The Akron Legal News

Convictions stand for man who robbed victim near downtown COTA stop

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: October 21, 2014

In an opinion released recently, the 10th District Court of Appeals affirmed convictions for a man found guilty of committing an aggravated robbery near a COTA stop in downtown Columbus.

The three-judge appellate panel affirmed the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas ruling that convicted Iramac Martin of aggravated robbery and robbery after he used threat of force to take $100 from another man.

During a jury trial in February, the state called James Taylor, the alleged victim, to testify.

Taylor told the court he was working the night shift at the Limited Brands in Reynoldsburg in September 2013 when he was sent home early.

He said he left his job around 11:30 p.m. and rode a COTA bus to the downtown area so that he could transfer to another bus that would take him home.

However, when Taylor arrived downtown he learned that the last bus of the night had already departed.

He said he was carrying $60 cash at the time and visited an ATM so he could get more money for a cab ride home.

While he was withdrawing $40 from the machine, Taylor said a man approached and asked for $5.

Taylor ignored the man, withdrew his money and started to walk back toward the bus stop.

He described the man, who continued to follow him, as a black male between the ages of 21 and 25.

He said the man had “a really long goatee,” silver “grills” in his mouth and was wearing black pants, black shoes, a red and white checkered shirt and a black hat with a red “C” on it.

He judged that the man was about 5-foot-7 and weighed around 150 pounds.

As Taylor stood near the bus stop, he said the man kept asking him for money and Taylor eventually gave him $1.

He then called a cab, but said the man would not leave.

At that point, Taylor “started getting uncomfortable,” according to case summary and walked to the next bus stop.

The man then followed him and put “something” against Taylor’s upper back, saying, “give me what you got, give me everything.”

Taylor said he asked what the man was talking about and the man said: “Bro, bro, I don’t want to kill you. I’m in a bad place right now.”

Taylor then pulled out his wallet and said the man took all of his cash.

That was when Taylor said he reached into his backpack for a stun gun and sparked it at the man. The man saw the spark and fled down High Street toward Gay Street.

Taylor was able to call the police, who responded quickly, and give them a description of his assailant.

About six minutes later, officers apprehended Martin and Taylor identified him on the scene as the man who robbed him.

He said he immediately recognized the man’s goatee, apparel and face. Taylor also positively identified Martin at trial.

Several officers testified about Martin’s arrest and told the court they found the man lying on a bench at a COTA bus stop near the intersections of Rich and High Streets, close to where Taylor was robbed.

They testified they stopped him after hearing Taylor’s description and seeing Martin in similar garb with similar identifying features, such as silver “grills” and a long goatee.

At the time of his arrest, Martin had $67 cash on his person.

The officers also introduced a knife into evidence that they found in a nearby recycling bin.

The knife matched Taylor’s statement that the object pressed to his back was small, black and metallic. However, Taylor told police he believed the object was a gun.

Following the close of the state’s evidence, Martin filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal.

The trial court denied that motion and the jury found him guilty of aggravated robbery and robbery. The court sentenced him to three years in prison and ordered him to pay $33 in restitution.

On direct appeal to the 10th District, Martin argued that his motion for acquittal should have been granted because there was insufficient evidence establishing his identity as the robber and his use of a weapon.

“As to the issue of identity, appellant cites the fact that Taylor did not mention that appellant had a tattoo on his left cheek near his eye, as well as a tattoo on his neck,” Judge Susan Brown wrote for the court.

Upon review, however, the judges determined that the sufficiency of the evidence clearly supported his identification because Taylor was able to describe Martin’s attire and distinguishing characteristics in great detail.

They further ruled that the tattoos did not hinder the manifest weight of the evidence because police noted that the tattoo on his cheek was difficult to see, especially after dark, and the one on his neck may have been covered by the collar of his shirt.

“Based on our review of the record, we are unable to conclude that the victim’s failure to identify appellant’s facial or neck tattoos rendered the identification evidence unreliable,” Judge Brown stated.

Martin next argued that manifest weight of the evidence did not support the deadly weapon element of his conviction because the victim testified that there was a gun present and the police presented only a knife.

The judges disagreed, ruling that Taylor could have easily been mistaken.

“Further, the jury could have found that the victim was mistaken as to his belief that the ‘small black metallic object’ he observed in appellant’s hand during the robbery was a gun (instead of a knife), and concluded that the knife admitted as evidence (i.e., a small black, metallic object), recovered by police officers in the vicinity of the crime, was the weapon used to facilitate the robbery,” Judge Brown wrote.

Based on those conclusions, the appellate judges affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

Judges William Klatt and Betsy Luper Schuster concurred.

The case is cited State v. Martin, 2014-Ohio-4447.

[Back]