[Cite as State v. Walker,
2025-Ohio-5607.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No.L-24-1159
Appellee
Trial Court No. CR0202301006
v.
Charles Walker DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: December 16, 2025
…
Julia R. Bates, Prosecuting Attorney and
Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Michael H. Stahl, and
Michael Aird, for appellant
…
SULEK, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Charles Walker, appeals the June 4, 2024 judgment of the Lucas
County Court of Appeals which, following a jury trial, sentenced him to an aggregate
term of life imprisonment for his convictions for aggravated murder, murder, and
kidnapping. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is affirmed.
I. Facts and Procedural Background
A. The Indictment
{¶ 2} On January 4, 2023, the Lucas County Grand Jury indicted Walker on two
counts each of aggravated murder, R.C. 2903.01(B) and (G), murder, R.C. 2903.02(B)
and 2929.02, and kidnapping, R.C. 2905.01(A)(3) and (C) in connection with the deaths
of two minor boys, K.W. and K.P. Walker pleaded not guilty.
B. The Trial
1. The Party, the Ride, and the Missing Boys
{¶ 3} Several individuals were indicted in connection with the murders.
Codefendants Walker and Brent Kohlhofer were tried jointly before a jury commencing
on May 2, 2024. The parties presented the following evidence.
{¶ 4} Birthday party host P.L. testified that on December 3, 2022, K.P. and K.W.
attended a birthday party at Maumee Bay State Park that P.L. was hosting for her child.
P.L. asked K.P. and K.W. to leave the party after learning that one of them had a gun.
She escorted them to the front desk where they waited for an Uber to pick them up. She
did not know them before the party.
{¶ 5} The Uber driver arrived at 8:14 p.m. and drove K.P. and K.W. to a residence
on Maumee Street in South Toledo; the ride took approximately 15 minutes. A third
party giving the name John ordered the Uber at 7:46 p.m.; the driver stated that the name
did not match the account.
{¶ 6} A parent of each boy testified regarding attempts to contact them over the
weekend. K.P.’s mother, K.R., stated that she last saw him on her security camera the
2.
morning of December 2, 2022, and last spoke to him early on Saturday, December 3.
K.P. called her on Saturday night to ask for a ride, but she missed the call. He did not
answer when she tried to call him back. K.R.’s concern grew over the weekend when she
could not contact him. On Monday, December 5, she posted on Facebook asking if
anyone had seen him and ultimately reported to the police that he was missing.
{¶ 7} A month or two before K.P.’s murder, K.P. called K.R. to tell her that they
needed to move out of their house. Kohlhofer had threatened to burn down their house
because Kohlhofer “was blaming [K.P.] for breaking into his house.” K.R. did not report
this threat to the police. After K.P.’s death, K.R.’s house burned down. She was unsure
of the cause.
{¶ 8} On cross-examination, K.R. said that K.P. and Kohlhofer had a good
relationship and that Kohlhofer fed K.P., took him on trips and outings, and hired him to
do odd jobs.
{¶ 9} C.W., K.W.’s father, testified that he last saw K.W. alive on December 3,
2022. K.W. and K.P. were going to a slumber party at Maumee Bay that night. By
December 4 or 5, C.W. became concerned about K.W. because no one had spoken to
him, and he usually spoke to his siblings daily. C.W. called 911 to report K.W. missing
on December 5.
{¶ 10} K.W.’s cousin last texted and spoke with him at 9:00 p.m. on December 3.
He said he was at “[A.E.]’s people’s house” with K.P., meaning his girlfriend’s relatives
on Maumee Avenue. The cousin told K.W. to leave the house because he feared for his
safety because he had stolen codefendant Gingrich’s gun. K.W. said he would leave after
3.
he finished what he was doing. The cousin got no answer when he tried calling him
back.
{¶ 11} Gingrich’s niece, A.E., testified that she previously dated K.W.; they were
not together but were talking when he died. K.W. lived at her house part of the time and
at his dad’s house. She learned he was missing on December 5. A.E. stated that she last
saw K.W. on November 29, 2022; they were arguing and her mom dropped him off at
Gingrich’s house where he did odd jobs. Gingrich lived with his girlfriend, Carrissa, and
his two children. She last spoke with him on December 2.
{¶ 12} On December 5, A.E. learned from K.W.’s sister that K.W. was missing.
The sister sent her screenshots of messages between A.E.’s cousin, B.W., and K.W.
arranging an Uber, and tracking its progress, to take the boys to Gingrich’s house. The
images were admitted into evidence.
{¶ 13} A.E. confronted B.W. regarding the messages because he and Gingrich
denied seeing the boys. She felt they were lying to her and never spoke to them again.
A.E. gave police the information.
{¶ 14} Lieutenant Philip Cook of the Toledo Police Department (TPD) testified
that he is responsible for retrieving 911 calls and call records. He presented the records
of C.W.’s December 5, 2022 911 call to report K.W. missing. In the call, C.W. provided
K.W.’s demographic information, told the operator what K.W. was wearing when he was
last seen, and said that K.W. was last seen on December 3 around 4:00 p.m.
{¶ 15} TPD Officer Antonio Aguilar conducted a safety check at 507 Maumee
following reports that the boys were last seen at that address.
4.
2. The December 5, 2022 Fire and December 15 Excavation
{¶ 16} Lieutenant Cook also presented the records of the six 911 calls that came in
about the fire at a vacant house located at 3015 Chase Street. The callers reported that
someone threw an unknown object that made a loud sound into the back of the house,
there was thick black smoke, and the back of the house was engulfed in flames.
{¶ 17} TPD Officer Cole Decant responded to the fire at 3015 Chase Street just
after midnight on December 5, 2022. When he arrived, he saw flames and smoke coming
from the house. He interviewed neighbors who told him that they saw a person throw
something that was on fire into the house and then run away down the alley. The
neighbors were not able to give any more information about the person.
{¶ 18} Later that day, Decant was working as a desk officer at the safety building
when K.R. came in to report K.P. missing. He had been gone for approximately two
days. Decant took her report and notified the investigative services bureau and the
records department.
{¶ 19} During cross-examination, Decant said that the neighbors could not say
which direction the person in the alley went. Decant believed that he asked the neighbors
about the person’s race and gender, despite those questions not appearing in the body
camera video.
{¶ 20} Robert Krause, a battalion chief with the Toledo Fire Division (TFD), also
responded to the fire at 3015 Chase Street. When he arrived, he assessed the house and
determined that the fire was concentrated in the back left corner of the building. As
firefighters were putting out the fire, one of them fell through the stairs. The fire made its
5.
way into the walls and the attic, and the crews had to chase the fire. Krause eventually
decided to pull the firefighters out of the building for their safety and have them fight the
fire from the outside. Although they were able to put most of the fire out, they could not
completely extinguish it without demolishing the house.
{¶ 21} D.M. lived near 3015 Chase. He called 911 on December 5, after seeing a
fire burning through a window of the house. He did not see who threw something into
the house, who started the fire, where the person went after starting the fire, or the police
canvassing the area to see if they could find the person who ran away from the house.
{¶ 22} C.B. lived across the street from 3015 Chase. On December 5, she was
checking her security camera before she went to bed when she “heard an explosion, and
the house across the street from [her] was engulfed in flames.” She called 911 to report
the fire. She told the operator that she heard a male voice and a female voice in the back
of 3015 Chase, near the alley, but she could not see who was speaking. She did not see
anyone throw anything into the house. C.B. described the house as abandoned and
poorly maintained, with overgrown grass and no landscaping. She was not looking
outside in the hours before the fire, so she did not know if cars came and went before the
fire.
{¶ 23} TFD arson investigator, Kathryn Brown, testified about her investigation of
the fire at 3015 Chase Street. When she arrived, firefighters were working to extinguish
the fire. She could not enter the house because it was unsafe. Brown spoke with several
witnesses who reported seeing someone throw a Molotov cocktail into the house, but they
6.
could not identify the person because the person was wearing dark clothes, it was very
early in the morning and dark, and the witnesses were not near the person.
{¶ 24} Brown determined the fire was incendiary, meaning it was intentionally set,
because the house was abandoned, there were no utilities at the house, and witnesses saw
someone throw something that was burning into the house. She also concluded that the
fire started in the left rear of the house. Brown returned to the scene the next day to
interview witnesses and look for cameras that might have captured footage. She did not
find any video cameras.
{¶ 25} Shelbie Flegall, a firefighter paramedic and K-9 handler for the Springfield
Township Fire Department, had her K-9 partner, Darwin, a trained cadaver dog, examine
the rubble at 3015 Chase Street on December 15, 2022. Darwin alerted to the presence of
human remains in an area of the rubble near the back left corner of the house. A second
cadaver dog from a different organization independently alerted to the same area.
{¶ 26} FBI special agent, Sara Pederson, was the team leader of the evidence
response team that helped search the rubble of the house. Their process involved an
excavator scooping debris from the rubble and putting it in the alley that ran beside the
house. Team members then sifted through the debris and marked, photographed, and
collected any evidence they found. Ultimately, the evidence response team found the
boys’ naked bodies “basically at the bottom of the pile of debris.” They also found and
collected a black HDMI cord, another black cord, some tape, and two videogame
controllers with attached cords.
7.
{¶ 27} Charles LeRoux, a detective with the TPD crimes against persons bureau,
testified that he was asked to assist at 3015 Chase Street while the FBI was sifting
through the rubble. While he was there, he knocked on a neighbor’s door to ask about
security footage. The neighbor gave LeRoux a hard drive with video footage from
December 3, 4, and 5, 2022.1 He did not speak to other neighbors.
{¶ 28} Dr. Jeffrey Hudson, a Lucas County deputy coroner, performed the
autopsies on K.W. and K.P. During K.W.’s autopsy, Hudson noted postmortem thermal
burns to much of K.W.’s body; hemorrhages in the superficial and deep strap muscles of
the neck and cerebral vascular congestion, which indicated strangulation; and blunt force
trauma to the head, evidenced by subgaleal hemorrhage under the left frontotemporal
scalp, hemorrhage in the right temporalis muscle, bilateral subarachnoid hemorrhage, and
mild cerebral edema. The bleeding on K.W.’s brain was not sufficient to cause death on
its own. Hudson opined that K.W. was dead before the fire started, based on negative
toxicology results for carbon monoxide and cyanide and the absence of soot and thermal
injuries in K.W.’s airways. Hudson determined that K.W.’s cause of death was
strangulation, and his manner of death was homicidal violence. He explained that
strangulation requires exertion of “a large amount of force” on the front of the neck for “a
significant period of time”—as long as “several minutes.”
1
LeRoux testified that the timestamps on the surveillance video collected from the house
on New York Avenue were 9 to 10 minutes ahead of the actual time. For consistency, all
times from that video footage included in the decision have been adjusted accordingly.
8.
{¶ 29} During K.P.’s autopsy, Hudson noted postmortem thermal burns to much
of K.P.’s body; a broken right ulna and gaping defects in the buttocks, which were
postmortem injuries likely caused by the equipment that excavated the body; and blunt
force trauma to the head, evidenced by subgaleal hemorrhage under the left
frontotemporal and right frontal scalp, two lacerations on the forehead, right facial
swelling, and mild cerebral edema. Hudson opined that K.P. was dead before the fire
started, based on negative toxicology results for carbon monoxide and cyanide and the
absence of soot and thermal injuries in K.P.’s airways.
{¶ 30} Hudson ultimately concluded that K.P.’s cause of death was homicide by
unspecified means, and his manner of death was “Homicide – UNDETERMINED
VIOLENCE” because the autopsy did not reveal a specific cause of death. Hudson did
not find any indication that K.P.’s death was natural, accidental, or suicide.
{¶ 31} On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Hudson to explain the
injuries to the boys’ heads in laymen’s terms. He said that K.W. suffered blunt force
trauma to the left forehead and side of the head; bleeding in the right temporalis muscle,
which is the area above the ear; and “patchy” bleeding on the surface of the brain. K.P.
suffered mild swelling of the brain. Hudson also confirmed that certain ways of killing
someone, such as those from a bag over the head, might not leave evidence on the body.
In K.W.’s case, he did not see any evidence of ligature strangulation, e.g., strangulation
by rope, twine, or duct tape. Hudson acknowledged that blunt force trauma could be
caused by objects like the butt of a gun, and that strangulation is often an up-close,
9.
personal act. He reiterated that he could not determine the specific weapon used or the
exact circumstances of the boys’ deaths.
3. The Investigation and Codefendant Testimony
{¶ 32} Prior to the events at issue, at approximately 11:49 p.m., on November 17,
2022, Washington Township Police Officer Thomas Fall responded to a burglary call at a
residence on Patriot Drive. The home’s alarm triggered and police were notified.
Officers observed a broken windowpane and partially open window next to the back door
but saw no signs of actual entry and nothing appeared missing. Officers were able to
reach the owner, codefendant Brent Kohlhofer.
{¶ 33} P.Y., has autism and was 17 years old in December 2022. He testified that
he is Carrissa Eames and Don Eames’2 younger brother and was charged as a
codefendant in the case. The State initially charged P.Y. with murder and kidnapping,
but he pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice, which he described as “[n]ot being
truthful.” He admitted to not being truthful during the investigation but claimed that he
was being truthful at trial.
{¶ 34} On December 3, P.Y. was at Carrissa and Gingrich’s house on Maumee
Avenue for a party. After the party, he was in the basement playing video games with
B.W., Gingrich’s nephew. He wore a headset, which made it difficult for him to hear
what was going on upstairs.
To avoid confusion, Carrissa Eames will be referred to as “Carrissa” and Don
2
Eames as “Eames.”
10.
{¶ 35} At some point, K.W. and K.P. came to the house. After they arrived, P.Y.
and the others smoked marijuana in the basement. Eventually, Gingrich, Gabriel Garcia,
and Eames came down to the basement, and Gingrich “[c]onfronted [K.W.] about the
gun.” After the confrontation started, P.Y. went to stand halfway up the basement stairs.
From there, he could hear “some tussling and confrontation about a gun that has been
missing.” He saw K.P. with a gun, Gingrich with a gun, and Eames tying K.W. and K.P.
up with HDMI cables. P.Y. also heard Gingrich call Cruz Garcia to tell him that K.W.
and K.P. were there and Gingrich was confronting them about the missing gun.
{¶ 36} Later, Cruz Garcia came to the house. P.Y. stayed on the stairs “[f]or a
second” before going upstairs to the dining room. Carrissa was there with him, and he
could hear “confronting” happening in the basement. After a while, K.P., K.W., Garcia,
Gingrich, Gabriel, and Eames came up the stairs. K.W. had a bag on his head and was
bleeding, but P.Y. could not remember if K.P. was bleeding. K.P. was tied up when he
came up the stairs, but P.Y. could not remember if K.W. was tied up. As they walked
upstairs, Garcia was behind them and took them out the back door and through the gate
into the alley. P.Y. could not see anyone in the alley because it was dark, and he was
unsure if anyone was out there.
{¶ 37} During cross-examination, P.Y. confirmed that Gingrich believed K.W. had
stolen a weapon and used B.W. (his nephew who was around 13 at the time) to lure K.W.
and K.P. to the house. When Gingrich got to the basement, he pulled out a gun. K.P.
saw the gun and went to pull out his own gun, but Gingrich and Eames got the gun away
from K.P. P.Y. testified that things got worse when Garcia arrived. Garcia thought that
11.
K.P. and K.W. had broken into his mother’s house and pointed a gun at her, which
explained his level of aggression. Although P.Y. was not sure if Gingrich pistol whipped
the boys, he knew that Garcia had. While P.Y. was upstairs, he could hear the boys
screaming and pleading and Garcia yelling. Eames got scared when he learned that
Garcia was coming to the house because he was afraid that Garcia was going to cause
him physical harm.
{¶ 38} Gingrich wanted P.Y. to drive to Maumee Bay to pick up the boys, but he
refused because he did not want to be involved. Carrissa told P.Y. not to tell anyone
what happened at the house, so he “kept [his] mouth shut.” Eames also went with P.Y.
and Carrissa to P.Y.’s house, and during the drive, Carrissa stopped the car and told
Eames to get rid of the gun that the men had taken from K.P. P.Y. recalled telling the
police that he was scared of Garcia and the “other guys.”
{¶ 39} On redirect, P.Y. clarified that the “other guys” he told the police about
were men that he did not know. He also agreed that he had told the police that he saw
people in all black in the alley, but their faces were blocked by the gate. P.Y. did not
know who killed the boys or where they were killed.
{¶ 40} Duane Isabell, a TPD Digital Forensics Officer, extracted information from
the codefendants’ cellphones. On one of the phones that Isabell extracted—with the
device name “Corey’s phone” and determined to be Gingrich’s —he noticed that items
had been deleted from the phone, including location data and text messages.
{¶ 41} Pursuant to search warrants, TPD Digital Forensics Detective Joseph Fuller
performed extractions on two cell phones. On a cell phone identified as Cruz Garcia’s, a
12.
text message was sent to a contact name of “Corbin” on December 3, 2022, at 9:48 a.m.,
stating: “I’m a send bro just tell me where[.]” An image on Garcia’s camera roll on his
phone, created on December 5, 2022 at 10:16 a.m. said “We don’t fw lames bums or
theifs u N****s finished [.]” Fuller stated that “fw” means “fuck with.”
{¶ 42} Fuller performed an extraction of Walker’s girlfriend Rozlyn Lucas’ cell
phone. On November 18, 2022, she sent a text message, with photos, to her work bosses
claiming her home was broken into, and glass was everywhere. There were three
separate hotel confirmation e-mails, from hotels in Maumee and Perrysburg, Ohio,
spanning the dates December 15-26, 2022. There were also photographs of Walker with
a young child at what appeared to be a hotel.
{¶ 43} M.N., Brent Kohlhofer’s nephew and close friends of K.P. and K.W.,
testified that his uncle blamed K.P. for the November 1, 2022 break-ins and theft of
marijuana from two of the three residences he owned on Chase Street. Kohlhofer
occasionally stayed at 3038 Chase and sold marijuana from that location. Walker resided
at 3046 Chase. He threatened that if K.P. did not return the marijuana the next day, he
would burn his house down. M.N. told Kohlhofer that K.P. did not burglarize the homes;
Kohlhofer did not believe him.
{¶ 44} M.B. similarly testified that Kohlhofer is his uncle and that he was friends
with K.P. and K.W. He lived with his grandmother, Kohlhofer’s mother, at 3030 Chase,
the third home Kohlhofer owned on the street. The day after the Kohlhofer’s house on
Patriot and one on Chase were allegedly broken into, K.P. called Kohlhofer to tell him
that he and M.B. did not have anything to do with the burglaries. He did not know if any
13.
property was taken from the houses. Kohlhofer responded that “he didn’t care. If we
didn’t do it—if we didn’t do it he knew we knew the people that had did it.” Kohlhofer
took M.B.’s clothing and possessions from M.B.’s grandmother’s house because he “said
that [M.B.] knew who did it so he took that in retaliation.”
{¶ 45} TPD Detective William Clark testified that he is assigned to the Crime
Scene Investigation (“CSI”) Unit and collects and processes evidence. He processed two
vehicles during the investigation, a gray Ford F-150 and a black Chevrolet Impala.
Regarding the F-150, he swabbed the interior of the truck for DNA evidence. Clark
found a shotgun shell and a hospital blanket with a stain on it in the rear seat of the F-
150.
{¶ 46} Detective Clark processed Walker’s Chevy Impala twice. The first time, he
swabbed the interior of the car for DNA evidence. He found a blue cooler bag with a
“red/brown stain” on it and a receipt for the purchase of a tarp, staples, and bungee cords
in the backseat of the Impala. The receipt was from December 13, 2022. Clark believed
that the interior of the Impala had recently been cleaned, he could not tell whether the
trunk had recently been cleaned, and the exterior had “recent road salt and dust on it.”
The second time he processed the Impala, Clark removed the trunk lining and swabbed
the interior of the trunk.
{¶ 47} Clark admitted during cross-examination that he did not swab the bed of
the F-150 because detective he had been told to focus on the Impala, and the truck had
been stored outside and exposed to rain, which would have destroyed anything of
evidentiary value.
14.
{¶ 48} Regarding the Impala, Clark removed the fabric covering all of the seats
and arm rests but did not do so for the F-150. He admitted that he was primarily focused
on the Impala and was very thorough when he processed the trunk. The trunk liner was
made of fabric that would absorb fluids. Clark used a chemical to detect blood evidence
in the Impala’s passenger compartment but did not find any.
{¶ 49} Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigations (BCI) DNA Analyst Timothy
Augsback authored three DNA reports, admitted into evidence, relating to the analysis of
several pieces of evidence in the case. The two items with DNA sufficient for
comparison were the piece of glass found in Gingrich’s basement and the middle of the
videogame controller cord. The glass tested presumptively positive for blood, but
Walker, K.P., and K.W. were all excluded as contributors of the DNA on the glass. K.W.
was found to be the major contributor to the mixture of DNA on the middle (but not the
end) of the videogame controller cord, with the remaining DNA on the middle of the cord
not being of sufficient quality for comparison. There was no blood identified on the liner
from the Impala’s truck. Augsback could not tell when or how K.W.’s DNA got on the
controller cord, and not finding a person’s DNA on an object did not mean that the
person never touched the object; they could have touched it without leaving DNA.
Augsback confirmed that there was no DNA found in the trunk of the black Impala.
{¶ 50} John Orlando, an FBI agent assigned to the Cellular Analysis Survey Team
(CAST), provides “historical cell site analysis” and specializes in “locating a phone or
device in real time, or looking back historically and providing a general area in which
that device was during a time frame.”
15.
{¶ 51} He stated that cell towers are provider-specific and that to prevent dead
zones, cell towers typically provide coverage up to and a bit beyond the next tower and
that more densely populated areas have more towers while in rural areas the towers are
more spread out. Each triangular tower is divided into three sectors, or sides, with
antennas on each side. An individual’s cell phone is continuously communicating with
the towers to use the best signal available. The best signal is generally, but not always,
the geographically closest. This can be impacted by certain factors such as tall buildings
or hills.
{¶ 52} Agent Orlando explained that cell phone companies record the activity of
each customer including the phone’s interaction with the network; specifically, the cell
tower and sector or side used, whether the call was incoming or outgoing, the duration of
the call, and the cell numbers involve. These call detail records (CDRs) only provide
data when the phone is in use.
{¶ 53} In this case, law enforcement contacted Orlando to have him conduct an
analysis as to six cell numbers (one phone was associated with two numbers), associated
with four of the defendants: a number ending in 5488 that was associated with Garcia, a
number ending in 3126 that was associated with Carrissa, numbers ending in 9229 and
4908 that were associated with Walker, and numbers ending in 9020 and 8775 that were
associated with Kohlhofer. He reviewed records for December 3 and 4, 2022.
{¶ 54} The CDRs from Garcia’s phone showed that he used a cell tower in
Michigan from 9:04 to 9:33 p.m. on December 3. After that, from 9:39 to 9:44 p.m., his
phone used a tower just across the Ohio line, first using the west sector, then using the
16.
south sector. Beginning at 9:47 p.m., Garcia’s phone used a tower in Oregon, near
Seaman Road, where he lived. According to Orlando, this showed that Garcia’s “phone
is moving” because the phone “started up using a tower in Michigan. It used two
different sides of a tower after that in Ohio that would be indicative of the device moving
in a southern nature, and then ultimately that phone used a tower down . . .” in Oregon.
The CDRs also showed that the phone numbers associated with Garcia, Kohlhofer, and
Walker were all communicating with each other, Kohlhofer’s phones were using a tower
near 3015 Chase Street, and all three people’s phones were using separate towers.
From 10:08 to 10:13 p.m., Garcia’s phone used a tower closer to 507 Maumee Avenue,
first using the north sector, then using the south sector. From 10:15 to 10:33 p.m.,
Garcia’s phone used the tower nearest to 507 Maumee, which was an omnidirectional
tower that did not have sectors. This showed “in totality movement of [Garcia’s] phone,
moving closer to the 507 Maumee Avenue . . . .” After 10:30 p.m., Walker’s 4908 phone
moved away from the tower near 3015 Chase, which Orlando said was “indicative of that
phone moving in the same general direction as [Garcia’s] phone towards the general area
of that 507 Maumee Avenue.” The CDRs also showed that the phone numbers
associated with Garcia, Kohlhofer, and Walker continued to communicate with each
other, and Kohlhofer’s 9020 phone continued to use the tower near 3015 Chase Street.
{¶ 55} From 10:40 to 10:51 p.m., Garcia’s phone continued to use the
omnidirectional tower near 507 Maumee. Walker’s phones used two sectors on a
different tower near 507 Maumee. They first used the southern sector, which faced 507
Maumee, and then used the northwestern sector. From 10:55 to 10:56 p.m., while
17.
communicating with each other, Garcia’s phone and Kohlhofer’s 8775 phone used two of
the same towers and three of the same sectors. The towers were not near either 507
Maumee Avenue or 3015 Chase Street. Orlando said that the phones’ movement showed
“[Garcia’s] phone started towards . . . the general area of 507 Maumee Avenue, and then
it ultimately moved and was using the same towers and the same sides of the towers as
[Garcia’s] phone while it was moving.” To him, that was “indicative of the devices
moving in the same general direction during that timeframe.” He also noted that there
were “connections particularly between” Garcia’s phone and Kohlhofer’s phone.
{¶ 56} From 11:00 p.m. to midnight, Garcia’s, Kohlhofer’s 8775 phone, and
Walker’s 4908 phone were using different towers and different sectors, which were all
“the towers that are surrounding in the middle of that, that 3015 Chase Street.” Orlando
concluded that, during this period, “if you look at those connections, again, we see that
there are connections between those phones. So those phones have traveled now towards
that general area, 507 Maumee. They left that area, traveled away, and now they are
bouncing off different towers and sectors around that 3015 Chase Street and continuing
to speak.”
{¶ 57} Between midnight and 4:00 a.m. on December 4, Kohlhofer’s phones and
Walker’s 4908 phone were “fairly stationary, still, in connection and staying close to that
general area of 3015 Chase Street.” Garcia’s phone, while communicating with
Kohlhofer’s and Walker’s phones, was using a tower near Seaman Road in Oregon.
Orlando also looked at cellphone activity from 11:25 p.m. on December 4 to 1:07 a.m. on
December 5. He found that Kohlhofer’s 9020 phone and Walker’s 4908 phone each used
18.
towers near 3015 Chase Street. Garcia’s phone used two towers, one in Oregon and one
near Detroit Avenue.
{¶ 58} On cross, Orlando said that a phone using the omnidirectional tower near
507 Maumee simply meant that the phone was “using that tower that provides coverage
to that area including that residence.” He was not able to pinpoint where the device was.
Phones can store geolocation information that can be physically downloaded from the
device, which could give more precise locations than the general areas he was able to
provide. He was not given any geolocation information regarding this case. He admitted
that he could not say that Walker was anywhere near 507 Maumee during the 10:00 to
10:40 timeframe, only that his device was moving south, southwest.
{¶ 59} Regarding the 10:40 to 11:00 p.m. timeframe when Orlando thought that
the records were indicative of Kohlhofer’s and Garcia’s phones moving in the same
direction, he admitted that he “can’t pinpoint or say if they were together or apart, but
[he] can say through the use of the towers they were moving in the same general direction
during that time.”
{¶ 60} Orlando clarified that voice contacts between cell phones could mean that
one phone called the other and went to voicemail but did not have any actual
communication with the other phone’s owner. When he referred to contact or
communication between the phones, he meant that “those devices either made an
outgoing call to that other phone or received an incoming call from that other phone.” He
was unable to tell from the CDRs how long any voice calls between cell phones were.
He said that the CDRs would note if a call went to voicemail.
19.
{¶ 61} Orlando did not physically look at any of the cell phone towers involved in
this case because the murder happened two years earlier, so he could not say that the
towers he might have seen in 2024 were the same towers that existed and were in the
same condition as they were in 2022. Therefore, he did not know if a cell phone tried to
connect to a different tower but was unable to because of mechanical failure. He was
also unaware of any error or accuracy rates related to the towers. And he was unable to
go out and measure the actual signals from the towers to provide “the actual footprint
rather than just that sector.” Orlando conceded that a phone might not always use the
tower closest to it, but a phone would always be within the coverage area of the tower
that it used.
{¶ 62} Cruz Garcia testified that the State charged him with aggravated murder,
murder and kidnapping in the death of K.W. and K.P. In exchange for his truthful
testimony, he entered guilty pleas to involuntary manslaughter and kidnapping.
Garcia admitted that prior to his December 15, 2022, arrest he lied to police
multiple times regarding the events. Following his arrest and indictment, he again lied to
police. Garcia stated he was truthful the fourth time speaking with police and he wanted
the families to know what happened that night.
{¶ 63} The night that K.W. and K.P. disappeared, Garcia had gone out to dinner
for a friend’s birthday. After dinner, he went to buy marijuana in Michigan. When he
got to his “weed man’s” house, he got a video call from Gingrich, who showed him K.W.
and K.P. tied up with their hands behind their backs in Gingrich’s basement. He had tied
them up because he caught them stealing a gun from his house. Garcia recognized K.W.
20.
as one of the people who tried to break into his mother’s house. He also knew that
Kohlhofer and Walker were looking for K.P. because they thought that K.P. and M.N.
had broken into their homes on Chase Street in November and stolen marijuana, money,
and guns, so he called Kohlhofer. Kohlhofer “tells [him] to get over there ASAP. Make
sure they don’t let them leave.” As a result, Garcia left Michigan, went to his house on
Seaman Road in Oregon to get his gun, and then went to Gingrich’s house on Maumee
Avenue.
{¶ 64} When Garcia arrived at Gingrich’s house, he called Kohlhofer again to let
him know that he had arrived and to give Kohlhofer the address. As he was waiting for
Kohlhofer to get there, Gingrich took him to the basement. Gingrich and B.W. were in
the basement with Garcia. Eames, Carrissa, and Gabe Garcia were elsewhere in the
house. Garcia “confronted” K.W. and K.P. about trying to break into his mother’s house.
When they denied doing so, Garcia hit their heads with the handle of his gun. As he went
to hit them a second time, K.P. claimed that his brother was the person who tried to break
into Garcia’s mother’s house and asked Garcia to let them go. Garcia responded that
“they have to take that up with Beezy when he gets here.” Beezy is Kohlhofer’s
nickname. At 9:50 p.m., Kohlhofer texted Garcia, “I’m a send bro just tell me where[,]”
which Garcia interpreted as Kohlhofer saying that he was going to send Walker. While
waiting for Kohlhofer to arrive, Garcia pointed his gun at the boys so that they would not
run away.
{¶ 65} Next, Kohlhofer called to tell Garcia that he was outside the Maumee
Avenue house. Following Gingrich’s instructions, Garcia told him to park in the alley
21.
behind the house where there were no cameras. He and Gingrich walked the boys, with
their arms tied behind their backs, out the back door to the alley to meet Kohlhofer and
Walker, who were standing by Walker’s black Chevy Impala with the trunk open.
Kohlhofer punched one of the boys, and Walker “smashed” the other with a pistol,
causing them to fall, after which both stomped on the boys. Walker then taped their
mouths and hogtied their hands and legs. At this point, Gingrich began to walk away,
and Walker and Kohlhofer put the boys in the trunk of the Impala, which had a blue tarp
in it. Kohlhofer told Garcia that he needed to follow them. Before leaving the house,
Garcia gave his gun to Carrissa so that she could clean it because he thought that it had
the boys’ DNA on it.
{¶ 66} Garcia followed the Impala in his truck to Chase Street. While they were
driving, Garcia called Kohlhofer, who told him to stay behind the Impala so that it did not
get pulled over. During their conversation, Kohlhofer asked him how K.P. ended up at
Gingrich’s house and who knew that Kohlhofer was coming to get the boys. Garcia told
him that “everybody” knew he was coming over because Garcia had told the boy that
“they had to take it up with Beezy when he gets here.” Kohlhofer was concerned that
Walker would have to “go back through there” because people knew he was there, but
Garcia assured him that Gingrich was “going to keep everyone quiet.”
{¶ 67} Once they were on Chase Street and passed Kohlhofer’s house, Garcia
called him again to ask where they were going. Kohlhofer told Garcia to go home and
said “[h]e got it handled.” According to a text conversation with someone Garcia was
buying shoes from, he was back at his house sometime after 11:17 p.m.
22.
{¶ 68} After he got home, Garcia got another video call from Gingrich. Gingrich
was worried because the boys had unfriended him on Facebook and thought they might
return to his house to retaliate. When Garcia called Kohlhofer to find out about the
situation, Kohlhofer said, “tell Corbin not to worry about it. They are not going to do
nothing. I already told you I will handle it. Tell him to worry about cleaning up over
there.”
{¶ 69} Sometime after noon on December 4, Garcia went to Kohlhofer’s “to ask
more about the night before.” He asked if Kohlhofer and Walker had shot the boys
because he had heard gunshots when he was driving home, which Kohlhofer denied.
However, “Chuck said that he should have. The little n***** were tough. We can’t
believe they didn’t tell us where the shit was. They really fought to the end and took that
to the grave. . . . Brent interrupted and said, you guys need to shut the fuck up and act
like none of this ever happened.”
{¶ 70} Later that night, Kohlhofer and Walker arrived at Garcia’s house to talk
about their alibi. They wanted to go to Gingrich’s to make sure that they had not left
anything in the alley and that Gingrich would not say anything about the night before.
Garcia assured them that Gingrich would keep quiet.
{¶ 71} The next day, Walker came back to Garcia’s house to see if he had said
anything about the other night because people were accusing Garcia of having the boys in
his basement. When Walker left, Garcia called Kohlhofer, who assured him that he did
not need to worry as long as he kept quiet. Soon after, Garcia learned from a friend that
K.W.’s uncle wanted Garcia to let K.W. go. Garcia called Kohlhofer, who said he would
23.
“try to clear [Garcia’s] name.” Kohlhofer eventually told Garcia that he thought that
Garcia was in the clear, and if he had known that one of the boys was related to the uncle,
“he probably would have gotten his stuff back. It’s too late.” Kohlhofer offered to have
Walker install security cameras at Garcia’s house. While Walker was installing the
cameras, a detective came to the house to speak with Garcia. After they left, Garcia
called Kohlhofer to ask what to do. Kohlhofer told him, “you need to clean up over
there” and “if [the police] had something on you they would have came and got you by
now.” Garcia “asked him maybe they could let them go. This shit is getting way out of
hand, and that’s when [Kohlhofer] said let them go? Them n***** been dead.”
The next day, Walker picked Garcia up from outside of an attorney’s office to ask if the
detectives had said anything about him or Kohlhofer. Garcia said they only asked about
Gingrich.
{¶ 72} Attempting to hide his involvement, Garcia deleted text messages, phone
calls, and posts from his phone. One Facebook post said, “We don’t fw lames bums or
theifs u N****s finished .” Garcia claimed that the post was directed at Eames and
related to a “prior beef” between the two men because Eames owed him money for
marijuana. He said that he deleted the post after a friend told him to because it sounded
incriminating.
{¶ 73} Regarding the gun that he had on December 3, Garcia said that he
eventually got it back from Carrissa, but after he got it home, he wrapped it in a plastic
grocery bag and threw it in his garbage can.
24.
Garcia received a handwritten letter while in the county jail; he believed either
Walker or Kohlhofer sent it. The letter, delivered by another inmate, contained threats
regarding him testifying at trial. The court admitted the letter without objection.
{¶ 74} Garcia believed that Walker authored the letter because “one time before
we got put keep separates on each other Chuck was threatening me through the gate at the
holding tank before you come in.” Walker had previously referred to Garcia as “Cruzito”
which was in the letter. Garcia gave the letter to his attorney.
{¶ 75} Garcia denied murdering K.P. and K.W. He stated that the boys were both
alive and getting into the trunk of Walker’s Impala when he last saw them.
{¶ 76} Garcia admitted during cross-examination that he lied to the police about
many things in his first interview, including saying that he suspected both boys of trying
to rob his mother’s house, and that he did not have a gun on him the night of December 3.
In his most recent interview with the police, Garcia told them that the boys had plastic
grocery bags on their heads when they came out of the basement, which he had not
mentioned in his prior interviews. The bags were on their heads to prevent them from
seeing where they were walking and who was around them, not because of blood. He
could not remember if the boys were bleeding after he pistol whipped them. He did not
know what happened to the cords used to tie up the boys after K.W. duct taped their
hands and feet. In one of his police interviews, Garcia told the detectives that he did not
know why he was following Walker’s car that night, but in court, he said it was to
prevent Walker from getting pulled over. Garcia denied changing his story in response to
discovery but claimed that he just added more to it each time he spoke with the police.
25.
Garcia went to Gingrich’s house on December 3 to get the truth out of the boys about
who tried to rob his mother’s house. Seeing K.W. wearing the same shoes as one of the
people in the video footage he had of the would-be burglars confirmed for Garcia that
K.W. was involved. He only pistol whipped each of the boys once because he “felt like
that’s all that took, you know, to make them tell [him] they broke into [his] mom’s
house.” He claimed that K.P. told him that K.P.’s brother was the one who tried to break
into Garcia’s mother’s house after Garcia hit him with a gun one time, but Walker later
told him that the boys were tough, would not tell them anything, and “took that shit to the
grave.”
{¶ 77} Garcia made the deleted Facebook post around 10:15 a.m. on December 5,
the morning of the fire. He maintained that the post was aimed at Eames (a white man),
who owed him $150, despite including a racial slur generally directed at Black people,
claiming “that’s not literally like being a racial slur . . . that’s slang for multiple people.”
He blamed the use of the plural form of the slur on typing the post on his phone.
Although Garcia and Gingrich were both mad at K.W. that night, they were not mad
enough to kill him. He also claimed that he went home to get his gun to protect himself.
He again denied killing K.W. and K.P.
{¶ 78} Garcia thought that Kohlhofer was looking for K.P. because K.P. and M.N.
had broken into Kohlhofer’s house on Chase Street, and Kohlhofer had seen them on
video breaking into the house. He was not aware that Kohlhofer did not have cameras at
the Chase Street house or that nothing was actually stolen from the house. Garcia
26.
thought that Kohlhofer was “dumb enough to just do this right in his own backyard and
call all this scrutiny and heat onto himself[.]”
{¶ 79} He denied telling Gingrich to use deer blood to cover up any of the boys’
blood in the basement.
{¶ 80} Garcia admitted that he had been calling Kohlhofer for marijuana that day
and that Kohlhofer’s text of “I’m a send bro just tell me where” indicated that Kohlhofer
was not going anywhere. Garcia contacted Gingrich about 20 minutes after the fire
started to ask him if he was up and wanted to smoke.
{¶ 81} Garcia recently learned that a BCI handwriting expert concluded that
Walker probably did not author the letter he received in jail.
{¶ 82} TPD Sergeant Roy Kennedy’s involvement in the case followed the boys
being officially reported as missing persons after not being seen by their parents since
December 3. Family members had been receiving tips from various sources and reported
their disappearance as uncharacteristic.
{¶ 83} Sergeant Kennedy learned that the boys had been to a birthday party at
Maumee Bay State Park and that an Uber picked them up. The park surveillance video
showed that the vehicle was a silver Chevy SUV. Using the Flock camera system, a
license plate reader system where a car can be searched by license plate number by
vehicle make, color, and any distinguishing features, Kennedy spent hours narrowing
down the vehicle until he found it.
{¶ 84} Sergent Kennedy drove to the address listed on the vehicle’s registration
and got no answer. A neighbor verified that the resident drove a silver SUV. Sergeant
27.
Kennedy contacted the owner the next day. She relayed that the Uber system does not
keep a record of the exact addresses of fares but that she recalled dropping him off at a
house on Maumee Street in Toledo, Ohio.
{¶ 85} Based on this information and additional information gathered from family
members, on December 9, 2022, officers obtained and executed a search warrant for 507
Maumee Street to search for the boys or any evidence related to their disappearance. A
search of the basement uncovered one small piece of broken glass with what appeared to
be blood.
{¶ 86} During the investigation Sergent Kennedy learned that the boys may have
gone missing due to allegations of theft of marijuana and guns from the homes of
Gingrich, Garcia, Kohlhofer, and Walker.
{¶ 87} Following the search, police arranged for Gingrich and his girlfriend,
Carrissa, who resided at 507 Maumee, to be interviewed at police headquarters. Police
searched the couple’s phones which had largely been erased. On Gingrich’s phone they
found the information confirming the Uber from Maumee Bay State Park to his home on
Maumee Street.
{¶ 88} Sergeant Kennedy also received information regarding Garcia’s possible
involvement so he and a uniformed police crew proceeded to his home in Toledo. They
spoke with Garcia and his fiancée Diamond Rivera who indicated that on the night of
December 3, they were at a birthday party at Texas Roadhouse. Though not relevant at
that time, Charles Walker left out the front door while they were talking.
28.
{¶ 89} Garcia gave permission to search the home; they found nothing suspicious.
Police later searched a second, unoccupied residence owned by Garcia and uncovered no
substances consistent with blood or organic material.
{¶ 90} After meeting with police and FBI regarding the investigation, as an
investigative tactic, they decided to get as many individuals potentially involved in the
same building because it becomes more difficult to lie when faced with the uncertainty of
what others are saying. Sergent Kennedy wanted to separately question Carrissa,
Gingrich, C.L.Y., Carrissa and P.Y.’s mother, and B.W.
{¶ 91} On December 13, 2022, police conducted a full day of interviews.
Sergeant Kennedy determined that the four were not being truthful. Their statements
were inconsistent with each other’s and did not match direct evidence already collected
from cell phone records and cell towers. The four were charged with obstructing justice.
{¶ 92} A few days later, cadaver dogs alerted to 3015 Chase Street in Toledo
where a vacant house that was heavily damaged by a fire on December 5, 2022. The
boys’ remains were found in the basement.
{¶ 93} Sergeant Kennedy testified that police seized a black Chevy Impala from
3046 Chase Street upon learning that it may contain evidence related to the boys’
disappearance. With warrants, police seized cell phones from Gingrich, Eames, Garcia,
Rivera, Kohlhofer, and Walker to perform cell phone extractions, collecting anything on
the phone including call records, texts, photos, or notes. Search warrants were also
issued to cell carriers for call records deleted from the phone as well as cell tower records
which aid in determining where the phone was physically located during a call.
29.
{¶ 94} After December 15, 2022, Sergent Kennedy focused on interviewing or
reinterviewing individuals regarding the events while Detective Marchyok led the
investigation.
{¶ 95} During cross-examination, Sergeant Kennedy agreed that there was no
forensic evidence demonstrating that the boys were alive when they left 507 Maumee.
The trial court sustained an objection on hearsay and speculation to counsel’s question
regarding Kennedy’s knowledge that a few individuals believed that the boys died at 507
Maumee.
{¶ 96} Gingrich testified that in exchange for his testimony the murder and
kidnapping changes were reduced to involuntary manslaughter and kidnapping to which
he entered guilty pleas. The State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges.
Gingrich stated that on December 3, 2020, he lived at 507 Maumee with his
girlfriend, Carrissa Eames, and their three children. That day they hosted a gender reveal
party for his niece from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. During the party, he noticed a gun missing.
He suspected that either Carrissa’s brother, Eames, or K.W. had stolen it.
{¶ 97} K.W. dated Gingrich’s niece; Gingrich suspected him because he recently
left the house between 4:00 and 5:00 a.m., which was very unusual. Gingrich asked his
14-year-old nephew, B.W., to reach out to K.W. and see if he acted “funny.” After
making contact, B.W. told him that K.W. was thrown out of a party and stranded and
asked Gingrich to send an Uber to pick them up. Gingrich agreed and saw it as an
opportunity to confront K.W.
30.
{¶ 98} K.W. arrived at 507 Maumee around 8:30 to 9:00 p.m. with an individual
he did not know. K.W., K.P., B.W., P.Y. (Carrissa’s half-brother), and Eames were
listening to music in the living room and then went to the basement to play video games.
{¶ 99} A short while later, Eames came upstairs from the basement to tell
Gingrich that one of the boys was on a video call showing off a gun. Gingrich went to
the basement and “confronted” K.W. about the gun. Specifically, Gingrich described a
conversation in which he raised his voice and asked K.W. if he stole the gun, which K.W.
denied. Gingrich noticed K.P. reaching for a gun. As K.P. pulled the gun, Gingrich
“tackled him and started wrestling with him with the firearm.” While they were
wrestling, Eames hit K.P. in the head with a gun (that was not Gingrich’s stolen gun).
K.P. dropped his gun, and Eames picked it up. Eames then handed his gun to Gingrich,
who gave it to P.Y. to take upstairs.
{¶ 100} Next, Gingrich continued the “conversation” about his missing gun.
Eames suggested tying up K.P. and K.W. Gingrich did not have any rope, so he
suggested using HDMI cables from the videogame systems. Eames used the cords to tie
the boys’ hands behind their backs. Gingrich claimed that they did so because they were
“trying to control the situation and calm the situation.” He could not explain why he did
not stop Eames from tying up the boys.
{¶ 101} After the boys were restrained, Gingrich continued questioning K.W.
about the missing gun, and K.W. continued denying that he stole it. Eventually, K.W.
told Gingrich to call Garcia “to ask him if [K.W.] ever stole anything from him.”
Gingrich refused because Garcia suspected K.W. of breaking into his mother’s house five
31.
or six months earlier. K.P. then told him to call Garcia because Garcia knew his dad and
would “get everything figured out on his end.” Gingrich relented because he did not
know K.P. or his family and “didn’t want to start a potential beef between [him] and
[Garcia] about this kid being in [his] basement tied up.”
{¶ 102} After unsuccessfully trying to reach Garcia two or three times, Gingrich
asked Carrissa to call Diamond Rivera, Garcia’s fiancée. Rivera passed the message to
Garcia, who contacted Gingrich by video call.
{¶ 103} Gingrich told Garcia that he caught K.W. stealing and asked if Garcia
knew K.P. When he confirmed that he did, Gingrich told him to “get ahold of [K.P.’s]
people to figure out what is going on” because K.P. pulled a gun on Gingrich in
Gingrich’s house. Garcia disconnected the call but called back a couple of minutes later
to tell Gingrich that he was coming over.
{¶ 104} Garcia arrived at Gingrich’s house about 30 minutes later. When he got
to the house, he went to the basement and “started pistol whipping [K.P.]” while saying,
“I know that was you that broke into my mom’s house. Cuz this is what happens when
you steal.” K.P. denied being involved in the attempted break-in and named other people
who were involved, including his brother. Garcia moved on to hitting K.W. with the gun.
When he went to hit K.P. again, Gingrich stopped him because he was “doing too much.”
After being struck with the guns, K.W. was bleeding a little bit along his hairline. Garcia
told him to use a garbage bag like a rag to prevent the blood from getting anywhere.
{¶ 105} Next, Gingrich asked if “his” people were coming, and Garcia said that
his ride was on the way. Garcia then continued to talk to the boys about who broke into
32.
his mother’s house. During that conversation, K.P. asked if they could untie him. Garcia
responded, “you gonna take that up with Beezy.” Gingrich had met Beezy once but did
not know his real name. K.P. commented, “I don’t know what he wants with me. He
knows I didn’t have nothing to do with that shit.”
{¶ 106} Shortly after this, Garcia received a phone call from someone telling them
that they had arrived at the house. They called back once they were parked in the alley
behind the house. At this point, the boys got up from the basement floor. K.W.’s hands
were loosely tied, and Gingrich pulled the HDMI cord off of them. Then he, Garcia, and
Gabriel walked the boys outside to a black Chevy Impala that was waiting in the alley.
There were two men standing by the back end of the car. Gingrich recognized one as
Beezy and identified the men in court as Kohlhofer and Walker.
{¶ 107} Garcia had been walking with K.P., who he pushed toward Kohlhofer.
Kohlhofer “struck” K.P., who fell to the ground. Then Walker grabbed K.W. and
punched him. After that, Gingrich heard Kohlhofer say to K.P., “nephew, what did I tell
you about stealing[,]” and Walker began taping K.W.’s wrists. Then Gingrich and
Gabriel walked back to the house.
{¶ 108} Once Gingrich was back in the house, either P.Y. or B.W. asked for the
HDMI cord, so Gingrich called Garcia and asked him to bring the cord back when he was
finished. About 10 minutes later, Garcia called back to say that he put the cord on a
white car that was parked in the back yard.
{¶ 109} According to Gingrich, he “had a really bad vibe about the situation,” and
P.Y. was very shaken up, so he and Carrissa decided to go to Carrissa’s mother’s house.
33.
{¶ 110} Later that night, Garcia called Gingrich to tell him that he was home. On
December 5 or 6, Carrissa learned that K.W. had unfriended her on Facebook, so
Gingrich called Garcia to make sure everything was all right and he did not have to worry
about the boys coming back to mess up his house. Garcia said, “everything was cool.
But I’m going to call just to verify and make sure everything is cool.” He called back
later to confirm that “everything is cool. You don’t got to worry about it.” The next day,
Gingrich began seeing the missing person posts, so he called Garcia again. In that
conversation, according to Gingrich, Garcia first tried to
down play the situation like everything is cool. You ain’t got to
worry about that. But I kind of was yelling at him, because people are
starting to share my picture saying that I had something to do with their
disappearance, and I’m the last person they’ve been with, and people are
starting to come to my house.
At that point then he had told me that, I ain’t going to lie. Beezy did
some bullshit, and that I needed to clean up over there and make sure there
is no blood on the floor. If there is I need to go and get deer blood and
dump the deer blood around my basement.
...
I stressed to him that I did not sign up for this. Do you not
understand what we just got ourselves into?
Garcia told Gingrich to tell the police that he did not know anything if they came, to be
safe, and keep his head on a swivel. Gingrich did not follow Garcia’s deer blood advice
because there was no blood on his basement floor.
{¶ 111} During this time, Gingrich was getting threats, and Garcia’s house “got
shot up,” so Gingrich and Carrissa decided to leave their home to live in vacation rentals.
34.
The next time Gingrich had contact with Garcia was when Gingrich asked Garcia for
some marijuana. As Gingrich was getting ready to go to Garcia’s house, Garcia called
Gingrich and said “to hold on, some weird shit is going on. I will call you when it’s cool
to come through.” Garcia called back around 10:00 or 11:00 that night, but Gingrich did
not go to Garcia’s house because “[t]he situation felt fishy to [him].”
{¶ 112} The final time Gingrich had contact with Garcia before his arrest was
when Garcia texted him around 2:00 a.m. asking if he was up and wanted to smoke.
Gingrich did not respond to the message because “that situation felt fishy to [him].”
{¶ 113} Gingrich claimed that he did not murder K.P. or K.W. He last saw the
boys in the alley behind his house, at which point they were alive and with him, Garcia,
Gabriel, Kohlhofer, and Walker. He believed that they left with Kohlhofer and Walker.
{¶ 114} Gingrich acknowledged he told police during a January 11, 2023
interview that on December 3, 2022, two black men in masks pulled up in the alley
behind his house. He also told this to Carrissa to protect her, believing the less she knew
the better.
{¶ 115} At the June 28, 2023 interview with police, Gingrich changed his story
stating that it was two masked white men and that he recognized Kohlhofer’s voice. He
eventually stated that they were not wearing masks.
{¶ 116} Gingrich admitted lying several times to police during his initial interview
on December 9, 2022. At the December 13, 2022 interview Gingrich stated that the boys
left with Garcia, who he knew and considered a friend. He acknowledged that he neither
knew nor had loyalty to Kohlhofer or Walker.
35.
{¶ 117} Gingrich agreed that he collaborated with family, including minors, to
fabricate a story to tell police. He also agreed that his attorney provided him with
discovery as it was received and he could see what other people involved in the case were
saying.
{¶ 118} Gingrich stated that he did not know what happened to the boys’ cell
phones. He denied throwing them in the water; he believed that Eames had the phones
and the gun he took from K.P.
{¶ 119} Lead investigator TPD Detective Paul Marchyok was initially assigned to
the case to aid in a missing persons investigation. After speaking with family members
and reviewing Facebook messages, the screen shots of the Uber ride, and the Maumee
Bay State Park surveillance footage, he executed a search warrant at 507 Maumee.
During the search, police collected a small glass fragment with apparent blood from the
basement. The DNA results did not link the blood to anyone involved in the case. They
uncovered no other relevant DNA evidence.
{¶ 120} Following the December 9, 2022 interviews of Gingrich and Carrissa,
Detective Marchyok compared their versions of the events with the Flock camera and cell
phone data and statements of other individuals and determined that they were being
untruthful. The pair signed a waiver allowing police to download the contents of their
cellphones.
{¶ 121} On December 13, Detective Marchyok reinterviewed Gingrich and
Carrissa as well as C.L.Y. and B.W. He determined they were being untruthful. The
group was arrested and charged with obstructing justice.
36.
{¶ 122} Detective Marchyok testified that his next “major step” was “finding 3015
Chase Street.” Police received information about the involvement of Garcia, Kohlhofer,
and Walker and that the boys might be in the basement of a burned-out house that
collapsed. Investigating Kohlhofer, Marchyok discovered that he owned several homes
on Chase Street and that on December 5, a house on that street had burned down.
{¶ 123} On December 14, when Detective Marchyok arrived on Chase Street, he
saw that the house had been demolished and also observed the three homes Kohlhofer
owned. In front of one of the homes where Walker lived with his girlfriend, Rozlyn
Lucas, Marchyok observed a black Chevy Impala that police had been looking for based
on information received. Police towed the vehicle.
{¶ 124} Coordinating with the FBI, the next day an excavation crew and cadaver
dogs were on site. The dogs alerted to human remains and the boys were found deceased
in the basement. Police recovered surveillance video from a nearby home at 506 New
York and one on Ontario Street, one block over.
{¶ 125} That day, Detective Marchyok briefly interviewed Garcia and Garcia’s
fiancée, Diamond Rivera. He obtained a search warrant for their home and Ford, F-150.
He also interviewed P.Y. Marchyok stated that Rivera and P.Y. were not being truthful.
{¶ 126} Detective Marchyok testified that Garcia’s attorney delivered a letter
Garcia claimed he received in jail. A DNA analysis and a writing exemplar, after
Walker provided a sample, were performed and the results were inconclusive. The
inmate who delivered the note to Garcia would not disclose who gave it to him.
37.
{¶ 127} Through his investigation, Detective Marchyok developed a timeline of
the initial events. On December 3, 2022, at 8:14 p.m., the boys get into a silver Chevy
SUV at Maumee Bay State Park. At 8:52, they are at 507 Maumee. There was a video
chat involving K.W. and then at 9:14 p.m., K.W. missed a call. At 9:28 p.m. there is a
photo of the boys tied up in the basement. After no further communication from the
boys, Marchyok continued his timeline by relying on the CAST mapping in FBI Agent
John Orlando’s report, the Flock cameras, and the home security camera footage from
506 New York.
{¶ 128} Walker’s attorney objected just as the State began questioning Marchyok
regarding Agent Orlando’s CAST report. Counsel challenged Marchyok using or
“rehashing” the testimony as he did not have Orlando’s qualifications. The State claimed
that Marchyok’s testimony would be limited to whether during the course of his
investigation, he found certain information in the CAST report to be significant.
Overruling the objection, the trial court agreed that Detective Marchyok could testify as
to how the report affected his investigation.
{¶ 129} Detective Marchyok first identified the account holders associated with
the various cell phones which were seized pursuant to search warrants. Marchyok
testified Agent Orlando’s 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. map of the various cell phones and towers
“matched up” with Garcia’s testimony that he went to Michigan to buy marijuana. He
also found the “I’m a send bro just tell me where” text from Kohlhofer to Garcia
significant because it happened after at least four phone connections between the two
men. He found Orlando’s map of the phones from 10:00 to 10:40 p.m. significant
38.
because “[i]t shows movement of the phones and where people are going.” Flock
cameras, capturing images of the vehicle and license plate, also corroborated Walker’s
movement toward the 3000 block of Chase Street.
{¶ 130} Detective Marchyok testified that he reviewed home security camera
footage from a house at New York Avenue and Chase Street. On December 3, 2022, at
approximately 10:09 p.m., a dark-colored car believed to be Walker’s Chevy Impala
turns from New York Ave. onto Chase Street. It then backs up Kohlhofer’s driveway at
3038 Chase. A second video clip showing that at 10:31 p.m., the Chevy pulls out of the
driveway onto Chase, turning left onto New York which leads to Summit Street.
{¶ 131} Detective Marchyok explained that the time frames aligned with Agent
Orlando’s cell tower testimony showing Walker’s cell phone moving along Summit
Street through Downtown Toledo and the Middle Grounds and utilizing the tower
covering the area of 507 Maumee and that “if he’s in the area that is covered by 507
Maumee -- .” Walker’s counsel objected to the testimony and moved for a mistrial
arguing that it mischaracterized Agent Orlando’s testimony and contravened the trial
court’s order that Marchyok not “opine about what the relevance of the various CAST
data is[.]” Counsel stated that Agent Orlando’s testimony did not conclude that the
Middle Grounds tower covered 507 Maumee.
{¶ 132} The trial court denied the motion for a mistrial, sustained the objection,
and struck the question and answer. The court cautioned against Detective Marchyok
stating, as a fact, that Walker was in the Middle Grounds area when the data shows only
that his phone was there. The court then instructed the jury:
39.
The Court is going to sustain the last objection. The last question of Ms.
Koch and the answer given by Detective Marchyok are to be stricken from
the record. Both the question and the answer are to have no use, and you
are not to consider it as evidence, or at all in your deliberations in this case.
{¶ 133} The State then asked Detective Marchyok: “[C]an we agree to identify the
vehicle we’ve been discussing as a vehicle consistent with Mr. Walker’s black Chevy
Impala?” Walker’s counsel objected arguing that “[t]he terms consistent with implies
that it was the same vehicle. He is not Superman. He doesn’t have Xray vision. He
can’t read unreadable license plates. He can’t see through glared windows to see who
was operating the vehicle.”
{¶ 134} While acknowledging that the parties previously agreed to the
admissibility of testimony that the vehicle was “consistent” with Walker’s, the court
again sustained objection on the basis that the question was leading and that Marchyok
“keeps stating things in factual terms rather than as part of my investigation we
believed.”
{¶ 135} Continuing with the surveillance video, around 11:03 p.m., two vehicles
that Marchyok believed were Walker’s Impala and Garcia’s F-150 headed southbound on
New York and turned from New York on to Chase. They both drive down Chase past
Walker’s house.
{¶ 136} On December 4, around 12:06 a.m., a dark-colored car drives down New
York, turns on to Chase, and backs into Walker’s driveway. Around 1:40 a.m., the
motion-sensor light outside of Walker’s house comes on, and soon after a person can be
seen walking around the yard and down the alley beside 3015 Chase. Around 1:44 a.m.,
40.
what appears to be the same person walks out of the alley and crosses the street to the
side of Chase where Kohlhofer’s and Walker’s houses are. Soon after, the motion-sensor
light outside of Walker’s house turns on again. Around 1:49 a.m., the light outside of
Walker’s house turns on and a person again walks from the direction of Walker’s house
toward 3015 Chase, turns down the alley beside 3015 Chase, and walks out of the frame.
A few minutes later, the motion light turns on again and another person walks toward
3015 Chase from the direction of Kohlhofer’s and Walker’s houses and turns down the
alley beside 3015 Chase. Around 2:00 a.m., two people walk out of the alley beside 3015
Chase, cross the street, and walk toward Kohlhofer’s and Walker’s houses. Soon after,
the motion light outside of Walker’s house turns on. A dark-colored car leaves Walker’s
house around 2:07 a.m. Around 2:17 a.m., a dark-colored car drives into the alley beside
3015 Chase. After the car is out of the frame, what appears to be brake lights reflect off
the houses beside the alley. Around 2:22 a.m., a dark-colored car drives down Chase and
backs into Walker’s driveway.
{¶ 137} At 12:53 a.m. on December 5, there is a bright flash of light from the alley
beside 3015 Chase. Shortly after, flickering light that quickly intensifies in brightness
comes from the alley. Around 1:00 a.m., neighbors begin reacting to the fire. Police and
fire crews soon arrive.
{¶ 138} Prior to Detective Marchyok’s cross-examination and outside the jury’s
presence, the parties presented arguments regarding the admissibility of two marked
defense exhibits, WB and WC, which were text messages taken from the ONIC report
and generated by Cellebrite program. Both text strands involved Eames. The first
41.
exchange, which was Exhibit WB, began December 6 at 8:05 a.m., between Eames and
his girlfriend and provided:
Eames: Bro really ?)? This shits foul bro
Eames: Bro like wake tf up you really fell asleep and left me and
forgot about me made me sleep were two people died and shit
Eames: Please come get me a soon as you get up I miss you and love
you so much I don’t ever wanna be away from you I value your love alot
and know we’re your coming from
Girlfriend: I’m up so you want me to come
Girlfriend: I’m going backTo bed bro like you just don’t know when
to stop like fr
Eames: I just got up I went to bed I’m sorry yes are you coming ?
Eames: Pull in the back whebhere
Girlfriend: I’m not staying so are you ready
Eames: Your not gonna come in ? I gotta wait for ris and Corey to
get up to lock the door ?
{¶ 139} The second exchange, Exhibit WC, occurred on December 19 between
Eames and an individual named Brown where discussing the incident Eames states: “Dey
was at my sisters Cruz pick dem N****s up then they disappeared” and “They took a gun
from by sister bf but ne ain’t kill dem n***a all he did was turn up on [K.W.] cuz [K.W.]
was like family and den they called Cruz to pick dem up then left wit him[.]”
{¶ 140} The State objected to the text messages because they were hearsay that
did not fall within any hearsay exception. As to the first text exchange, Walker and
Kohlhofer argued that they were not offering the messages for the truth of the matter
asserted (i.e., the mention of people dying at the house was “completely collateral” to the
42.
actual reason Eames sent the messages-to get picked up from a place where he did not
want to be) and excluding the messages would prevent them from presenting a defense.
The trial court ultimately decided that the messages were inadmissible hearsay and did
not qualify as a statement of a party opponent, statement of a coconspirator, present sense
impression, excited utterance, then existing mental state, or statement against interest.
{¶ 141} Detective Marchyok confirmed during cross-examination that no DNA
profiles, not even Walker’s were found in Walker’s car. He did not see any evidence of
Walker cleaning out his car on the video from the house on New York Avenue. He also
confirmed that they did not get any DNA evidence from any of the other items they sent
to BCI for testing. He did not know what results might have been on items that were not
tested.
{¶ 142} Marchyok agreed that Garcia, Gingrich, Carrissa, Eames, P.Y., and B.W.
(among others) lied about their involvement in the case at some point. He also confirmed
that Gingrich, Carrissa, Eames, P.Y., and B.W. discussed what they would say if they
were questioned by the police, and that Garcia’s story kept evolving.
{¶ 143} The police did not have any video that showed something that looked like
Walker’s Impala in the area of 507 Maumee. Marchyok stated that there were no Flock
cameras in that area in December 2022. Additionally, police “did not get any useable
geo location data” from Walker’s or Kohlhofer’s phones. Any location data from other
codefendants’ phones did not put them in the 3000 block of Chase Street.
{¶ 144} Marchyok clarified that the houses with broken windows were the house
on Patriot Street and Walker’s house on Chase Street. There were no police reports filed
43.
regarding break-ins at Kohlhofer’s Chase Street house, Walker’s house, Garcia’s
mother’s house, or regarding Gingrich’s gun.
{¶ 145} Regarding the “I’m a send bro” text, Marchyok said that it can be inferred
that Kohlhofer was going to send someone, not that he was going somewhere. Based on
his investigation, he believed that Kohlhofer meant Walker because Walker went to 507
Maumee that night. Defense counsel again objected and moved for a mistrial as to
Marchyok’s characterization of Agent Orlando’s testimony as placing Walker at 507
Maumee. The court overruled the objection, instructed counsel to move on, and
instructed the jury to use their collective memories regarding what Agent Orlando said
about the cell towers.
{¶ 146} Marchyok agreed that there was another Impala in the surveillance videos
from Chase Street, but said that it was a lighter color, which showed up as lighter on the
nighttime videos. He was convinced that Walker’s Impala was on the video because it fit
with the movements on his phone.
{¶ 147} Defense counsel then “renewed” the issue of the admissibility of the text
messages between Eames and his girlfriend. The court again concluded that the texts
were inadmissible hearsay.
{¶ 148} When the State rested, Walker’s counsel moved for an acquittal pursuant
to Crim.R. 29. The parties then presented further argument regarding the admissibility of
the December 6, text exchange between Eames and his girlfriend. Defense asserted that
in addition to being admissible under Evid.R. 804(B)(3), hearsay exceptions in Evid.R.
803 also allowed their admission.
44.
{¶ 149} The court rejected the application of the present sense impression, excited
utterance, or then existing mental state exceptions under Evid.R. 803. The court then
addressed the statement against interest exception under Evid.R. 804(B)(3) noting that
the messages were not clearly against Eames’ interest. Next, the court concluded that the
texts lacked corroborating circumstances indicating their trustworthiness. The court
noted that the messages between Eames and his girlfriend were at odds with the texts
between Eames and Brown.
{¶ 150} After Marchyok testified, the State rested. The court denied Walker’s
Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal.
4. Walker’s Case
{¶ 151} Melanie Gard of the ONIC testified regarding her involvement in
analyzing the cellphone extraction reports in this case. One analysis looked at the
number of phone calls the codefendants’ phone numbers made to each other during three
periods: November 18 to December 2, 2022 (before the crime), December 3 to 5, 2022
(during the crime), and December 6 to 15, 2022 (after the crime). Gard was unable to say
who was using the phones when they made the calls.
{¶ 152} On a timeline that Gard compiled, she noted that Walker’s vehicle left his
house on Chase Street at 10:05 p.m. on December 3.
{¶ 153} Kohlhofer’s phones and Garcia’s phones spent a total of about two
minutes and forty-two seconds communicating with each other between 9:22 and 11:07
p.m. on December 3. Gard could not recall if she was asked to look at phone calls made
earlier that day.
45.
{¶ 154} On cross-examination, the state asked Gard about several charts in her
report. In the first three, she broke down the analysis of the number of phone calls the
codefendants’ phone numbers made to each other during the periods before, during, and
after the crimes. The takeaways from these charts are (1) the group averaged 9.06 calls
per day from November 18 to December 2, (2) it averaged 27.67 calls per day from
December 3 to 5, and (3) it averaged 9.8 calls per day from December 6 to 15.
{¶ 155} In the fourth chart, Gard detailed the calls between codefendants’ phones
on December 3, 2022. The first call was a call from one of Gingrich’s phones to Garcia’s
phone at 9:22 p.m. The last call was a call from Garcia’s phone to the same Gingrich
phone at 11:07 p.m. The chart also showed that both of Kohlhofer’s phones placed
outgoing calls to Garcia’s phone over the course of the evening.
{¶ 156} The fifth chart showed several calls between Kohlhofer and Garcia
beginning at 9:39 p.m.; a text from Kohlhofer to Garcia at 9:48 p.m. saying, “I’m a send
bro just tell me where”; a phone call from Garcia to Kohlhofer at 9:50 p.m.; a phone call
from Kohlhofer to Walker at 9:51 p.m.; a phone call from Walker to Garcia at 9:52 p.m.;
a text from Garcia to Rivera at 9:57 p.m. telling her that he has to leave; and a note that
surveillance footage shows a vehicle leaving the area of Walker’s home at 10:06 p.m.
{¶ 157} The sixth chart detailed calls between the codefendants’ phones on
December 4 and 5, 2022. The first call was a call from one of Kohlhofer’s phones to
Garcia’s phone at 12:23 a.m. The last call was a call from Rivera’s phone to Garcia’s
phone at 5:58 p.m.
46.
{¶ 158} After Gard testified, Walker called Carrissa and Eames, but they each
invoked their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and right against self-incrimination.
{¶ 159} Walker then rested. Kohlhofer presented the testimony of his mother,
Carla Koch; he then rested. Walker renewed his Crim.R 29 motion for acquittal which the
court denied.
B. The Verdict and Sentencing
{¶ 160} The jury found Walker guilty of the aggravated murder (Count 2), murder
(Count 4), and kidnapping (Count 6) of K.W. and guilty of K.P.’s murder (Count 3) and
kidnapping (Count 5) but acquitted him of aggravated murder (Count 1). At sentencing,
the trial court merged Counts 2, 4, and 6 and the State elected to proceed on Count 2 and
the court merged Counts 3 and 5 with the State electing to proceed on Count 3. The court
then sentenced Walker to a life sentence on Count 2 and 15 years to life imprisonment on
Count 3. This appeal followed.
II. Assignments of Error
{¶ 161} Walker raises eight assignments of error on appeal:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I: The trial court erred in refusing to admit
exculpatory evidence through improper application of Evid.R. 804(B)(3),
which resulted in a violation of Mr. Walker’s due process right to present a
defense. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302,
93 S.Ct. 1038,
35
L.Ed.2d 297 (1973).
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II: The trial court erred over objection and
Mr. Walker’s due process rights to present a defense and confront the
witnesses against him when it refused to admit non-hearsay evidence based
upon the known fact that Don Eames was communicating about the victims
being dead at 507 Maumee prior to the bodies being found, and otherwise
restricted cross-examination based upon an errant view of the hearsay rules.
47.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III: The trial court erred in Mr. Walker’s
right to a fair trial and to present a defense when the trial court permitted
multiple instances of hearsay to be admitted against Mr. Walker over
objection, in violation of Mr. Walker’s confrontation rights.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV: Trial counsel failed to provide adequate
representation under the United States 6th Amendment and Sect. 1, Art. 10
of the Ohio Constitution through a failure to engage in cross-examination,
present a defense, and preserve issues for review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR V: The trial court erred in denying Mr.
Walker’s requests for a mistrial when Detective Marchyok repeatedly
offered improper, and prejudicial conclusory testimony that contradicted
the state’s cell-phone tower expert witness, Agent Orlando.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VI: The trial court erred in failing to issue
sufficient curative instruction to rebut the prejudicial harm of Detective
Marchyok’s inaccurate statements regarding the cell tower evidence and
further erred by not sustaining very similar testimony when offered again
by Detective Marchyok on cross-examination by counsel for Mr. Walker’s
co-defendant.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VII: The convictions were insufficient of
evidence and contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence contrary to
Mr. Walker’s due process and due course of law rights under the Ohio and
United States Constitutions.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VIII: The cumulative effect of the errors,
whether found to be individually harmless or not, cumulatively such that
the trial was unfair and the convictions were contrary to Mr. Walker’s right
to a fair trial and due process.
III. Analysis
A. The trial court improperly excluded Eames’ December 6 text messages, but the
error was harmless.
48.
{¶ 162} Walker’s first and second assignments of error raise various challenges to
the trial court’s exclusion of the text exchange between Eames and his girlfriend. 3 To
restate, when attempting to get his girlfriend to pick him up from 507 Maumee, he texted
that she “made me sleep where two people died and shit[.]”
{¶ 163} Walker agrees that if offered for its truth the texts between Eames and his
girlfriend are hearsay because the author of the statement did not testify but asserts its
admissibility under the statement against interest exception in Evid.R. 804(B)(3).
{¶ 164} Evid.R. 802 specifically provides that hearsay is not admissible thus, a
trial court does not have discretion to admit hearsay. State v. Richcreek, 2011-Ohio-
4686, ¶ 29, 32 (6th Dist.). “Ordinarily, we review a trial court’s hearsay rulings for an
abuse of discretion.” State v. McKelton, 2016-Ohio-5735, ¶ 97, citing State v. Hymore,
9
Ohio St.2d 123, 128 (1967). Whether evidence constitutes inadmissible hearsay is a
question of law subject to de novo review only if the ruling implicates the Confrontation
Clause.
Id., citing United States v. Henderson,
626 F.3d 324, 333 (6th Cir.2010).
Because Walker does not challenge the evidentiary ruling based on the Confrontation
Clause, the abuse of discretion standard applies. An abuse of discretion occurs when the
trial court’s decision is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v.
Blakemore,
5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
3
Walker attempted to use two sets of text messages as evidence at trial and proffered them
into the record: (1) texts between Eames and his girlfriend, and (2) texts between Eames
and a contact named Brown. Because Walker does not make any arguments regarding
the “Brown” text messages, those messages are not addressed in our analysis.
49.
{¶ 165} Walker claims that Eames’ “where two people died” statement was
admissible under Evid.R. 804(B)(3), as a statement against interest. The section
provides:
A statement that was at the time of its making so far contrary to the
declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the
declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the
declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant’s
position would not have made the statement unless the declarant believed it
to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability,
whether offered to exculpate or inculpate the accused, is not admissible
unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the truthworthiness of
the statement.
{¶ 166} Evid.R. 804 provides for the admission of the statement of an unavailable
declarant under certain circumstances. The declarant must first be considered unavailable
which includes situations where a declarant “[p]ersists in refusing to testify concerning
the subject matter of the declarant’s statement despite an order of the court to do so[.]”
Evid.R. 804(A)(2). A declarant asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
incrimination is considered “unavailable” under the rule. State v. Rafferty, 2013-Ohio-
1585, ¶ 15 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Sumlin, 69 Ohio St.3d 105, 108 (1994).
{¶ 167} The rule further provides that the statement must tend to expose the
declarant to civil or criminal liability and in cases of possible criminal liability it requires
that corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.
Evid.R. 804(B)(3). The rule’s requirements
address[] one of the principal concerns of cases such as Chambers [v.
Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284,
93 S.Ct. 1038,
35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)] which is
that a criminal defendant’s reliable evidence should not be excluded
through application of hearsay rules that do not adequately protect due
50.
process rights. Evid.R. 804(B)(3) strikes a balance between hearsay
statements against penal interest which are sufficiently trustworthy to be
admissible and those which are not.
State v. Swann, 2008-Ohio-4837, ¶ 30.
{¶ 168} Here, it cannot be said that Eames’ statements were “in a very real sense
self-incriminatory.” While he expressed knowledge of the deaths of the two boys, his
statements, if they bore any real relationship to reporting that two people died at the
house, do not suggest that he had any involvement in their deaths. If anything, the
statement could be considered an attempt to minimize any involvement by expressing his
displeasure in having to stay at the house. There is also no indication that Eames would
have any concern regarding potential criminal liability for failure to report the crime to
police. As the State noted, the record contained evidence that Eames pistol whipped the
boys and tied them up with HDMI cables. Thus, someone in his position would not
likely express concern over failing to report criminal activity.
{¶ 169} As to the corroboration requirement, “a bare showing of some extent of
corroboration is not enough. Instead, the rule contemplates a demonstration of
corroborating circumstances . . . which, on balance, persuade the trial judge that the
statement bears the clear indicia of reliability and trustworthiness, leaving the ultimate
determination of credibility to the jury.” State v. Saunders, 23 Ohio App.3d 69, 73 (10th
Dist. 1984).
In this instance, Walker sought to admit what he believed to be exculpatory
evidence pursuant to his due process right to a fair trial. “A different rule applies when a
defendant seeks to exonerate himself by asserting a right under the Due Process Clause to
51.
introduce a declarant’s statement against interest.” State v. Durant, 2004-Ohio-6224, ¶
19 (2d Dist.).
In the due process context, the Ohio Supreme Court has recognized
that relevant corroborating circumstances include not only those
surrounding the actual making of the statement but also any other
corroborating evidence. [State v.] Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d [227, ] 238,
767 N.E.2d 216, fn. 2 (“Although ‘the fact that other evidence corroborates
the statement is irrelevant’ to the Confrontation Clause analysis when the
state attempts to introduce a statement against interest …, the same is not
true when the defense attempts to introduce such a statement as a matter of
due process”); see, also, Chambers [v. Mississippi] (1973)], 410 U.S. at
300,
93 S.Ct. 1038,
35 L.Ed.2d 297 (relying in part on the fact that thirdparty confessions were corroborated by “some other evidence in the case”
to find that the defendant had a due process right to introduce the
confessions).
Id.
{¶ 170} On review, the testimony presented at trial or proffered by Walker
contradicted the statement in the text that the boys died at 507 Maumee. Garcia,
Gingrich, and P.Y. all testified that the boys were alive when they left the home.
Walker’s own proffered exhibit, WC, contained text messages stating that Garcia picked
up the boys and then they disappeared.
{¶ 171} The trial court spent a considerable amount of time entertaining the
arguments of the parties and independently researching the issue before concluding that
the texts at issue were either not against interest or lacked the necessary corroboration. In
sum, this court cannot find that the ruling was an abuse of the court’s discretion.
{¶ 172} Walker further contends that the text exchange was admissible as an
excited utterance under Evid.R. 803(2) which provides an exception for out-of-court
52.
statements “relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under
the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.”
“In order ‘[f]or an alleged excited utterance to be admissible, four
prerequisites must be satisfied: (1) an event startling enough to produce a
nervous excitement in the declarant, (2) the statement must have been made
while still under the stress of excitement caused by the event, (3) the
statement must relate to the startling event, and (4) the declarant must have
personally observed the startling event.’ (Citations omitted.)”
State v. Bonner, 2023-Ohio-4003, ¶ 59 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Richardson, 2010-
Ohio-471, ¶ 62 (6th Dist.).
{¶ 173} Walker claims that Eames’ texts were admissible under Evid.R. 803 as a
startling event because of Eames’ involvement in the death of two boys within the
preceding 48 hours and waking up in a house where he was involved in a murder less
than 48 hours ago. The State counters that a three-day gap between the events and the
texts provided time for Eames’ excitement to subside.
{¶ 174} On review, the gap between the events and the texts allowed any
excitement to wane. Further, after making the statement to his girlfriend Eames went to
sleep for three hours, which belies the assertion that he was under the stress of a startling
event. The text exchange, thus, was not admissible under the excited utterance hearsay
exception.
{¶ 175} Walker’s second assignment of error contends that the trial court erred by
excluding the same text messages for non-hearsay purposes; specifically, to explain the
course of the police investigation.
“Testimony to explain police conduct is admissible as nonhearsay if
it satisfies three criteria: (1) the conduct to be explained is relevant,
53.
equivocal, and contemporaneous with the statements, (2) the probative
value of the statements is not substantially outweighed by the danger of
unfair prejudice, and (3) the statements do not connect the accused with the
crime charged.” [State v.]Beasley, [153 Ohio St.3d 497] at ¶ 172, citing
State v. Ricks, 136 Ohio St.3d 356,
2013-Ohio-3712,
995 N.E.2d 1181, ¶
27.
State v. Thompson,
2021-Ohio-1344, ¶ 35 (6th Dist.).
{¶ 176} Here, defense cross-examination of Detectives Marchyok and Kennedy
regarding Eames’ text to his girlfriend would have been proper nonhearsay when used to
elicit the impact it had on the course of the police investigation. State v. Manuel, 2025-
Ohio-1582, ¶ 32 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Farris, 2022-Ohio-3584, ¶ 26 (6th Dist.); State
v. Winters,
2013-Ohio-2370, ¶ 61 (6th Dist.). The trial court erred by preventing the
defense from inquiring about the text messages in this regard.
{¶ 177} This error was harmless, however. Harmless error is “[a]ny error, defect,
irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights . . . .” Crim.R. 52(B).
The state bears the burden of proving that an error did not affect a defendant’s substantial
rights. State v. Moore, 2021-Ohio-765, ¶ 37 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Morris, 2014-
Ohio-5052, ¶ 23. An error by the trial court in excluding evidence “is harmless ‘if such
evidence would not negate the overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt.’” State v.
Johnson,
2011-Ohio-994, ¶ 64 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Gilmore,
28 Ohio St.3d 190,
193 (1986); State v. Smith,
2013-Ohio-746, ¶ 20 (3d Dist.) (“The improper exclusion of
evidence is harmless where the remaining evidence provides overwhelming proof of a
defendant’s guilt.”). In other words, the error is harmless “‘if the jury would not have
rendered a different verdict had the excluded evidence been admitted at trial[.]’” State v.
54.
Fudge,
2018-Ohio-601, ¶ 40 (10th Dist.), quoting State v. West,
2006-Ohio-6259, ¶ 9
(10th Dist.).
{¶ 178} In this case, the jury would not have returned a different verdict if Walker
had been allowed to question Marchyok about Eames’ text message claiming that he slept
“were two people died and shit.” Contradicting that single piece of evidence was (1)
Gingrich’s testimony that Walker was one of the two people who took the boys from his
house; (2) Garcia’s testimony that Walker was one of the two people who took the boys
from Gingrich’s house; (3) cell tower and video evidence that corroborated parts of
Garcia’s story; (4) Flock camera evidence showing Walker’s and Garcia’s cars during the
relevant time period (5) video evidence of two people walking from the area of Walker’s
house and walking around 3015 Chase Street the morning of December 4, just hours after
the boys were kidnapped; and (6) video evidence of a dark-colored car driving from
Walker’s house to the alley beside 3015 Chase Street the morning of December 4, just
hours after the boys were kidnapped. Considering all of this, the trial court’s exclusion of
the text messages was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See also State v. Kohlhoffer,
2025-Ohio-5021, ¶ 216-222 (6th Dist.), where this court rejected a similar claim raised by
Walker’s codefendant.
{¶ 179} Based on the foregoing, Walker’s first and second assignments of error
are not well-taken.
B. Walker’s Confrontation Clause rights were not violated by the admission of
objected to police statements.
55.
{¶ 180} In his third assignment of error, Walker claims that the trial court violated
his confrontation rights by allowing, over objection, the admission of multiple instances
of hearsay. The State counters that because Walker failed to raise a Confrontation Clause
claim in the trial court, he must demonstrate plain error which he cannot do.
{¶ 181} Evidentiary rulings admitting hearsay and implicating the Confrontation
Clause are generally reviewed de novo. State v. Sproles, 2023-Ohio-3403, ¶ 22 (6th
Dist.) citing McKelton,
2016-Ohio-5735, at ¶ 97; State v. Ford,
2021-Ohio-3058, ¶ 21
(6th Dist.). Where, however, a defendant fails to raise a Confrontation Clause issue with
respect to particular evidence, he has waived all but plain error. State v. Shepherd, 2020-
Ohio-3915, ¶ 31 (3d Dist.), citing McKelton, at ¶ 191. Plain error is defined as only those
errors that affect substantial rights. Crim.R. 52(B). Under the plain error standard, the
court may reverse only if it is clear that the defendant would not have been convicted in
the absence of the allegedly improper conduct. State v. Searfoss,
2019-Ohio-4619, ¶ 142
(6th Dist.).
{¶ 182} The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution provides, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . .
to be confronted with the witnesses against him[.]” “Admission of an out-of-court
statement of a witness who does not appear at trial is prohibited by the Confrontation
Clause if the statement is testimonial unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant
had had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness.” State v. Jones, 2012-Ohio-
5677, ¶ 137, citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 54 (2004). “The Confrontation
Clause applies only to ‘testimonial statements.’” State v. Beasley,
2018-Ohio-493, ¶ 181,
56.
citing State v. Muttart,
2007-Ohio-5267, ¶ 59. A testimonial statement is defined as one
“made with ‘a primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.’”
Id., quoting State v. Montgomery,
2016-Ohio-5487, ¶ 87.
{¶ 183} Walker contends that the trial court erred by allowing Detective
Marchyok to testify, over objection, regarding “information” from an unidentified source
connecting Walker to the crimes. Such information included receiving information about
Walker’s involvement and that the boys might be in the basement of a burned-out house.
Marchyok stated that the information regarding the house “matched up.” Marchyok
stated that police were “already looking for a black Impala due to statements made to us.”
{¶ 184} As previously set forth, statements offered to explain the course of a
criminal investigation are not considered hearsay where they are not offered for their
truth. Manuel, 2025-Ohio-1582, at ¶ 32, citing Farris,
2022-Ohio-3584, at ¶ 26; Winters,
2013-Ohio-2370, at ¶ 61.
{¶ 185} Upon review, there is no indication that the challenged statements were
anything more than tips police received during the course of the investigation.
Accordingly, the court did not err in admitting them under either abuse of discretion or
plain error review. Walker’s third assignment of error is not well-taken.
C. Walker was not denied the effective assistance of counsel.
{¶ 186} In his fourth assignment of error, Walker contends that his trial counsel
ineffectively failed to fully cross-examine witnesses, present a defense, or preserve issues
for appellate review. The State counters that Walker’s counsel was not obligated to make
meritless objections having no bearing on the outcome of the case.
57.
{¶ 187} The United States Supreme Court, in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 687 (1984), established a two-step process for evaluating an allegation of ineffective
assistance of counsel:
First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient.
This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was
not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth
Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient
performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel’s
errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial
whose result is reliable.
{¶ 188} In other words, “‘the defendant must show that there is a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding
would have been different.’” State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 142 (1989), quoting
Strickland at 694. The defendant’s failure to demonstrate either deficiency or prejudice
will defeat a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.
Strickland at 687.
{¶ 189} Further, “[j]udicial scrutiny of [trial] counsel’s performance must be
highly deferential.” Id. at 689. “A fair assessment of [trial counsel’s] performance
requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to
reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the
conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.”
Id. Due to “difficulties inherent in
making the evaluation, a [reviewing] court must indulge a strong presumption that
counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that
is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the
challenged action ‘might be considered sound trial strategy.’” (Citation omitted). Id.
58.
{¶ 190} Generally, debatable trial tactics “do not constitute a deprivation of
effective counsel.” State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio St.3d 72, 85 (1995). Furthermore,
“‘[f]ailure to do a futile act cannot be the basis for claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel, nor could such a failure be prejudicial.’” State v. Henderson,
2007-Ohio-2372, ¶
42 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Shannon,
1982 WL 5057 (9th Dist. June 16, 1982).
{¶ 191} Walker first asserts trial counsel’s ineffectiveness in failing to object to
Marchyok’s statements regarding the “inconclusive” photographic evidence of a vehicle
as Walker’s Impala. The State notes that counsel could have reasonably decided not to
draw attention to the testimony but to rely on cross-examination.
{¶ 192} “The failure to object to evidence is not per se ineffective assistance.”
State v. Percy, 2017-Ohio-1224, ¶ 19 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Conway, 2006-Ohio-
2815, ¶ 103. The decision to object is generally seen as part of trial strategy. State v.
Hartman,
93 Ohio St.3d 274, 296 (2001).
{¶ 193} During Detective Marchyok’s cross-examination, counsel questioned him
regarding the lack of any DNA evidence in Walker’s Impala, the fact that no video
evidence put the vehicle in the vicinity of 507 Maumee on December 3, and the fact that
his vehicle captured on a Flock camera in the area of his home was expected. Thus,
counsel’s failure to object to Detective Marchyok’s testimony was trial strategy.
{¶ 194} Walker also claims counsel’s ineffectiveness in the failure to pursue the
admission of the text messages between Eames and his girlfriend as impeachment
evidence. As the State correctly notes, the use of facts not in evidence would have drawn
an objection which the court would have sustained.
59.
{¶ 195} Walker further contends that counsel was ineffective by failing to raise a
Confrontation Clause argument as to Detective Marchyok’s objected to testimony. Based
on our disposition of Walker’s third assignment of error, this argument is not well taken.
{¶ 196} Walker finally contends that counsel was ineffective by failing to
challenge the overly prejudicial nature of the objected to testimony under Evid.R. 403(A)
which provides: “Although relevant, evidence is not admissible if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues, or
of misleading the jury.”
{¶ 197} Walker claims unfair prejudice in the fact that “an independent source
implicated Mr. Walker” yet was not subject to cross-examination. Again, the information
was not testimonial in nature and the argument is rejected.
{¶ 198} Upon review, the court cannot conclude that had counsel objected to the
statements at issue, the result of the proceedings would have been different. Walker’s
fourth assignment of error is not well-taken.
D. The court’s denial of Walker’s motion for a mistrial was not erroneous.
{¶ 199} Walker’s fifth and sixth assignments of error relate to objections raised
during Detective Marchyok’s testimony that Walker was in the vicinity of 507 Maumee
because his cellphone used the tower closest to the address. Out of the jury’s hearing, the
parties debated whether Marchyok’s testimony aligned with, misrepresented, or
contradicted Agent Orlando’s. The court ultimately sustained the objection but denied
defense counsels’ motion for a mistrial and instructed the jury that “[b]oth the question
60.
and the answer are to have no use, and you are not to consider it as evidence, or at all in
your deliberations in this case.”
Subsequently, during Kohlhofer’s counsel’s cross-examination of Detective
Marchyok he stated that the CAST report “puts Charles Walker’s phone in the area of
507 Maumee.” Walker’s counsel objected and again moved for a mistrial. After
discussion between the parties, the court noted:
I’m not going to grant a mistrial. I don’t think that this is such that it
prejudices this jury. This jury has, I’d say, quite a pedigree, each one of
them. I think that they certainly can remember of [sic] the evidence that
they heard and recall what was said.
I think that the distinction – I remember both things that you guys
are talking about that Detective Orlando talked about. This isn’t much
different than that report in that we have two different takes on one piece of
evidence
That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, okay? It doesn’t mean they are
misleading the jury. You can follow up. You can get Detective Orlando’s
report and show him, you know, where the cell phone is or the tower is.
But I am going to overrule the objection.
{¶ 200} The court then instructed the parties to move on and the jury to use their
collective memories “to know exactly what [Agent Orlando] said about those cell
towers.”
{¶ 201} A trial court’s decision denying a mistrial is reviewed under an abuse of
discretion standard. State v. Durst, 2020-Ohio-607, ¶ 46 (6th Dist.); State v. Sage,
31
Ohio St.3d 173, 182 (1987). “A mistrial is only proper ‘when the ends of justice so
require and a fair trial is no longer possible.’” State v. Cantrill,
2020-Ohio-1235, ¶ 47
(6th Dist.), quoting State v. Franklin,
62 Ohio St.3d 118, 127 (1991). Mistrials are “an
61.
extreme remedy.”
Cantrill at ¶ 47, citing State v. Rossbach,
2011-Ohio-281, ¶ 39 (6th
Dist.), citing
Franklin at 127.
{¶ 202} Upon review, Detective Marchyok’s statement that “if [Walker’s] in the
area that is covered by 507 Maumee” was improper; however, it did not warrant a
mistrial. As the State notes, the statement was conditional and interrupted by an
objection. Marchyok’s second statement, that Walker’s phone was in the area of 507
Maumee also did not warrant a mistrial. The trial court observed that “there were two
different takes on” Agent Orlando’s testimony, that it did not mean that the State “was
misleading the jury,” and that jury could recall the evidence they heard.
{¶ 203} Considering the entire record, Marchyok’s testimony did not prejudicially
impact Walker’s ability to have a fair trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by
denying the request for a mistrial.
{¶ 204} Walker’s sixth assignment of error claims that the trial court issued an
insufficient curative instruction to lessen the impact of the prejudicial testimony. He
claims that the instruction followed “a significant duration of time,” involved significant
testimony in a case with no physical evidence, and was undercut by the subsequent
overruling of an objection as to “near-identical” testimony.
{¶ 205} A jury is presumed to follow the court’s instructions. State v. Peabody,
2024-Ohio-185, ¶ 53 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Clinton,
2017-Ohio-9423, ¶ 52.
Moreover, a jury is presumed to follow the court’s curative instructions
concerning improper comments. See State v. Ahmed, 103 Ohio St.3d 27,
2004-Ohio-4190,
813 N.E.2d 637, ¶ 93 (stating that the jury can be
presumed to have followed the court’s instructions to disregard testimony).
This presumption can be rebutted, however, by a showing that “the
62.
evidence could not have been ignored and that serious prejudice likely
occurred.” State v. Westwood, 4th Dist. Athens No. 01CA50, 2002-Ohio-
2445, ¶ 42 (citation omitted).
State v. Loyd, 2021-Ohio-4508, ¶ 13 (6th Dist.).
{¶ 206} First, there is no indication that an inordinate time passed between the
objection and the court’s curative instruction. The trial transcript shows the parties
discussion over two-and-one-half pages before the court addresses the jury. Further,
while the case rests heavily on circumstantial evidence, such evidence is given the same
weight and value as direct or physical evidence. State v. Rutledge, 2025-Ohio-4573, ¶
73(6th Dist.). Finally, as stated above, Marchyok’s subsequent testimony did not
undermine the court’s instruction. Accordingly, there is no indication that the jury failed
to ignore the testimony or that serious prejudice occurred.
Loyd at ¶ 13.
{¶ 207} Because Walker has not demonstrated that the court abused its discretion
in denying his motion for a mistrial or that he was denied his due process right to a fair
trial, his fifth and sixth assignments of error are not well-taken.
E. Walker’s convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the
weight of the evidence.
1. Sufficiency
{¶ 208} Walker first urges the court to re-adopt a prior standard that the Ohio
Supreme Court explicitly overruled in 1991. The standard required that where a
conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence, the State demonstrate that the
evidence is “irreconcilable with any reasonable theory of an accused’s innocence in order
to support a finding of guilt.” State v. Kulig, 37 Ohio St.2d 157 (1974), syllabus.
63.
{¶ 209} Overruling Kulig, the Ohio Supreme Court examined the sufficiency
standard in depth deciding that “[c]ircumstantial evidence and direct evidence inherently
possess the same probative value and therefore should be subjected to the same standard
of proof.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph one of the syllabus. As
such, “[w]hen the state relies on circumstantial evidence to prove an essential element of
the offense charged, there is no need for such evidence to be irreconcilable with any
reasonable theory of innocence in order to support a conviction.”
Id. Moreover, on
appeal, “[a]n 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.”
Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus. To that end,
“[t]he 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.”
Id. This remains the sufficiency standard in
Ohio.
{¶ 210} This court recently rejected the same argument noting that stare decisis
‘“compels a court to recognize and follow an established legal decision in
subsequent cases in which the same question of law is at issue.”’ [State v.
Williams, 2024-Ohio-1433, ¶ 17] quoting State v. Henderson,
161 Ohio
St.3d 285,
2020-Ohio-4784,
162 N.E.3d 776, ¶ 28. We are bound by stare
decisis to apply the legal standard adopted by the Ohio Supreme Court.
Any change to the legal standard must come from the Ohio Supreme Court.
State v. Garibaldo, 2025-Ohio-1093, ¶ 68 (6th Dist.).
64.
{¶ 211} The State tried Walker on charges of aggravated murder, murder, and
kidnapping. A kidnapping charge under R.C. 2905.05(A)(3) required that the State prove
that Walker removed K.W. and K.P. “by force, threat or deception” to “terrorize, or
inflict serious bodily physical harm on the victim or another.” The murder charges
required proof that Walker purposely caused the deaths of K.W. and K.P., R.C.
2903.02(B), with aggravated murder, R.C. 2903.01(B), requiring a showing that Walker
kidnapped the boys intending to kill them.
{¶ 212} During trial, the State presented evidence that Walker and Kohlhofer
assaulted the boys, restrained them, and placed them in Walker’s Impala’s trunk. A
rational trier of fact could have found the kidnapping elements beyond a reasonable
doubt.
{¶ 213} As to the murder charges, the State presented testimony that no one saw
the boys after they were driven off in Walker’s trunk. The next day, Garcia testified that
Walker told him that the boys were tough and that “[w]e can’t believe they didn’t tell us
where the shit was. They really fought to the end and took that to the grave.” Gingrich
identified Walker and Kohlhofer at trial and testified that he believed the boys left with
them. The boys were found in a burned out, abandoned house near where Walker resided
and where Garcia followed Walker’s vehicle. The coroner testified that the boys’ manner
of death was homicide; K.W.’s cause of death was strangulation while K.P.’s was
undetermined. Garcia received a note in jail where the author referred to him as
“Cruzito,” the name Walker had used when speaking with him. The State, thus,
presented sufficient evidence to convict Walker of murder and aggravated murder
65.
2. Manifest Weight
{¶ 214} Walker next claims that his convictions were against the weight of the
evidence because they were based on information received by police from an unidentified
source during their investigation. There was no DNA evidence demonstrating that the
boys were ever in his Impala’s trunk. And the court prevented him from cross-examining
police regarding the “where two people died” text messages. The State responds that the
alleged deficiencies do not support the contention that the jury lost its way by believing
the evidence presented by the State.
{¶ 215} When reviewing a manifest weight claim, “‘[t]he court, reviewing the
entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility
of witnesses and determines 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.’” State v. Lang, 2011-Ohio-4215, ¶ 220,
quoting State v. Thompkins,
78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997). “‘The discretionary power to
grant a new trial should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence
weighs heavily against the conviction.’”
Id., quoting
Thompkins at 387.
{¶ 216} An appellate court must “‘extend special deference to the fact-finder’s
credibility determinations given that it is the finder of fact who has the benefit of seeing
the witnesses testify, observing their facial expressions and body language, hearing their
voice inflections, and discerning qualities such as hesitancy, equivocation, and candor.’”
State v. Carter, 2024-Ohio-5031, ¶ 49 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Fell,
2012-Ohio-616, ¶
14 (6th Dist.). The jury, as the finder of fact and the sole judge of the weight of the
66.
evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, may believe or disbelieve all, part, or none
of a witness’ testimony. State v. Caudill,
2008-Ohio-1557, ¶ 62 (6th Dist.), citing State v.
Antill,
176 Ohio St. 61, 67 (1964). A single witness’ testimony, if believed, will support
a conviction. State v. Smallwood,
2025-Ohio-1001, ¶ 18 (6th Dist.), citing Toledo v.
Manning, 2019-Ohio- 3405, ¶ 41-42 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Myers,
2018-Ohio-1903. ¶
140-141.
{¶ 217} After careful review of the evidence presented at trial and the credibility
of the witnesses, this is not an exceptional case where the evidence weighs heavily
against a conviction. The jurors chose to believe the testimony of Garcia and Gingrich
implicating Walker despite their history of lying to police. This is within their province
as the finder of fact, Caudill at ¶ 62, and the court does not find that the jury lost its way
in making those credibility determinations.
{¶ 218} Based on the foregoing, Walker’s convictions were supported by
sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence and his seventh
assignment of error is not well-taken.
F. Walker was not prejudiced by cumulative errors at trial.
{¶ 219} Walker’s eighth and final assignment of error argues that he suffered
prejudice due to the cumulative effect of errors during trial. Under the cumulative error
doctrine, “‘a judgment may be reversed when the cumulative effect of errors deprives a
defendant of his or her constitutional rights, even though such errors are not prejudicial
singly.’” State v. Gilmer, 2024-Ohio-1178, ¶ 104 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Williams,
2002-Ohio-4831, ¶ 36 (6th Dist.).
67.
{¶ 220} Reviewing Walker’s claimed errors, this court did not conclude that there
were multiple errors at trial; thus, there can be no cumulative error. Gilmer at ¶ 104,
citing State v. Moore, 2019-Ohio-3705, ¶ 87 (6th Dist.). Walker’s eighth assignment of
error is not well-taken.
IV. Conclusion
{¶ 221} On due consideration, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, Walker is ordered to pay the costs of
this appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Thomas J. Osowik
JUDGE
Gene A. Zumda
JUDGE
Charles E. Sulek
CONCUR. JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
68.
