Login | April 24, 2024
Murder conviction affirmed by 7th District
TRACEY BLAIR
Special to the Legal News
Published: April 15, 2014
An unprofessional remark during closing arguments in a Mahoning County murder trial did not rise to prosecutorial misconduct, the 7th District Court of Appeals recently ruled.
Rayshawn Royal was convicted of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery and a firearm specification after a jury trial. He was sentenced to serve 28 years to life.
According to case summary, Royal was one of two men accused of fatally shooting Brandon Adkins on June 18, 2011 in Youngstown as he stood outside a South Avenue home with three juvenile girls.
The men demanded the victim empty his pockets within five seconds and both shot him.
Witnesses eventually identified Royal and co-defendant Deandre McCrary as the shooters. After a joint jury trial, they were both found guilty on all counts.
However, Royal argued he was denied a fair trial due to the following statement by the prosecutor in his closing argument.
“What you just heard the last 45 minutes or so, for a - and I don’t know the correct word, but in trying to keep with the theme here, excuse my language, would be what we refer to as `bullshitization.’ When you don’t have a defense, you come up with something. The old trick is to blame it on the police, blame it on the witnesses.”
In a 3-0 opinion, the panel found Royal’s argument was without merit.
“As to the `bullshitization’ comment, although the trial court overruled appellant’s objection, the court did caution the jury that the comment was merely part of closing arguments,” wrote 7th District Judge Gene Donofrio. “… Furthermore, while the prosecutor’s comment was unprofessional and clearly in bad taste, the comment was just one statement in an otherwise fair trial.”
The panel also rejected Royal’s other five assignments of error, including that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of eyewitness identification testimony.
“Because of the trial court’s ruling denying the motion to suppress and finding the eyewitness identifications admissible, counsel would not be ineffective for failing to object to the identifications at trial,” Donofrio stated.
Judges Joseph J. Vukovich and Mary DeGenaro concurred.
The case is cited State v. Royal, 2014-Ohio-1175.