The Akron Legal News

Accused murderer granted new trial

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: August 19, 2016

The 8th District Court of Appeals recently reversed a murder conviction based on an error during jury selection.

Carl Hampton, who was convicted in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas on charges of murder, felonious assault, involuntary manslaughter and assault, was granted a new trial despite the fact that the court of appeals found the evidence to support his convictions.

In its review of the case, a three-judge appellate panel ruled that the state failed to offer a race and gender-neutral explanation for the dismissal of one female, African-American juror.

Under the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure, the court of appeals held that it had no authority to do anything to resolve the matter other than to reverse Hampton’s convictions and remand the case for a new trial.

Hampton’s conviction stemmed from an argument with Eugene Warner at a bar in the early morning hours of Dec. 30, 2013.

According to a summary of the case, Hampton was arguing with Warner at the back of the bar when he suddenly punched Warner once, causing Warner to fall to the ground.

Over the course of the next few days, Warner complained of headaches and vomiting.

On Jan. 2, 2014, he was examined at an urgent care center but was sent home after being given two shots.

Later that evening, he became unresponsive and was taken to a hospital where he underwent an emergency surgery for a subdural hematoma. The brain bleed eventually led to Warner’s death.

Hampton was sentenced to a prison term of 15 years to life for causing the death.

Considering the evidence presented at trial, the 8th District court noted that Warner was on a blood anticoagulant when Hampton punched him, contributing to the cause of death.

Still, it held that the evidence was sufficient to support the murder conviction.

“The majority of case law this court reviewed supports the proposition that appellant’s actions in this case constitute knowingly causing serious physical harm,” Judge Frank Celebrezze wrote on behalf of the appellate court.

“The fact that anticoagulation medication most certainly contributed to Warner’s death does not provide sufficient intervention to break the causal chain between (Hampton’s) criminal act and Warner’s death.”

This meant that Hampton’s convictions were supported by sufficient, credible evidence.

But the state’s error in dismissing an African-American female juror and its failure to offer a valid reason for the dismissal resulted in a violation of Batson v. Kentucky, which mandates that the prosecution offer race- and gender-neutral reasons for the dismissal of jurors.

During jury selection, the state sought to excuse a Hispanic female, a white female, a white male and an African-American female.

The trial court and Hampton brought up that a pattern had emerged where the state was excusing jurors based on race or gender. At that point, the state was required to give neutral reasons for the exercise of its challenges.

“The state gave race- and gender-neutral reasons for the removal of the first, second and third potential jurors, but failed to give a reason why it wished to excuse the potential African-American female,” Celebrezze wrote.

According to the state, the fact that the female was replaced by another African-American female was enough to excuse its conduct. The court of appeals found otherwise.

“Simply put, this court cannot discern why the state chose to excuse this potential juror and neither could the trial court,” Celebrezze wrote. “Further, the striking of a single black or female juror for racial or gender reasons violates the equal protection clause, even though other black or female jurors are seated and even when there are valid reasons for the striking of some black or female jurors.”

The appellate panel called the state’s claim that there could be no prejudice because the juror was replaced by another African-American female juror “misplaced” and “insufficient justification” for what amounted to a structural error.

“Appellant’s convictions must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial,” Celebrezze concluded.

Presiding Judge Patricia Ann Blackmon and Judge Anita Laster Mays concurred.

The case is cited State v. Hampton, 2016-Ohio-5321.

[Back]