The Akron Legal News

Man who murdered victim in cocaine dispute has appeal rejected

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: November 13, 2015

A murder conviction out of Huber Heights was recently affirmed by the 2nd District Court of Appeals when a panel of three judges considered the case of Jesse Stinson.

Stinson was convicted after a jury trial in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas on four counts of murder, two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated burglary with each count carrying a firearm specification.

After a bench trial, Stinson was also convicted of a having weapons under disability.

The trial court merged like counts and ran sentences consecutively for an aggregate term of 32 years to life in prison.

On direct appeal to the 2nd District court, Stinson argued that his convictions were based on insufficient evidence and against the weight of the evidence.

He also claimed that the trial court should have granted his motion for a mistrial and that his aggravated robbery and murder convictions should have merged.

Reviewing the evidence, the appellate panel considered the state’s case at trial, where it established that Tyree North was shot in his home on Oct. 10, 2012.

At that time, Stinson was in North’s home accusing him of selling “fleece,” or bad cocaine.

Stinson had entered the home wearing surgical gloves and carrying a bag of clean clothes.

North’s friend, James “Bow” Demmons, was present for the shooting.

After the shooting, Stinson’s friend, known as “Walls,” drove up to the house and also put gloves on.

He helped Stinson collect electronics and music recording equipment from North’s house.

Stinson, Walls and Demmons all left the scene together in the same vehicle. During the drive, Stinson mentioned that he had forgotten his bag of clothes at North’s house.

That bag was eventually found by North’s girlfriend, Chiaki Takahashi, who also found North’s body and called the police.

Investigating officers began to focus on Stinson as a suspect in the murder after interviewing Demmons several times.

Demmons originally denied being present for the shooting but his story changed after he learned of the possibility of a reward in exchange for information.

Meanwhile, Stinson was trying to sell the stolen items from North’s home, including flat screen televisions and a laptop computer.

Detectives communicated online with Stinson and set up a meeting under the guise of purchasing the products.

Stinson fled on foot when it became clear he was the subject of a sting, but he was eventually apprehended.

In his defense, Stinson attempted to paint Demmons as the perpetrator since his DNA was also found at the scene of the murder.

He emphasized that Demmons’ testimony was not credible and that his story had changed several times before he implicated Stinson.

Viewing the evidence in a light favorable to the prosecution under the traditional the standard of review for sufficiency arguments, the court of appeals found that the state presented sufficient evidence to convict Stinson of murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary and having a weapon under disability.

“The state’s evidence indicated that Stinson went to North’s home with Demmons, that Stinson argued with North about the drugs and that Stinson shot North in the back of the head, killing North,” Presiding Judge Jeffrey Froelich wrote on behalf of the court of appeals. “That Stinson intended to commit a theft offense when he entered North’s house was supported by the facts that Stinson brought surgical gloves with him and had prearranged for Walls, who had a truck, to come to North’s home.”

The appellate panel also cited the evidence that Stinson later attempted to sell the stolen items and then discarded a laptop and a firearm as he ran from police.

With regard to the manifest weight of the evidence, the court of appeals held that Demmons’ version of events was corroborated by several pieces of evidence, including the bag of clothes that Stinson had left behind at the scene of the murder.

“It was the province of the jury to assess the witnesses’ credibility and determine whether the state had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt,” Froelich wrote. “And while the jury could have reasonably concluded that Demmons had not been entirely truthful, we cannot conclude that the jury lost its way when it convicted Stinson of the charged offenses.”

The reviewing court went on to find that Stinson’s motion for a new trial was properly denied and his offenses were properly merged for sentencing.

“The trial court’s judgment will be affirmed,” Froelich concluded.

The case is cited State v. Stinson, 2015-Ohio-4405.

[Back]