on ti'ld, foregoing, Appeliuzit respectfully requests that the CQu-A avce^^t

jurisdiction over this matter so- that the issues presentec, he.re3n wi(i be reviewed on the raerits.

Respectfully sazb;:n2ttecE,

A ^,^.1^^^^^x ^^F; L ,P<A,.

Samuel 1H. Shamansky (0030772)Donald L Rebc.:nsi3urgcr (0086958)Co4in E. Peters (0089768)K-i;ystiri N. Ma-tin (00897601,523 South Third StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215P: (6114) 242-3939F; (614) 242-3999Email: sha^-naii.skyco,^qDgz^i.aii.co.n

Counsel for Ddfendani-Appckiarst

^"<;RTIFICATE OF SEZqVICE

^'t.e,^_.,n

ders4gn°ci hereby cezt ies that a copy of t^a foa'euoing Meriora ndum ; 5U-Doort e;

Jurisdiction was d7a1y sin!ed upon Daniel P. Fry, Prosecaater. and x--ielen Yo-nak, Assistant

sato3', Belmont CEiE-ia2-ty -Pr;3Sei',`tItC?r's 0'"FiC`e'J., 147-A Wesa Main Surd;et; St. E`...:lcx1Ysv1lie., Ohio

43950, Cou-.ise1 f'ojr Appeblee, on Jzrnuai,r 17, 2014 by regular U.S. mail.

...^----

.^^...,^

--- - ----- ----------TTJ-44:-SHAI ANSKY

14

APPENDIX

15

STATE OF OHIO, BELMONT COUN

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO,

PLAINTfFF-APPELLEE,

- VS -

RLEDCOURT OF APPEALS

I P, pj-c- -^q,Cl`iVTHIA K. NCGEe

CLtiRK OF COURTS, BE;..fv10NT COUNT

DEC 0 .5 2013

CASE NO. 12 BE 22

OPINION

WILLIAM JAY CEE SATTERFIELD,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal from Common PleasCourt, Case No. 11 CR 284.

JUDGMENT:

APPEARANCES:For Plaintiff-Appellee:

For Defendant-Appellant:

JUDGES:Hon. Mary DeGenaroHon. Gene DonofrioHon. Joseph J. Vukovich

Affirmed.

Attorney Chris BerhalterProsecuting AttorneyAttorney Helen YonakAsst. Prosecuting Attorney147-A W. Main StreetSt. Clairsville, OH 43950

Attorney Samuel H. ShamanskyAttorney Donald L. RegensburgerAttorney Cofin E. PetersSamuel H. Shamansky Co., LPA523 South Third StreetColumbus, OH 43215

Dated: December 5, 2013

-1-

DeCenaro, P.J.

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, William Jay Cee Satterfield, appeals the May 7,

2012 judgment of the Belmont County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of one

count of murder and sentencing him accordingly. On appeal, Satterfield asserts that

his conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Upon review,

Satterfield's assignment of error is meritless. The outcome of this case turned on

credibility determinations best made by the jury. In convicting Satterfield the jury did

not lose its way so as to create a manifest miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the

judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Facts and Procedural History

{12} On October 7, 2011, Satterfield shot and killed his neighbor's boyfriend,

Kevin Smith, claiming the shooting was accidental. The Belmont County grand jury

indicted Satterfield on one count of aggravated murder (R.C. 2929.01(A)), and one count

of murder (R.C, 2903.02(A)), both with firearm specifications (R.C. 2941.145). The matter

proceeded to a jury trial on April 17, 2012.

{¶3} Grace Wineman, Smith's girlfriend of five years testified that she had lived

at the Abby's Crossing apartments in Bethesda for approximately five weeks. Over the

course of their relationship, Smith sometimes lived with her.

{¶4} On October 6, 2011, Wineman came home from work at approximately

4:30 p.m. She and Smith went to the home of Smith's mother Denise Wheeler where

they had a campfire. They brought Wineman's dog Rex along with them, a 35 pound

"border collie terrier lab mutt." Wineman drank "a beer or two" and Smith was drinking

beer. Smith had been feeiing ill for over a week and vomited after he ate dinner. At

approximately 11:00pm they departed to go to Smith's cousin Laramie's house. They

stopped at Wineman's apartment first to retrieve her wallet. When she got out of her

car at the apartment complex, Rex got loose; she called him and he would not come,

and she decided to leave him running lose while they were gone. She said that at her

prior residence, Rex had gotten "loose a million times," and had "never been a

problem."

-2_

{¶5} They were at Laramie's house for a short time, just long enough for Smith

to smoke a marijuana joint, which he did in the hopes of settling his stomach.

Wineman denied smoking marijuana that evening.

{16} They returned to Wineman's apartment and Smith was feeling much better.

His appetite had returned and Wineman began to prepare him some food. The dog was

inside the apartment. While Wineman was in the kitchen she heard a knock on the door.

Smith went to answer it; at that time he was still wearing his boots. Satterfield was at the

door wearing army fatigues, with a beer in his hand. He called Smith a°'b*tch and a

p°"ssy," and told him he knew that Smith didn't really live there and essentially threatened

to tell the landlord. Wineman grabbed Smith by the arm and told him to come in the

house, and that Satterl'Eeld was not worth fighting over. She closed the door and locked it.

Smith came in the house, took off his boots right by the door and sat on the living room

couch. The couch was located under a window at the front of the apartment. Wineman

identified a photograph of the room which showed the location of the couch by the open,

screen-less window, along with Smith's boots.

{17} Wineman said she then went back in the kitchen. Satterfieid was still

outside screaming, calling Smith a"b*tch." Wineman heard Smith respond "Bill

Satterfield, you ain't never been nothing but a b*tch your entire life. Oh you got a gun?

You're going to shoot me?" Wineman left the kitchen. She heard one gunshot. Smith

was kneeling on the couch, facing the open window. One of his hands was up on the

window and the other hand was hanging by his side. Then a second gunshot lit up the

room. Wineman explained: "It was like - - it was like a torch. And it lit up everything

outside. It lit up Bill jSatterfieldl and his face, and his arm pointing the gun up at Kevin's

head." Wineman could clearly see the gun in Satteffield's hand. He was standing

straight in front of Smith the gun turned sideways. She said Satterfield appeared angry

and was standing approximately three feet away from the window when he shot Smith.

{¶8} After Satterfield shot him, Smith "crumpled out of the window," head-first,

landing on the grill outside. Satterfield was standing there and said: "I shot you now."

Wineman ran outside and straightened Smith to try to prevent him from choking on his

-3-

own blood. She then went to a neighbor's house and asked her to call an ambulance.

She then returned to her apartment, locked the dog in the bathroom and went to tend

to Smith, who had a sustained a bullet wound to the left side of his forehead. The

police, ambulance and Smith's mother arrived shortly thereafter. Wineman spoke with

a detective at the scene and was interviewed more comprehensively on October 14,

one week after'the shooting.

{1.9} On cross, Wineman agreed that the shooting was traumatic and startled

her quite a bit. She maintained she did not smoke marijuana the night of the shooting,

though she admitted to using the drug in the past. She denied telling a detective that

she smoked marijuana that evening. She said that if she indicated on the video of her

interview with the detective that "they" had smoked marijuana, she was referring to

others present that evening, not herself. When confronted with her October 18, 2011

written statement: "Then went to Laramie's [a brother], hung out for a few minutes and

smoked," she again said she was not referring to herself. While questioned on redirect,

Wineman testified that at the time of the shooting she had quit smoking marijuana due

to her job as a home health aide; however, on recross, she conceded that she had

never been drug tested as part of her current job.

{¶10} Denise Wheeler, the victim's mother, testified that on the evening Smith

was killed he and Wineman came to her home and made a bonfire in the back yard.

Wineman's dog Rex was with them. She confirmed that Smith was feeling ill that

evening and that he drank "a couple°" beers. Later after Smith left she heard gunshots in

the distance, instinctively worried about her son, and went directly to Abbey's Crossing.

She saw that Smith had been shot in the head and ran to him, Wineman was upset and

screaming. Smith was lying ori the ground with his feet pointing towards the apartment

window. Wheeler got Wineman to calm down and noticed her son's legs were stiffening

and she started to rub them. She also noticed that he was in socked feet and thought

this was odd because he always wore shoes when outside because he had an aversion

to anything touching his feet. She also specifically noticed that his socks were dry.

Smith was life-flighted to a Pittsburgh hospital where he died several days later from his

-4-

injuries.

{111 } David Cassanta, a ranger for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources,

was the first to respond to the scene; he handcuffed Satterfield. Satterfield told

Cassanta that he shot Smith. Cassanta stated that when he got to Smith, he was

positioned on the ground with his feet pointing towards the open apartment window.

{¶12} Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Joseph Weaver testified that when he

arrived on scene, Smith was lying in the grass with his feet toward the open window bythe

grill. Although it was cold outside, Smith was not wearing a coat or shoes. The trooper

identified a photograph of the inside of the apartment showing a pair of boots lying beside

the couch. He inquired about the boots and learned they belonged to the victim. He

rendered first aid to Smith and said he did not smell anything unusual or any alcoholic

beverages on his person.

{¶13} After the scene was secured and Smith was taken away by ambulance,

Trooper Weaver tried to comfort Wineman, who was very upset and crying. Over

objections, Trooper Weaver testified that Wineman told her that Smith had been outside

arguing with Satterfield about her dog barking, and that Satterfield was drunk and

Wineman told Smith it was not worth itto argue with him. She told him that Smith came

inside but Satterfield was still outside yelling at him. She said Smith then went to the

window, opened it and continued to argue with Satterfield. From the kitchen Wineman

said she heard a gunshot, looked to see what happened, heard a second gunshot and

then saw Smith fall out of the window.

{¶14} Robert Mills, an EMT and Assistant Chief of the Belmont Fire Department

testified that when he responded to the scene, Smith was lying on the ground with his

feet facing the building. Jeff Doty, a paramedic confirmed this was Smith's position on

the ground when he arrived.

{¶15} The State then played Satterfield's two 911 calls for the jury. On the first

call, Satterfield sounds very agitated and spends 27 minutes complaining to operators

and then a sheriff s deputy about his neighbors' dog running loose while the neighbors

were not home. He complained that it was impossible for him to go outside or to take

-5-

his own dog outside without the neighbor's dog running at him. He threatened to kill the

dog if the sheriffs department did not send an officer out. He stated that he was an

airborne infantryman in the Army. He stated that earlier in the evening he went outside

with his crossbow but the dog did not attack him. He was advised to call animal control

in the morning and not to go outside with his weapon at night.

{116} On the second call, which is just under 6 minutes long, Satterfield tells the

911 operator: "Yeah, I just had to shoot a man." He stated he went outside to talk to

Smith about the dog, and then came back over to Smith with his Taurus Judge pistol, for

which he has a concealed carry license. He said Smith smacked him a couple times and

then Smith came out of his window and said "what the f*ck, what's going on, you want

some beef?" Satterfeld said he then walked up to the window and told Smith he did not

want trouble. Smith hit him again so he pulled out his gun. After Smith hit him again and

the gun went off, Smith rebounded with another hit and the gun went off a second time, a

bullet hitting Smith in the head. Satterfield later exclaimed to the operator: "The thing is I

just killed a f cking man over a dog that I called the deputy sheriff over earlier. "^ ** I

didn't even mean to shoot the f*cking guy - he hit my f*cking hand that had the pistol in

it and it went off and shot him in the f*cking head!"

{¶17} Dr. Abduirezak Shakir, the forensic pathologist for the Allegheny County

Medical Examiner's Office testified that Smith died as a result of the gunshot wound to the

head. He opined that the end of the gun that fired the bullet was in front of Smith's face.

Based upon the lack of soot or stippling (small abrasions on the skin) near the entrance

wound, Dr. Shakir opined that the end of the gun was more than two feet away from

Smith's head when it was fired. Further, he found no evidence of stippling or powder

burns on Smith's hands. He said that if Smith's hands had been in the way of the

travelling bullet and had been within two feet of the gun, he would have expected to see

stippling on the hands. Photographs from the autopsy were admitted as evidence. On

cross, he conceded that his examination was done over 7 days after the shooting and that

he would have expected any soot to have been removed at the hospital. However, he

would not have expected the stippling, which are abrasions, to heal in that time.

-6-

{¶18} Edward Lulia, a crime scene agent with the Ohio Bureau of Criminal

Investigation and Identification testified that he arrived on the scene at 4:00 a.m. on

October 8, 2007. He identified a number of photographs he took, which were admitted

as exhibits. Because he was informed that two shots were fired, only one of which hit

the victim, he proceeded to look for the second bullet, but uitimately never found it.

Based on the location of the collapsed grill just outside the window, the blood

saturation stains on the grass, and the blow flow pattern on the grill, Agent Lul.la

opined that Smith was behind the grill when he was shot, ultimately falling onto it. He

also stated that "unless [Smith] was very thin and could fit between the grill and the

wall, [he] assume[ed] [Smith] was inside" the apartment when he was shot. On cross,

Agent Lulla conceded that because he did not see the position of the grill before the

shooting, he di'd not know of its exact position before it collapsed.

{119} Joshua Bar, a forensic scientist assigned to the firearms section at BCI

testified about Satterfield's gun and markings on the bullets. He determined that

Satterfiedd`s gun, a double-action revolver, was the weapon used to kill Smith and that

the gun worked properly. He also checked the trigger pull and determined that if the

hammer was cocked and ready to fire it would take three pounds of pressure to fire

the gun; if the hammer was not cocked it would take 12 pounds of pressure to fire it.

{120} Chief Warrant Officer Kenneth Tater of the Ohio Army National Guard

testified generally about the weapons training that soldiers receive in boot camp. He

agreed that they are taught never to point a weapon at someone they did not intend to

engage and agreed if they do not intend to fire the weapon there is no need to put a finger

on the trigger.

{121} Dr etective-Sergeant Ryan Allar of the Belmont County Sheriffs Office

interviewed Satterfieid after the shooting and testified about his investigation of the crime.

Among other things, Det. A11ar said he got a chance to meet Wineman's dog in person

and found it to be a playful, medium-sized, younger dog. He also looked at the victim's

socks, which were ultimately admitted into evidence, and noted the socks did not appear

to be worn by someone walking around outside without shoes; they were fairly clean.

-7-

{¶22} The video of Det. Allar's three-hour long interview with Satterfield was

played for the jury: Satterfield spent considerable time discussing his familiarity with

firearms. His version of events as related to Det. Allar was similar to what he told the

911 operator, except he told Det. Allar that Smith smacked the gun itself (as opposed to

Satterfield's hand), causing the gun to fire. Satterfield explained that it was necessary

for him to bring a weapon to confront Smith because Smith was under the influence of

drugs. Satterfield maintained that the shooting was accidental, Nonetheless, he

admitted that just before shooting Smith, he threatened to kill him if he laid a hand on

him again, and then cocked the hammer and aimed the gun at Smith's head.

{123} A portion of Det. Allar's interview with Wineman was played for the jury

during cross-examination. Although it was apparently somewhat difficult to hear,

Wineman seemed to state'°we smoked a joint," when discussing what she and Smith

did earlier in the evening before the shooting.

{124} After the State rested its case, the defense requested a jury view, which

was granted. The defense presented no witnesses and rested its case

{¶25} After considering all the evidence the jury found Satterfeld not guilty of

aggravated murder, but guilty of murder, with the accompanying firearm specification.

After a hearing, the trial court sentenced Satterfiefd to a term of 18 years to life: a three

year mandatory'term on the firearm specification to run consecutively to the 15 years to

life term for the murder conviction.

Manifest Weight

{726} In his sole assignment of error, Satterfield asserts:

(127) "Appellant's conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence,

in violation of his right of due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment

to the United States Constitution."

{128} "Weight of the evidence concerns the inclination of the greater amount

of credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the

other." (Emphasis sic.) State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541

(1997). A conviction will only be reversed as against the manifest weight of the

_8-

evidence in exceptional circumstances. Id. This is so because the triers of fact are in

a better position to determine credibility issues, since they personally viewed the

demeanor, voice inflections and gestures of the witnesses. State v. Hill, 75 Ohio

St.3d 195, 204, 661 N.E.2d 1068 (1996); State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 231,

227 N.E.2d 212 (1967).

{¶29} To determine whether a verdict is against the weight of the evidence, an

appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable

inferences and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly

lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must

be reversed and a new trial ordered. 7'hompkins at 387.

{130} Ultimately, "the reviewing court must determine whether the appellant or

the appellee provided the more believable evidence, but must not completely

substitute its judgment for that of the original trier of fact'unless it is patently apparent

that the factfinder lost its way.'" State v. Pallai, 7th Dist. No. 07 MA 198, 2008-Ohio-

6635, 2008 WL! 5245576, ¶31, quoting State v. Woullard, 158 Ohio App.3d 31, 2004-

Chio3395, 813 N.E.2d 964, 1181 (2d Dist.). In other words, "[w]hen there exist two

fairly reasonable views of the evidence or two conflicting versions of events, neither of

which is unbelievable, it is not our province to choose which one we believe." State v.

Dyke, 7th Dist. No. 99 CA 149, 2002-Ohio-1152, ¶13, citing State v. Gore, 131 Ohio

App.3d 197, 201, 722 N.E.2d 125 (7th Dist.1999).

{^31} Satterfield was convicted of one count of murder, pursuant to R.C.

2903.02(A) which proscribes purposefully causing the death of another, with a firearm

specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.145. "A person acts purposely when it is his

specific intention to cause a certain result, or, when the gist of the offense is a

prohibition against conduct of a certain nature, regardless of what the offender intends

to accomplish thereby, it is his specific intention to engage in conduct of that nature."

R.C. 2901.22(A)

{¶32} Satterfield does not dispute that he caused Smith's death; rather he

contends that the jury's finding that he acted purposely is against the manifest weight

-9-

of the evidence. He contends his actions were accidental, not purposeful.

{133} Satterfield's chief argument on appeal is that the eyewitness testimony of

Wineman, the victim's girlfriend, is not at all credible. Wineman testified that while she

was in the kitchen, Smith went to answer the door, still wearing his boots, to find

Satterfield at the door wearing army fatigues, with a beer in his hand, calling Smith

derogatory names. Wineman said she grabbed Smith by the arm, told him to come in

the house, and that SatterField was not worth fighting over, closed the door and locked it.

Smith then came in the house, took off his boots right by the door and sat on the living

room couch, which was located under a window at thefront of the apartment. Wineman

said she then went back in the kitchen. Satterfield was still outside screaming, calling

Smith a"b*tch." Wineman heard Smith respond "Bill Satterfield, you ain't never been

nothing but a Vtch your entire life. Oh you got a gun? You're going to shoot me?"

Wineman left the kitchen. She heard one gunshot. Smith was kneeling on the couch,

facing the open window. One of his hands was up on the window and the other hand

was hanging by his side. Then a second gunshot lit up the room. Wineman explained:

"It was like - - it was like a torch. And it lit up everything outside. It lit up Bill [Satteffield]

and his face, and his arm pointing the gun up at Kevin's head." Wineman could clearly

see the gun in Satterfield's hand; he was standing straight in front of Smith the gun

turned sideways. She said Satterfield appeared angry and was standing

approxirnately three feet away from the window when he shot Smith. Finally Wineman

testified that after Satterfield shot him, Smith "crumpled out of the window," head-first,

landing on the grill outside. Thereafter she heard Satterfield say: "I shot you now."

{134} Satterfield asserts that Wineman completely lacked credibility for several

reasons; first, because she made inconsistent statements about her marijuana use on the

day of the shooting; and second, because the events of the evening were so startling for

her it would have been impossible for her to clearly recall what happened.

;{135} The latter contention is easily dispelled by the fact that Wineman was able to

relate what happened to Trooper Weaver when he responded to the scene shortly after

the shooting, and what she told him mirrored her testimony at trial. With regard to

-10-

Wineman's marijuana use, while the record does reveal that Wineman's statements

concerning her drug use were inconsistent, the jury was aware of those

inconsistencies and able to judge her credibility accordingly. Even assuming Wineman

was smoking marijuana prior to the shooting, and assuming arguendo she was still

under the influence of the drug when the shooting occurred, that fact alone would not

necessarily destroy the credibility of her testimony. See, e.g., State v. Hudson, 7th Dist.

No. 09 MA 89, 2011-Jhio-1343 (conviction not against manifest weight of the evidence

where eyewitness admitted she was high on crack cocaine and had not slept for five

days when she observed the murder.)

{¶36} Most importantly, Wineman's testimony was supported by additional

evidence at trial. Wheeler's testimony supported Wineman's that Smith was inside the

apartment when he was shot. Wheeler testified about the placement of Smith's body,

specifically that Smith was lying on the ground with his feet towards the building. The

testimony of the responding officers and EMTs all confirmed the position of Smith's

body at the scene. Significantly, Wheeler also noted that Smith's socks were dry and

that he never went outside without socks on due to an aversion he had about things

touching his feet. The socks themselves were also admitted into evidence.

{¶37} The above was further corroborated by the testimony of Agent Lulla, who

opined that based upon the location of the collapsed grill just outside the window, the

blood saturation stains on the grass, and the blow flow pattern on the,,grill, that Smith

was behind the grill when he was shot, ultimately falling onto it. Agent Luila felt that

the most likely scenario was that Smith was inside the apartment when he was shot

since the space between the wall and the grill would have been very narrow. Finally,

Wineman's version of events is corroborated by the medical examiner's testimony that

there was no stippling on Smith's hands or nearthe wound, indicating Smith was at least

two feet away from the gun when it was fired and that his hands were not in the way of

the gun as it was fired.

{138} Satterfield maintained to Det. Allar that after threatening to kill Smith if he

slapped at him again, and then, after he leveled the gun at Smith's head with the hammer

-11-

cocked, the gun accidently went off when Smith slapped again. The fact that Satkerfield

was angry at Smith and Wineman over the dog, as shown by the first 911 call, shows that

Satterfield acted purposely, not accidentally. Also Satterfield spoke at length with Det.

Allar about his familiarity with guns, and the fact that he cocked the hammer and aimed

the gun at Smith's head is indicative of purpose. There is little to support Satterfield's

version of events aside from his own testimony, which has its own inconsistencies; For

instance, he told the 911 operator that Smith hit his hand, causing the gun to discharge,

while he told Det. Allar that Smith hit the gun itself.

{¶39} The jury had to decide whether Satteffield's version of events was true, or

Wineman's was true. Where neither side's version of the events is completely

unbelievable, it is not up to this court to make its own determination as to which side it

believes. Dyke, supra at ¶13.

{140} In sum, Satterfield's assignment of error is meritless. The outcome of

this case turned on credibility determinations best made by the jury. In convicting

Satterfield the jury did not lose its way so as to create a manifest miscarriage of

justice. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Donofrio, J. , concurs.

VukoltiCh, J. > concurs.

APPROVED:

^^^JUDGE MARY j

7 4)NAR®.

STATE OF OHIO

BELMONT COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

WILLIAM JAY CEE SATTERFIELD,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

FfLEDSS: SEVENTH DISTRICT CQURT OF APPEA

No ^).-13 LA 'A^ CYNTHIA K. MCGEE) CASE NO. 12 BE 22-ERK 0F CoURTS, B>41.ti90NT 0!.

DEC01 rh"uJ_ vg - ) JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the opinion rendered herein, Appellant's sole

assignment of error is meritless. It is the final judgment and order of this Court that the

judgment of the Common Pleas Court, Belmont County, Ohio is affirmed. Costs taxed

against Appellant.

^

%.,^ L_ v.