Login | March 29, 2024

Court rules bank robber's actions implied threat of force

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News

Published: August 3, 2015

A panel of three judges in the 9th District Court of Appeals recently ruled that sufficient evidence tied defendant David Smith to a Summit County bank robbery.

Smith was convicted of one count of robbery in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and sentenced to a maximum 36-month prison term after he was found competent to stand trial by the common pleas judge.

Smith’s conviction stemmed from the events of Dec. 13, 2013 when, at 2 p.m., a man wearing a bulky black jacket, a gray ski mask, black sunglasses, gloves and a hat walked into the FirstMerit Bank in Fairlawn.

The bank teller, Cody Hinkle, was assisting a customer at a teller window at the time while an employee of the bank, Christa Hosey, was waiting in line for the next available teller in order to conduct a transaction for a customer waiting in her office.

The man in the ski mask entered the bank, scribbled a note on a deposit slip near the bank’s entrance and proceeded to walk up to the teller window.

Case summary states that the man nudged Hosey and said “excuse me” to the customer at the window before sliding the note to Hinkle.

The note read, “I Need Bottom Drawer $50 and $100.”

Hinkle complied with the note’s demands and handed $4,000 in cash from her bottom drawer to the man in the mask who put the bills in his pocket and fled the bank on foot. At that point, Hinkle tripped the bank’s alarm.

Numerous witnesses testified that they saw a man in a black jacket and dark ski mask run from the bank, across West Market Street, through the parking lot of a shopping plaza and disappear behind the plaza.

Local police searched the area and found footprints in the snow along with an abandoned black jacket and a gray ski mask. In the pocket of the jacket, they found an electronic cigarette.

The Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation subsequently matched DNA found on the mask, hat and cigarette to Smith who was later arrested on a warrant.

Follow-up testing once Smith was in custody again matched him to the DNA found on the abandoned items.

The matter proceeded to a jury trial where the defense made a motion for acquittal following the state’s case-in-chief.

The trial court denied the motion and the defense rested without presenting a case.

Smith was consequently found guilty and sentenced to the maximum allowable prison term.

On direct appeal to the 9th District court, Smith presented two assignments of error one of which argued that his motion for acquittal should have been granted because there was insufficient evidence to prove the elements of his crime.

Specifically, Smith contended that the state failed to prove that he used force or the threat of force in the commission of his offense.

“We disagree,” Judge Julie Schafer wrote on behalf of the three-judge appellate panel. “A defendant’s actions and demeanor may support a finding of threat of force.”

In applying that standard, the court of appeals found that the evidence produced at trial supported Smith’s robbery conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

“Ms. Hinkle testified that the manner in which the suspect was dressed, coupled with his actions, made her feel nervous and caused a feeling of compulsion to comply with the demand note,” Schafer wrote. “Ms. Hinkle, Ms. Hosey and the customer all testified that they were afraid that the suspect was armed because of his actions and how he was dressed.”

Hinkle also testified that Smith was in total control of the situation and that she did not attempt to give him any bait money or dye packs because Smith’s demand for money from the bottom drawer indicated a knowledge of bank procedure.

“Mr. Smith’s conduct is the quintessential hallmark of a bank robbery,” Schafer wrote. “This court determines that, in the aggregate, Mr. Smith’s actions constituted either a use of force or a threat of an immediate use of force that would cause sufficient fear within a reasonable person and induce that person to part with her property and temporarily suspend her power to exercise her will.”

The appellate panel ruled that the trial court did not err in denying Smith’s motion for acquittal.

In his second assignment of error, Smith contended that he should have been granted a competency hearing before standing trial.

However, the reviewing court found little merit to his claim because the record indicated that the trial court did conduct a competency hearing that met all statutory requirements.

“We conclude that the trial curt did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Smith’s request for a competency evaluation,” Schafer concluded. “Mr. Smith’s assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.”

Presiding Judge Jennifer Hensal and Judge Donna Carr joined Schafer to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Smith, 2015-Ohio-2842.

Copyright © 2015 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved


[Back]