[Cite as State v. Stephens,
2016-Ohio-5270.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 26827
:
v. : T.C. NO. 12CR2085
:
KEITH A. STEPHENS : (Criminal appeal from
: Common Pleas Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 5th day of August, 2016.
...........
ANN M. GRABER, Atty. Reg. No. 0091731 and ANDREW T. FRENCH, Atty. Reg. No.
0069384, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, 301 W. Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio
45422
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee
TINA M. McFALL, Atty. Reg. No. 0082586 and VICTOR A. HODGE, Atty. Reg. No.
0007298, Assistant Public Defenders, 117 S. Main Street, Suite 400, Dayton, Ohio 45422
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant
.............
DONOVAN, P.J.
{¶ 1} This matter is before the Court on the Notice of Appeal of Keith Stephens,
filed September 3, 2015. Stephens appeals from his August 27, 2015 Judgment Entry
of Conviction, following a bench trial, on one count of tampering with evidence, in violation
-2-
of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), a felony of the third degree. Stephens was sentenced to
community control sanctions for a period not to exceed five years. We hereby affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
{¶ 2} Stephens was indicted on December 18, 2012, and on June 9, 2015, he
entered a plea of not guilty. At trial, William Geiger testified that he is employed by the
City of Dayton Police Department as a detective, with 18 years of police experience, and
that he was the lead detective investigating allegations against Stephens of gross sexual
imposition involving two juvenile victims, having learned of the allegations from Detective
Dix. Geiger stated that he met with Stephens on January 2, 2012, at the Safety Building
to discuss the nature of the investigation, and he testified that at that time he believed
Stephens “understood the investigation and understood the seriousness of the situation.”
Geiger stated that he spoke with Stephens about the same investigation again at the
Safety Building on February 20, 2012, after Dix contacted Stephens, who “came down of
his own free will” for the interview.
{¶ 3} Geiger stated that Stephens “was not arrested either time,” and that “[o]n
both occasions, I advised him of the Miranda warning from the pre-interview form.”
Geiger identified as Exhibit 1 the pre-interview rights form from the February 20, 2012
interview, and he testified that he went over each right individually with Stephens, who
then placed his initials next to each of the rights. Geiger stated that Stephens indicated
that he understood each right and did not ask any questions. Geiger stated that he asked
Stephens to read the waiver of rights portion of the form, and that Stephens did so without
asking any questions and then signed the form.
{¶ 4} Geiger stated that Stephens was interviewed for five hours on February 20,
-3-
2012, and that the interview was recorded. Geiger testified that he viewed a 40-minute
portion of the interview with the prosecutor, namely Exhibit 2, and he stated that it is an
accurate representation of that portion of the interview. Geiger testified as follows
regarding the interview:
We spoke at length. Initially he denied the accusations at all (sic).
He claimed that he had never touched either child and denied it.
Eventually he changed his story. He said there was, the one female victim
there was an instance in which he had put some vaginal cream for some
sort of irritation on the girl’s stomach and instructed her to rub it in. Prior
to that he denied that he ever did any sanitary [sic] as far as cleansing or
creams or anything like that. The more we talked, initially he stated that he
put it on approximately in the area of her stomach. He then, the more we
talked the farther down it moved until he said that it was in the area of the
vagina.
{¶ 5} Geiger stated that he then asked Stephens “to trace an outline of his hand
and then to indicate on that … tracing that he made, the fingers he used to apply the
cream to the child.” According to Geiger, Stephens traced his hand and then initially
pointed to the drawing. Geiger subsequently asked Stephens to circle the fingers he
used to touch the victim, according to his testimony, and he stated that Stephens circled
his index and middle finger. Geiger stated that he asked Stephens to sign and date the
tracing, at which time Stephens “had a look on his face in which he appeared upset for
lack of a better word.” Geiger stated that Stephens hesitated and then signed and dated
the tracing. Geiger testified that he then sketched a female vagina and asked Stephens
-4-
to indicate on the drawing where he applied the cream, and that Stephens did so. Geiger
identified Exhibit 3 as his drawing reflecting a line drawn by Stephens.
{¶ 6} Geiger testified that he subsequently left the interview room for several
minutes, leaving Stephens alone, and he testified that the video reflects that while he was
outside of the room, Stephens stated “this ain’t going to help me.” Geiger testified that
he returned to the room, spoke to Stephens, and then left the room again. Geiger stated
that the video reflects that at that time, Stephens “picked up the piece of paper that he
had traced of his hand, said something to the effect of shit ain’t going to help me in no
goddamned way and he started tearing it up.” Geiger stated that the video reflects
Stephens tearing the paper, and he identified as Exhibit 4 the torn pieces of the tracing.
Geiger testified that Detective Linda Sipes was monitoring the interview room, and that
the video reflects that as Stephens “was tearing up the pieces of paper and wadding it
up, apparently to dispose of it, she came into the room and requested that he give her
the piece of paper and he did so.” Geiger stated that Sipes then gave the pieces to him.
{¶ 7} On cross-examination, Geiger acknowledged that he called Stephens a liar
in the course of the interview and that he told him, “ ‘What you’re saying ain’t going to
help you.’ ” When asked if he told Stephens “… that this explanation, what he has
drawn down here on this paper, what he has told you in conjunction with that paper is
crap, bullshit and a lie,” Geiger responded, “I believe so.” The following exchange
occurred:
Q. By the time you walked out of the room, this last time we just
talked about, 3:36 I think. By that time, were you satisfied that you had
totally convinced him that his explanation of spreading this cream, and what
-5-
he had told you is he put the cream on the girl and told her to rub it in? (sic)
But were you satisfied that you had totally convinced him that that
explanation was worthless?
A. I believe I conveyed it. I don’t know if I convinced him.
Q. You certainly conveyed that message.
A. I did convey that message multiple times but you’d have to ask
him if he was convinced of it.
Q. That’s the message you were conveying, his explanation is
worthless, the paper is worthless. And you leave. And you leave him
there in that condition.
A. No. His explanation was worthless. I never said anything
about the paper being worthless.
…
Q. And after you walked out, all his attention, as far as tearing up
the piece of paper, was the one he drew, right?
A. He tore up the paper that he drew, correct.
Q. Right. And not the one you drew.
A. That’s correct.
Q. He didn’t bother any of your stuff?
A. That’s correct.
Q. So if he believed what you told him, what he tore up was
something that was worthless to you.
A. I have no idea what he would think.
-6-
…
Q. I didn’t ask you what he thought. I just said if he believed what
you told him, your message was this paper is worthless, your explanation is
worthless; isn’t that true?
A. My message was his message (sic) is worthless. I never said
anything about the paper.
{¶ 8} At the conclusion of the trial, the court indicated that it intended to review
the video “which I understand is a portion of the entire video which is about 40 minutes
long but it’s been stipulated to that this is a true and accurate portion and it’s the only
portion that’s relevant to this trial ….” In a “Decision and Entry Finding the Defendant
Guilty,” the court indicated in part as follows:
…
Upon review of the video containing a forty-minute portion of the
entire interview conducted in the present case, as well as the testimony and
exhibits presented during trial, the Court finds that the Defendant, with
knowledge of an ongoing investigation, altered potential evidence with the
purpose of impairing its availability or value, in violation of § 2921.12(A)(1).
In reaching this conclusion, the Court notes that the Defendant had
knowledge of an official investigation in progress since Detective Geiger
discussed with the Defendant on two separate occasions the nature of the
investigation, which involved gross sexual imposition involving two juvenile
victims. On both occasions, the Defendant was informed that he was a
suspect. Moreover, the Defendant was advised of his rights and Detective
-7-
Geiger went over a pre-interview rights form with the Defendant. The
Defendant did not raise any questions concerning his rights and he
indicated that he understood his rights by initialing next to each right listed
on the form and signing his name at the bottom of the form. The Court
finds that this constitutes knowledge of an official investigation in progress.
The Court further notes that although the Defendant did not
completely destroy the sheet of paper containing his traced hand, the
Defendant did substantially alter the paper by tearing the sheet of paper
multiple times, resulting in numerous pieces of ripped and wrinkled shreds
of paper. In regards to the Defendant’s purpose, the Court finds that the
Defendant acted with the purpose of impairing the potential availability of
the paper containing his traced hand. The Court notes that the Defendant
commented two times on the damaging nature of the paper. When
Detective Geiger first left the interview room, the Defendant looked sorely
(sic) at the paper and commented, “This shit ain’t gonna help me.” The
Defendant made his second comment right before shredding the paper.
He stated, “This shit ain’t gonna do me no god damn good.” Thereafter,
the Defendant ripped the paper in several pieces. Additionally, upon being
requested to hand over the ripped pieces to a law enforcement official, the
Defendant was reluctant, keeping some of the pieces in another hand until
the law enforcement official asked him to turn over the rest of the pieces.
This reluctance to hand over the paper further leads the Court to conclude
that the Defendant’s purpose in tearing the paper was to impair its
-8-
availability or value in the ongoing investigation.
As a result, the Court finds that the State has sufficiently proven each
and every element of R.C. § 2921.12(A)(1) beyond a reasonable doubt.
{¶ 9} Stephens asserts two assignments of error herein which we will consider
together. They are as follows:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY OF
TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE AS THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT
TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION AS A MATTER OF LAW.
And,
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY OF
TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE AS THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE
MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 10} According to Stephens, “the State failed to produce sufficient evidence that
[he] altered the paper tracing of his own hand with the purpose to impair its value or
availability as evidence” in the investigation, and his conviction is against the manifest
weight of the evidence. Stephens asserts that his comments made while alone in the
interview room “were made under circumstances that would lead any reasonable trier of
fact to conclude that Mr. Stephens[’] statements … were related to his belief that the
paper tracing of his hand had no value as evidence, and his distraught emotional and
physical state at the time he tore the paper up.”
{¶ 11} Stephens asserts as follows:
The video recording shows Detective Geiger repeatedly told Mr.
-9-
Stephens that his explanation, what he has drawn down here on this paper,
what he has told him in conjunction with the paper is crap, bullshit, and a
lie.
At 3:31 on the video/audio recording, Mr. Stephens tells Detective
Geiger, “I gave you that.” (Mr. Stephens said while pointing at the paper
tracing with his hand) Detective Geiger’s response is “Keith that is a little
bit, that is something you tell somebody to try to get out of trouble. That is
enough to try to get you out of trouble and that is all it is.” Mr. Stephens
gestures to the paper and says, “I told you that’s what it was. I am telling
you right now, that is it.” At 3:32 Detective Geiger responded, “Keith that
ain’t the truth . . . that ain’t all of it. I know it ain’t the truth, and I know it
ain’t all of it. Now once again we can cling to this. We can pray to God that
you will find somebody to believe it, but I am going to tell you right now, no
one’s going to.”
At 3:34 on the video/audio recording, Detective Geiger says, “There
is more to this story.” Mr. Stephens, while touching the paper responded
“Sir, that’s it. That is the only thing. That is all I got.” Detective Geiger
says, “You got more. I know you got more. You might have put cream on
that girl.” Then Mr. Stephens says while touching and patting the paper,
“That is all that I have right there. I was scared about that.”
At 3:35 on the video/audio recording, Mr. Stephens says, “Man you
are going to do what you are going to do. It doesn’t make any difference.
I am going to take myself out, throw myself over a balcony, anything cuz I
-10-
am not going to do time.” Detective Geiger says in response, “Are you
feeling like hurting yourself, right now?” Mr. Stephens is clearly distraught
crying and threatening to hurt himself. After some additional discussion
about the need to take Mr. Stephens to the hospital due to his threats to
hurt himself, at 3:37 Detective Geiger leaves the room.
Immediately after Detective Geiger leaves the room, Mr. Stephens
makes additional comments at 3:37. Mr. Stephens says, “I can’t live like
that [. . .] I told you what the deal was. [Mr. Stephens touches the paper]
You still doing this shit. [crying] That is the only deal. How come she
don’t tell them that?” It is at this point that Mr. Stephens appears to tear
paper off of a pad and tears it up. As he is in the process of tearing the
paper up Mr. Stephens says, “This shit ain’t going to do me no God damn
good.”
Detective Sipes comes into the room and says, “Excuse me . . . can
I have that paper please? The rest of it.” Mr. Stephens says, “Yeah, have
the paper.” Immediately after handing the paper over Mr. Stephens says,
“I just tore it up . . . mad.” Mr. Stephens appears to be so emotionally and
physically distraught that Detective Sipes asks, “Are you all right?”
There was no reluctance to turn over the pieces of paper on the
video. … When Detective Sipes asked for the paper, she points to Mr.
Stephens’ left hand. … He immediately gave her the pieces of paper in
his left hand. … Then she asked for the rest of it as she reached for his
right hand. … Mr. Stephens never attempted to keep the paper away from
-11-
her or resisted in anyway. (sic)
{¶ 12} Regarding the first assignment of error, the State responds that “Stephens
knew police were investigating allegations of sexual misconduct and he knew he’d made
damaging admissions. He also knew that the signed drawing tied him to the crimes the
police were investigating, and it provided additional evidence of culpability. Knowing
that, he attempted to destroy it.” The State further asserts in response to the second
assigned error that despite defense counsel’s “attempts at trial to show that Stephens
was not aware that the drawing was of any value to the investigation and that he believed
the tracing was ‘worthless’ and ‘lies’ as a result of Detective Geiger’s comments, the trial
court accepted Geiger’s testimony, which was credible and consistent with the other
evidence.”
{¶ 13} As this Court has previously noted:
When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the
defendant is arguing that the State presented inadequate evidence on an
element of the offense to sustain the verdict as a matter of law. State v.
Hawn, 138 Ohio App.3d 449, 471,
741 N.E.2d 594 (2d Dist.2000). “An
appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to
support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to
determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average
mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant
inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks,
-12-
61 Ohio St.3d 259,
574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.
Our analysis is different when reviewing a manifest-weight argument.
When a conviction is challenged on appeal as being against the weight of
the evidence, an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the
evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider witness credibility, and
determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact
“clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that
the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” State v.
Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387,
678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). A judgment
should be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence
“only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against
the conviction.” State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175,
485 N.E.2d 717
(1st Dist.1983).
State v. Watson, 2015-Ohio-4517,
46 N.E.3d 1090, ¶ 20-21 (2d Dist.)
{¶ 14} R.C. 2921.12 provides: “(A) No person, knowing that an official proceeding
or investigation is in progress, or is about to be or likely to be instituted, shall do any of
the following: (1) Alter, destroy, conceal, or remove any record, document, or thing, with
purpose to impair its value or availability as evidence in such proceeding or investigation.”
R.C. 2901.22(B) provides:
A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person is
aware that the person's conduct will probably cause a certain result or will
probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances
when the person is aware that such circumstances probably exist. When
-13-
knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense,
such knowledge is established if a person subjectively believes that there is
a high probability of its existence and fails to make inquiry or acts with a
conscious purpose to avoid learning the fact.
{¶ 15} As the trial court noted, Geiger testified that he twice advised Stephens of
the nature of the investigation, and that Stephens understood the purpose of the
interviews. We note that Stephens’ February 20, 2012 pre-interview form provides in
part, “You are being interviewed in regards to the crime of gross sexual imposition/rape.”
We have further reviewed the video of Stephens’ interview, and we conclude that the trial
court’s characterization thereof is accurate. We note however that the video does not
portray hesitation on Stephens’ part in handing the pieces of paper to Sipes or suggest
that Stephens attempted to withhold the pieces from her. Throughout the interview,
Geiger repeatedly questioned Stephens about the alleged gross sexual imposition and
expressed doubt regarding Stephens’ version of events. Stephens traced his left hand
and after being asked to circle all of the fingers with which he touched the victim, Stephens
complied. He then signed his name and dated the tracing. When alone in the room the
first time for several minutes, Stevens appears restless at times and distraught. Upon
Geiger’s return to the room, Stephens expressed fear about going to prison. Geiger
subsequently informed Stephens that if his heart were set on sending him to prison,
Geiger had “everything I need.” When Geiger left the room for the second time,
Stephens looked at the tracing, tore it from the pad and then tore it into five pieces.
Regarding Stephens’ argument that he believed the tracing to be of no value or worthless,
we note that in the course of defense counsel’s cross-examination of Stephens, Geiger
-14-
made clear that while he doubted Stephens’ version of events, he never indicated to
Stephens that the tracing itself was without value. Stephens’ own comments about the
nature of the tracing being of no help to him as well as his expression of fear about going
to prison create a reasonable inference that he was aware that the tracing and his
markings thereon were not entirely exculpatory. Although we may very well have drawn
a different conclusion, a reasonable fact-finder could infer that the act of tearing up the
drawing was in aid of, and for the purpose of, impairing its value.
{¶ 16} We conclude, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State,
that sufficient evidence was presented at trial to convince the average mind that
Stephens, knowing that an official investigation was in progress, altered the paper
containing the tracing of his hand and his markings thereon by tearing it into pieces with
the purpose to impair its value or availability as evidence in the investigation against him.
Having reviewed the entire record, we further cannot conclude that the trial court lost its
way and created such a manifest injustice that Stephens’ conviction must be reversed.
Since Stephens’ conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the
manifest weight of the evidence, his two assigned errors are overruled, and the judgment
of the trial court is affirmed.
..........
FAIN, J. and HALL, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Ann M. Graber
Andrew T. French
Tina M. McFall
Victor A. Hodge
-15-
Hon. Dennis J. Adkins
