The Akron Legal News

Man who set couch ablaze with sleeping girlfriend, daughters nearby loses appeal

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: January 14, 2015

A judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the Lake County Court of Common Pleas in an arson case was affirmed recently by a panel of three judges in Ohio’s 11th District Court of Appeals.

A jury found the defendant, Trevor Reed, guilty of one count of aggravated arson, a first-degree felony, after hearing evidence that he set a couch on fire while his girlfriend and two children were sleeping.

According to case summary, in 2012 Reed lived with his then-girlfriend, Julianna Fellows, and his two daughters, ages 10 and four, in an apartment in Madison Village.

In the early morning hours of Sept. 4, 2012, Fellows was awakened by the apartment’s smoke alarm.

She proceeded to get out of bed, go to the girls’ bedroom and safely get them out of the building.

At trial, Fellows testified that, as she was leaving the apartment, she saw that the couch was on fire and “flames lighting up the inside of the room and the smoke billowing up into the ceiling.”

She described the blaze as resembling “a bonfire.”

Fellows alerted the neighbors to the fire before running back inside and getting her phone to call 911.

Meanwhile, Reed extinguished the fire by dousing the couch with trash cans full of water.

By the time emergency responders arrived on the scene, the fire was extinguished so police and fire personnel began an investigation.

At trial, Patrolman Alex Gritton of the Madison Village Police Department testified that he spoke with Reed when he arrived on scene.

Reed told Gritton that he thought someone broke into the apartment and set the fire, but Gritton testified there were no signs of forced entry.

Firefighter Joseph Purcell also testified on behalf of the state.

As part of his investigation, Purcell stated that he found and preserved napkins that were “shoved down in between the cushions of the couch.”

Purcell noted that the edges of the napkins were burned but the centers were not.

Based on his expert opinion, he stated that the wall and picture frame behind the couch were moments away from igniting before the fire was extinguished and he told the jury that the fire was “very consistent with someone having stuffed napkins between those cushions purposely and having lit them with a cigarette lighter.”

Crystal Reed, Reed’s ex-wife and mother to his daughters, testified that she received a call from Reed three days after the fire.

During that conversation, Crystal asked Reed “why he did what he did” and Reed responded that he “needed to buy time.”

The following week, Crystal obtained a protection order for herself and her daughters.

She testified that, as a result of the fire, the girls were “very emotional” and suffered “many sleepless nights.”

Fellows also spoke to Reed after the fire. She said she visited him in the hospital while he was there for a mental health evaluation.

According to her, Reed confessed that he set the fire because he “lost a wheel.”

A little over one week later, Fellows also filed for a protection order against Reed.

She told the trial court that, based on their conversation at the hospital, she believed Reed intended to start the fire.

Reed testified in his own defense, stating that he often stuffed napkins between the couch cushions in case his younger daughter made a mess.

In his version of events, he was smoking on the couch before bed and used a napkin as an ashtray.

Reed admitted that he initially lied to investigators but insisted that the fire was an accident, the result of carelessly using a napkin for his cigarette ashes.

“I was an idiot for using a napkin for an ashtray,” he testified. “And then (I) outright told them a lie over and over, because I was too scared to take responsibility ... I have no background of ever trying to hurt nobody.”

Following his indictment, Reed initially pleaded guilty to aggravated arson, but he later withdrew that plea.

Before trial, the state extended a second plea offer and a hearing was scheduled.

However, Reed failed to appear at that hearing because of an apparent suicide attempt whereby he attempted to jump in front of a train.

The state then revoked any offer for Reed to plead to a lesser charge and, following the jury trial and guilty verdict, Reed was sentenced to five years in prison.

On direct appeal to the 11th District court, Reed presented several assignments of error, one of which challenged the trial court’s admission of what Reed called improper prosecutorial statements.

“Under this assignment of error, appellant alleges the prosecutor’s remarks, arguments and prayers were plain error and affected the outcome of the trial,” wrote Presiding Judge Timothy Cannon in the opinion he authored on behalf of the court of appeals.

According to the trial record, during the state’s cross-examination of Reed, the prosecutor stated, “Now let me tell you what we’re not going to do, we’re not going to insult this jury’s intelligence by coming up with more lies during our conversation.”

The prosecutor went on to imply that Reed was lying several more times, but the defense objected each time and each objection was sustained by the trial court.

During closing arguments, the prosecutor stated, “I almost feel like we should have a moment of silence, and then somebody should say amen. I’m not trying to attack a witness, but that closing argument was a prayer for you folks.”

“The test for prosecutorial misconduct is whether the remarks of the prosecutor were improper and, if so, whether they prejudiced the defendant,” wrote Cannon.

The appellate panel held that the state “aggressively cross-examined” Reed about his inconsistent statements, but the defense’s objections were sustained and it is presumed that the jury did not consider any statements that were stricken from the record.

“We cannot conclude that any of the prosecuting attorney’s statements cast doubt on the fairness of appellant’s trial,” Cannon wrote.

Reed went on to argue that the trial court erred by allowing his ex-wife to testify about his confession of guilt because at the time of the incident, they were still married.

“R.C. 2945.42 only makes privileged certain communications between spouses that take place during coverture,” wrote Cannon. “Coverture suggests a man and a woman are married under the law, whether by license or common law, and cohabitating as such.”

But the court of appeals noted that, at the time of the fire, Reed and his wife were not cohabitating.

They were in the process of getting a divorce and Reed was living with his girlfriend.

“As such, appellant and Ms. Reed were no longer ‘in coverture,’” wrote Cannon. “Accordingly, the trial court did not err in allowing Ms. Reed to testify over appellant’s objection.”

The appellate panel proceeded to overrule Reed’s remaining propositions of law which included claims that his conviction was against the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence and that his sentence was excessive in light of his lack of a criminal record and diagnosed mental health condition.

Judges Diane Grendell and Cynthia Westcott Rice joined Cannon to the form the majority, affirming the judgment of the Lake County court.

The case is cited State v. Reed, 2014-Ohio-5463.

[Back]