Coonrod seeks new trial in appeal
Lead Summary
By
Brandy Chandler-brandychandler@gmail.com
Legal counsel for Wesley Coonrod has filed a brief in the appeal of his convictions of involuntary manslaughter, saying that the trial court erred in its dismissal of a "holdout" juror "without just cause" and requests that the Court of Appeals grant a new trial.
Additionally, it was alleged that there was insufficient evidence to find Coonrod guilty of charges of involuntary manslaughter and child endangering in the deaths of his two young sons.
If granted by Ohio's Fourth District Court of Appeals, this would be the third time Coonrod would stand trial on the charges.
Coonrod's attorney, Eric Allen, filed the brief last week with Ohio's Fourth District Court of Appeals in Pickaway County Common Pleas Court, and listed five assignments of error.
In January, Coonrod, 43, of Greenfield, was found guilty of two counts of involuntary manslaughter, felonies of the first degree, in the deaths of his sons Thomas, 4, and Stephen, 3, during a more than weeklong jury trial in Pickaway County Common Pleas Court. He was found not guilty on one count of aggravated arson.
The Highland County case had been transferred there after a jury in Highland County Common Pleas Court had been unable to reach verdicts on charges in October including two counts of murder with death penalty specifications.
Prosecutors had alleged Coonrod set the March 7, 2010 fire at 150 A
Lafayette Street in Greenfield that killed his sons.
The defense alleged that Thomas or Stephen could have set the fire.
In October, Coonrod had been found guilty on two counts of child endangering during a jury trial in Highland County Common Pleas Court. The
jury was hung on two charges of murder, with death penalty specifications, and the charge of aggravated arson.
The state did not seek the death penalty in the second trial.
Highland County Common Pleas Court Judge Rocky Coss sentenced Coonrod to 10 years in prison on each involuntary manslaughter conviction, to be served consecutively, for a total of 20 years in prison.
During the proceedings, the state was represented by the Highland County
Prosecutor's Office.
According to the appeal Allen filed on Aug. 29, he alleges:
• The trial court "Abused its discretion by dismissing a juror without
cause."
• The trial court erred when it allowed state's witness nurse "Joyce Krech to testify as an expert to whether (Coonrod) was intoxicated" the night of the fire.
• There was insufficient evidence to convict Coonrod of involuntary
manslaughter.
• There was insufficient evidence to convict Coonrod of child endangering.
• The term of incarceration imposed by the trial court, ³was arbitrary and capricious."
In the appeal, Coonrod states the "facts surrounding the dismissal of the juror" include that, "prior to deliberations on Monday, Jan. 31, 2011, juror number four sent a note to the court¹s attention. It stated, "We have a belligerent juror. I believe she has been in a similar situation as the defendant. She had a fire in her house and sent her son upstairs in a smoke-filled house. She is taking all discussions personal. I think we could reach a decision if she were replaced with one of the alternative jurors. Is that possible?'"
The court, according to the court documents, "had a lengthy discussion with juror number four on the record, and in chambers. Juror number four never states that juror number five was using her life experience to interfere with her deliberations."
Juror number four told the court that during deliberations juror number five "had her arms crossed, leaned back, rolling her eyes, flipping her hair ... Her body language was like a teenager that got caught doing something she wasn¹t supposed to do and was getting lectured by her parents. She was paying attention to no one."
The court questioned juror number five on whether or not it impacted her impartiality in the case, and she said that it did not, and she did not previously reveal it to the court because she had not thought about it and "it was an experience that came to her during the deliberation. The court states that the juror did not withhold this information deliberately, and it was not brought up until jury deliberations. The court appears to be stating that based on this experience that this juror is biased and therefore should be removed."
The defense, represented during trial by William Mooney and Jerry McHenry, objected to the juror's removal.
According to the appeal, "(The juror) merely remembers an occasion and tells the court it won't affect her deliberations. In other words, she is not biased or prejudiced in any way. A trial court deciding whether to exclude a juror for cause must determine whether a juror's view would prevent or substantially impair performance of duties as a juror in accordance with instructions and oath. The court had absolutely no basis to remove this juror during deliberations."
On the third assignment of error and the allegation that there was insufficient evidence to convict Coonrod of involuntary manslaughter, Allen wrote that, "When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, an appellate court must review the record to determine 'whether the evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
Allen present's Coonrod's testimony from the trial, regarding how he testified he awoke to smoke and fire outside his bedroom, and exited out the window, and then allegedly tried to get back inside to a fire extinguisher.
"After he could not get in (Coonrod) went into shock. He states, 'It was like it was - it was happening, but it wasn't happening. It was like slow motion. I can't explain it.' Neighbors claim they smell alcohol on him. (Coonrod's) brother John states he cannot smell any alcohol on (Coonrod). It was obvious that (Coonrod) was extremely upset. At the hospital (Coonrod) meet with Nurse Krech. She opines that (Coonrod) was under the influence of drugs, and other substances. He is emotionally overwrought and devastated by the loss of his two sons."
Allen also notes that a can of charcoal lighter fluid was found outside the home and that a cigarette lighter was found in the hallway outside the children's bedroom.
"There is a great deal of ink spilled over the origin and cause of this fire," he wrote. "The state's experts opine that (Coonrod) intentionally set it. The defendant's expert opine(s) that it could be caused by the children. In the end, the jury believed that (Coonrod) did not start this fire. However, they felt he was responsible for the children having access to fire-starting materials. (Coonrod had done everything humanly possible to make sure this home was safe from fire for his children. He had bought a fire extinguisher. He had moved into a home where the landlord claimed the smoke detectors were i working order. Further, he had, like at his past address, put his lighter and tobacco up where the children did not have access."
Allen asks that the court of appeals dismiss the counts of involuntary manslaughter.
Regarding the fourth assignment of error and the allegation that there was not enough evidence to support a conviction on child endangerment charges, Allen asks that those charges be dismissed, as well.
Ohio's Eighth District Court of Appeals, Allen wrote, has, "recognized that there is only so much you can do in regard to protecting your children. The trial court thought he should die to save his children. This is not what the law requires ... A tragedy occurred, and the two children lost their lives. However, a tragedy does not always equate with a crime. The trial court wants (Coonrod) to run into this building to save his children. There is nothing in the law that requires you to die with your children. It is certainly what every parent would want to do, take every step to save children in danger. A shocked, half-blind man watching a blaze take his children away cannot be expected to feel his way into the building and then somehow find his children."
Regarding sentencing and the appeal's fifth assignment of error, Allen asks that the matter be sent back to the trial court for re-sentencing, stating that the maximum sentence Coonrod received was "arbitrary and capricious."
Highland County Common Pleas Court Judge Rocky Coss sentenced Coonrod to ten years in prison on each of the involuntary manslaughter charges, to be served consecutively, for a total of 20 years. Coss found that the acts were the "worst form of the offense."
"Judge Coss feels that (Coonrod) refuses to accept responsibility for what happened to his sons," Allen wrote. "He opines that, 'this case has been all about you.' Further, that the testimony of his children screaming from the duplex evoked no emotion from (Coonrod."
Several witnesses had testified during the trial that they asked Coonrod where the children were so they could locate them inside the burning home. According to that testimony, Coonrod stood on the sidewalk, in his underwear, and asked for cigarettes, instead of responding to the questions about his children.
"Judge Coss opines that, 'children experiment with things as they learn, an they do things that are dangerous, and it's up to you as a parent to see that,'" according to Allen. 'And in this case, you failed miserably at that.' In addition, the judge felt that (Coonrod) should have had a lock box in which to keep all smoking materials. In pronouncing sentence, the judge felt it necessary to point out that (Coonrod) did not keep from going into the fire to save his children. If one reviews the sentencing of (Coonrod) in his matter, it appears arbitrary. The judge did not appreciate the veracity of (Coonrod's) story. (Coonrod) had a right to testify. Whether or not he should have exercised that right is a different story. It appears the court based its sentence on the testimony of (Coonrod) and not whether or not it was warranted for this type of offense."
Prior to Coss imposing the sentence, Coonrod addressed the court, crying, saying that he could not believe the outcome of the verdicts, and that his children were his life, and asking "How am I guilty of anything?"
"Your honor, I done lost both my boys, and I ain't got no life," Coonrod said. "They was my life. I suffer every day for my kids. I didn't do nothing to harm my kids. I would never do nothing to harm my kids. These accusations ... I don't know. I couldn't get in to save my kids. Them other people couldn't get in to save my kids, so I'm standing here before you, at the mercy of the court, and I'm wondering, 'How am I guilty of anything?' These people couldn't get in when I couldn't get in. I don't know. It's unbelievable. I'm just begging, at the mercy of the court. I'm speechless.
"My ex-wife, she knows good and well that them kids was my life," Coonrod said. "There wasn't nothing in this world I wouldn't do to protect them. I'd protect them any which way. But on that night, I couldn't protect 'em good enough. I couldn't save my sons. And that's all I got to say."
Allen wrote that when viewing the case as a whole, it is simply a tragedy.
"This case literally, not figuratively or hyperbolically, adds insult to injury," Allen wrote. "(Coonrod) lost his two sons in a tragic fire. Then he faced the death penalty for their deaths and ultimately was sentenced to 20 years in prison. It is interesting that the state and court's view of this case changed during the lapse of the two trials. When the state could not convince two juries that (Coonrod) set these fire the attention fell to his parenting ability. Sometimes a tragedy is just a tragedy, not a crime."
Legal counsel for Wesley Coonrod has filed a brief in the appeal of his convictions of involuntary manslaughter, saying that the trial court erred in its dismissal of a "holdout" juror "without just cause" and requests that the Court of Appeals grant a new trial.
Additionally, it was alleged that there was insufficient evidence to find Coonrod guilty of charges of involuntary manslaughter and child endangering in the deaths of his two young sons.
If granted by Ohio's Fourth District Court of Appeals, this would be the third time Coonrod would stand trial on the charges.
Coonrod's attorney, Eric Allen, filed the brief last week with Ohio's Fourth District Court of Appeals in Pickaway County Common Pleas Court, and listed five assignments of error.
In January, Coonrod, 43, of Greenfield, was found guilty of two counts of involuntary manslaughter, felonies of the first degree, in the deaths of his sons Thomas, 4, and Stephen, 3, during a more than weeklong jury trial in Pickaway County Common Pleas Court. He was found not guilty on one count of aggravated arson.
The Highland County case had been transferred there after a jury in Highland County Common Pleas Court had been unable to reach verdicts on charges in October including two counts of murder with death penalty specifications.
Prosecutors had alleged Coonrod set the March 7, 2010 fire at 150 A Lafayette Street in Greenfield that killed his sons.
The defense alleged that Thomas or Stephen could have set the fire.
In October, Coonrod had been found guilty on two counts of child endangering during a jury trial in Highland County Common Pleas Court. The jury was hung on two charges of murder, with death penalty specifications, and the charge of aggravated arson.
The state did not seek the death penalty in the second trial.
Highland County Common Pleas Court Judge Rocky Coss sentenced Coonrod to 10 years in prison on each involuntary manslaughter conviction, to be served consecutively, for a total of 20 years in prison.
During the proceedings, the state was represented by the Highland County Prosecutor's Office.
According to the appeal Allen filed on Aug. 29, he alleges:
• The trial court "Abused its discretion by dismissing a juror without cause."
• The trial court erred when it allowed state's witness nurse "Joyce Krech to testify as an expert to whether (Coonrod) was intoxicated" the night of the fire.
• There was insufficient evidence to convict Coonrod of involuntary manslaughter.
• There was insufficient evidence to convict Coonrod of child endangering.
• The term of incarceration imposed by the trial court, "was arbitrary and capricious."
In the appeal, Coonrod states the "facts surrounding the dismissal of the juror" include that, "prior to deliberations on Monday, Jan. 31, 2011, juror number four sent a note to the court¹s attention. It stated, "We have a belligerent juror. I believe she has been in a similar situation as the defendant. She had a fire in her house and sent her son upstairs in a smoke-filled house. She is taking all discussions personal. I think we could reach a decision if she were replaced with one of the alternative jurors. Is that possible?'"
The court, according to the court documents, "had a lengthy discussion with juror number four on the record, and in chambers. Juror number four never states that juror number five was using her life experience to interfere with her deliberations."
Juror number four told the court that during deliberations juror number five "had her arms crossed, leaned back, rolling her eyes, flipping her hair ... Her body language was like a teenager that got caught doing something she wasn't supposed to do and was getting lectured by her parents. She was paying attention to no one."
The court questioned juror number five on whether or not it impacted her impartiality in the case, and she said that it did not, and she did not previously reveal it to the court because she had not thought about it and "it was an experience that came to her during the deliberation. The court states that the juror did not withhold this information deliberately, and it was not brought up until jury deliberations. The court appears to be stating that based on this experience that this juror is biased and therefore should be removed."
The defense, represented during trial by William Mooney and Jerry McHenry, objected to the juror's removal.
According to the appeal, "(The juror) merely remembers an occasion and tells the court it won't affect her deliberations. In other words, she is not biased or prejudiced in any way. A trial court deciding whether to exclude a juror for cause must determine whether a juror's view would prevent or substantially impair performance of duties as a juror in accordance with instructions and oath. The court had absolutely no basis to remove this juror during deliberations."
On the third assignment of error and the allegation that there was insufficient evidence to convict Coonrod of involuntary manslaughter, Allen wrote that, "When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, an appellate court must review the record to determine 'whether the evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
Allen present's Coonrod's testimony from the trial, regarding how he testified he awoke to smoke and fire outside his bedroom, and exited out the window, and then allegedly tried to get back inside to a fire extinguisher.
"After he could not get in (Coonrod) went into shock. He states, 'It was like it was - it was happening, but it wasn't happening. It was like slow motion. I can't explain it.' Neighbors claim they smell alcohol on him. (Coonrod's) brother John states he cannot smell any alcohol on (Coonrod). It was obvious that (Coonrod) was extremely upset. At the hospital (Coonrod) meet with Nurse Krech. She opines that (Coonrod) was under the influence of drugs, and other substances. He is emotionally overwrought and devastated by the loss of his two sons."
Allen also notes that a can of charcoal lighter fluid was found outside the home and that a cigarette lighter was found in the hallway outside the children's bedroom.
"There is a great deal of ink spilled over the origin and cause of this fire," he wrote. "The state's experts opine that (Coonrod) intentionally set it. The defendant's expert opine(s) that it could be caused by the children. In the end, the jury believed that (Coonrod) did not start this fire. However, they felt he was responsible for the children having access to fire-starting materials. (Coonrod had done everything humanly possible to make sure this home was safe from fire for his children. He had bought a fire extinguisher. He had moved into a home where the landlord claimed the smoke detectors were i working order. Further, he had, like at his past address, put his lighter and tobacco up where the children did not have access."
Allen asks that the court of appeals dismiss the counts of involuntary manslaughter.
Regarding the fourth assignment of error and the allegation that there was not enough evidence to support a conviction on child endangerment charges, Allen asks that those charges be dismissed, as well.
Ohio's Eighth District Court of Appeals, Allen wrote, has, "recognized that there is only so much you can do in regard to protecting your children. The trial court thought he should die to save his children. This is not what the law requires ... A tragedy occurred, and the two children lost their lives. However, a tragedy does not always equate with a crime. The trial court wants (Coonrod) to run into this building to save his children. There is nothing in the law that requires you to die with your children. It is certainly what every parent would want to do, take every step to save children in danger. A shocked, half-blind man watching a blaze take his children away cannot be expected to feel his way into the building and then somehow find his children."
Regarding sentencing and the appeal's fifth assignment of error, Allen asks that the matter be sent back to the trial court for re-sentencing, stating that the maximum sentence Coonrod received was "arbitrary and capricious."
Highland County Common Pleas Court Judge Rocky Coss sentenced Coonrod to ten years in prison on each of the involuntary manslaughter charges, to be served consecutively, for a total of 20 years. Coss found that the acts were the "worst form of the offense."
"Judge Coss feels that (Coonrod) refuses to accept responsibility for what happened to his sons," Allen wrote. "He opines that, 'this case has been all about you.' Further, that the testimony of his children screaming from the duplex evoked no emotion from (Coonrod."
Several witnesses had testified during the trial that they asked Coonrod where the children were so they could locate them inside the burning home. According to that testimony, Coonrod stood on the sidewalk, in his underwear, and asked for cigarettes, instead of responding to the questions about his children.
"Judge Coss opines that, 'children experiment with things as they learn, an they do things that are dangerous, and it's up to you as a parent to see that,'" according to Allen. 'And in this case, you failed miserably at that.' In addition, the judge felt that (Coonrod) should have had a lock box in which to keep all smoking materials. In pronouncing sentence, the judge felt it necessary to point out that (Coonrod) did not keep from going into the fire to save his children. If one reviews the sentencing of (Coonrod) in his matter, it appears arbitrary. The judge did not appreciate the veracity of (Coonrod's) story. (Coonrod) had a right to testify. Whether or not he should have exercised that right is a different story. It appears the court based its sentence on the testimony of (Coonrod) and not whether or not it was warranted for this type of offense."
Prior to Coss imposing the sentence, Coonrod addressed the court, crying, saying that he could not believe the outcome of the verdicts, and that his children were his life, and asking "How am I guilty of anything?"
"Your honor, I done lost both my boys, and I ain't got no life," Coonrod said. "They was my life. I suffer every day for my kids. I didn't do nothing to harm my kids. I would never do nothing to harm my kids. These accusations ... I don't know. I couldn't get in to save my kids. Them other people couldn't get in to save my kids, so I'm standing here before you, at the mercy of the court, and I'm wondering, 'How am I guilty of anything?' These people couldn't get in when I couldn't get in. I don't know. It's unbelievable. I'm just begging, at the mercy of the court. I'm speechless.
"My ex-wife, she knows good and well that them kids was my life," Coonrod said. "There wasn't nothing in this world I wouldn't do to protect them. I'd protect them any which way. But on that night, I couldn't protect 'em good enough. I couldn't save my sons. And that's all I got to say."
Allen wrote that when viewing the case as a whole, it is simply a tragedy.
"This case literally, not figuratively or hyperbolically, adds insult to injury," Allen wrote. "(Coonrod) lost his two sons in a tragic fire. Then he faced the death penalty for their deaths and ultimately was sentenced to 20 years in prison. It is interesting that the state and court's view of this case changed during the lapse of the two trials. When the state could not convince two juries that (Coonrod) set these fire the attention fell to his parenting ability. Sometimes a tragedy is just a tragedy, not a crime."
[[In-content Ad]]