Court upholds Jones’ murder conviction

DAVE MOSIER/independent editor

The Ohio Third District Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of a Van Wert man who brutally murdered his own grandmother on October 1, 2010.

In a unanimous decision written by Judge John Willamowski, the appellate court affirmed the conviction of Shawn M. Jones, who was convicted of murder in the death of Edna LaRue, Jones’ 84-year-old grandmother.

Jones, through attorney Kelly Rauch, had appealed his conviction, handed down following a three-day trial by Van Wert County Common Pleas Judge Charles D. Steele that ended October 18, 2011. Judge Steele sentenced Jones to a prison term of 15 years to life in the death of LaRue, who he was paid to care for, but instead beat her and strangled her to death in a fit of anger after she refused to allow him to use her vehicle and leave the residence.

Rauch cited three errors in the trial, the first being denial of his motion to suppress a videotape of his confession to his grandmother’s murder, the second when hearsay evidence was admitted and the third stating that Jones was denied effective assistance of legal counsel.

In denying the first assignment of error, Judge Willamowski said that Jones was properly Mirandized by Detective Sergeant Jeff Blackmore prior to questioning, and rejecting Jones’ claim that questioned the court’s finding that he was not actually “in custody” when he was interviewed by police.

“Giving due deference to the trial court’s findings of fact, we find that this determination (Jones was not in custody when questioned) was supported by credible evidence at the suppression hearing,” Willamowski said. “However, whether he was in custody or not is immaterial in this case, because (Jones) was informed of his Miranda rights before the interview with the officers began.”

The appellate court decision also supported the trial court’s finding that Jones’ confession was voluntary.

Judge Willamowski, while agreeing with Jones’ contention that hearsay evidence by witnesses in the case against him was likely improperly admitted, he also called the admission “harmless error” because the remaining evidence in the case provided “overwhelming proof” of Jones’ guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellate court decision also rejected Jones’ contention that he had ineffective legal counsel during the trial, largely because his lawyer failed to object to the hearsay evidence, also failed to object to the admission of various trial exhibits without a proper legal foundation and failed to object to “improper opinion testimony” from Sgt. Blackmore.

Judge Willamowski, in his decision, said that, to be ineffective, Jones must show that his attorney’s performance fell “below an objective standard of reasonable representation” and prejudice, that is, a reasonable probability that, but for the attorney’s errors, the results of the trial would have been different.

The judge said the failure to make objections is not, of itself, enough to sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and, in fact, could be justified as a tactical decision by the lawyer.

In the case of whether Jones’ attorney should have objected to the admission of trial exhibits, Judge Willamowski said that trial courts enjoy a “broad discretion” when it comes to admitting or rejecting evidence, and that, notwithstanding objections by Jones’ attorney, the exhibits could have been admitted anyway.

A final claim by Jones that his attorney was ineffective because he did not do enough in trying to establish a “not guilty by reason of insanity” plea was also rejected by the appellate court, which stated that Dr. Thomas Sherman, a psychiatrist for Court Diagnostics Center in Toledo who evaluated Jones, specifically said during Jones’ competency hearing that the defendant “did not suffer from a mental disease or defect which prevented him from knowing the wrongfulness of his acts.”

In addition to Judge Willamowski, Judges Vernon Preston and Richard Rogers also concurred in the decision.