This post examines a recent opinion from the Ohio Court of Appeals – 9th District: State v. Eggeman, 2015 WL 8553346
(2015). The court begins the opinion by
explaining that “Daniel J. Eggeman, appeals pro se from the judgment of the
Wadsworth Municipal Court.” State v. Eggeman, supra. Wadsworth is a city in Ohio.
The Court of Appeals begins the substantive part of the
opinion by explaining that
[o]n December 6, 2013, Eggeman
contacted the police to report that he was receiving unwanted emails and phone
calls from his ex-wife, Becky Workman. Officer Keith Studer of the Wadsworth
Police Department responded to Eggeman's residence on Chestnut Street. Pamela
Wingate, Eggeman's fiancée, indicated that she was receiving threatening phone
calls from Workman and Eggeman showed Officer Studer emails sent from the email
address becky.workmam@gmail.com to his email address. Notably, the email address
contained a misspelling of Workman's last name.
The emails expressed a desire for
reconciliation and were critical of Ms. Wingate. Officer Studer had Eggeman, in
Studer's presence, send an email to becky.workmam @gmail.com, requesting that
the contact cease. Several days later, Eggeman again contacted Officer Studer
to report that Eggeman had received more emails and wanted Officer Studer to
pursue charges against Workman.
Officer Studer then went to Workman's
house to interview her. Workman denied any involvement and claimed that she had
not had contact with Eggeman since the summer. She indicated that the last time
she saw Eggeman, he asked her to complete a statement and have it notarized.
When she refused, Eggeman became very upset and told her she would be hearing
from his lawyer.
A few days later, Eggeman forwarded
Officer Studer another email sent from the becky.workmam@gmail.com. That email
included references that the sender and Eggeman
had previously discussed ways to kill Wingate so the two could be together.
Given the content, subpoenas were issued to Google for the Internet Protocol
(`IP’) addresses of the Chestnut street address and the becky.workmam Gmail
account for the period from December 6, 2013 through December 23, 2013. Records
revealed that the Gmail account was created July 25, 2013, and was accessed
from two IP addresses during the December time frame.
Police then sent a subpoena to Frontier
Communications, which is the cable internet provider associated with the IP
addresses. The sum of the records indicated that the account was accessed,
during the relevant time period, from Chestnut Street; specifically the address
where Eggeman and Wingate lived. Laptop computers were seized from the Chestnut
Street address and were analyzed by Officer Joshua Cooper, who specializes in
computer forensics.
Ultimately, complaints were filed
against Eggeman on February 3, 2014, for two counts of falsification and one
count of obstructing official business. While Eggeman initially was subject to
a $5,000 cash or surety bond, it was subsequently modified and Eggeman was
released on bond. The Medina County Public Defender's Office initially
represented Eggeman, but later withdrew after Eggeman retained private counsel.
Shortly thereafter, that counsel
withdrew and Eggeman retained another attorney. The matter proceeded to a jury
trial, during which Eggeman was represented by the third attorney. The jury
found Eggeman guilty of the charges. Eggeman represented himself at sentencing
and his sentence was stayed pending appeal.
State v. Eggeman,
supra.
Eggeman raised a number of issues in his appeal. This post only examines one of them. The
Court of Appeals did not address all of the issues he raised, noting that
“[m]any of Eggeman's arguments are not developed in his brief, . . .
rely on evidence that was not before the trial court at the time . . . or rely
on video or audio testimony that Eggeman asserts does not appear in the
transcribed copy.” State v. Eggeman,
supra.
Eggeman’s first argument was that “here was insufficient
evidence to sustain the guilty verdicts.” State
v. Eggeman, supra. The Court of Appeals explained that the
issue of whether a conviction is
supported by sufficient evidence is a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Thompkins, 78
Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio Supreme Court 1997). An appellate court's function when
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is
to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence,
if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence
in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could
have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St. 3d
259
(Ohio Supreme Court 1991). . . .
State v. Eggeman,
supra.
The court went on to explain that Eggeman was
found guilty of violating [Ohio
Revised Code §] 2921.13(A)(2) and (A)(3) and [Ohio Revised
Code §] 2921.31. Ohio Revised Code § 2921.13(A) provides in relevant part
that:
No person shall knowingly make a false
statement, or knowingly swear or affirm the truth of a false statement
previously made, when any of the following applies:
* * *
(2) The statement is made with purpose
to incriminate another.
(3) The statement is made with purpose
to mislead a public official in performing the public official's official
function.
`A person acts knowingly, regardless of
his purpose, when he is aware that his conduct will probably cause a certain
result or will probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of
circumstances when he is aware that such circumstances probably exist.’ Former
Ohio Revised Code § 2901.22(B).
’A person acts purposely when it is his
specific intention to cause a certain result, or, when the gist of the offense
is a prohibition against conduct of a certain nature, regardless of what the
offender intends to accomplish thereby, it is his specific intention to engage
in conduct of that nature.’ Former Ohio Revised Code § 2901.22(A). A public
official includes law enforcement officers. See Ohio Revised Code § R.C. 2921.01(A).
Ohio Revised Code § 2921.31(A) states
that `[n]o person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent,
obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act
within the public official's official capacity, shall do any act that hampers
or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official's lawful
duties.’ `The making of an unsworn false oral statement to a public official
with the purpose to mislead, hamper or impede the investigation of a crime is
punishable conduct within the meaning of Ohio Revised Code §§ 2921.13(A)(3) and 2921.31(A).’
State v. Lazzaro, 76 Ohio St.3d 261 (Ohio Supreme Court 1996).
Nonetheless, `in order to have
sufficient evidence to affirm an obstruction of official business conviction,
there must be evidence that the defendant's actions hampered or impeded a law
enforcement investigation and that the defendant intended such a result to
occur.’ State v. Jordan, , 2014–Ohio–2857 (Ohio Court of Appeals 9th
District 2014) ¶ 40.
State v. Eggeman,
supra.
The Court of Appeals then noted that Eggeman’s
argument
seems to focus on whether there was
sufficient evidence that he was the individual responsible for sending the
emails at issue. `The identity of a perpetrator must be proved by the State
beyond a reasonable doubt.’ State v. Taylor, 2015–Ohio–403, ¶ 6 (Ohio
Court of Appeals 9th District 2015). `[H]owever, identity may be
proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, which do not differ with respect
to probative value.’ State v. Taylor, supra. Thus, our review will
accordingly be limited to whether there was sufficient evidence that Mr.
Eggeman committed the crimes.
After reviewing the evidence in a light
most favorable to the prosecution, and given Eggeman's limited arguments, we determine
sufficient evidence was presented to sustain the guilty verdicts. The
circumstantial evidence would allow a trier of fact to find that Eggeman sent
the emails at issue to himself from the becky.workmam@gmail.com account and
that he nonetheless contacted the police on December 6, 2013, asserting that Workman
sent him the emails in order to get Workman in trouble.
Workman testified at trial and denied
sending the emails or even contacting Eggeman during the relevant period. She
also indicated that the last time she saw Eggeman he had tried to get her to sign
a notarized statement, which she refused to do. Workman indicated that Mr.
Eggeman became very upset at her refusal to comply.
After Eggeman continued to report that
he was receiving emails from the becky.workmam@gmail.com account, police
subpoenaed Google for the IP addresses associated with the Gmail account.
Officer Cooper, who specializes in computer forensics, explained that anyone
can create an email account through Gmail and the person doing so would not
have to supply truthful information.
Officer Cooper testified that every
computer that is on the internet is assigned an IP address. He stated that
an IP address is `like a home address for the computer.’ Officer Cooper further
testified that there are too many devices that connect to the internet to have
static IP addresses, and thus, the internet providers have to change the IP
addresses over time to allow other devices to connect.
With respect to the Gmail account at
issue, which was created on July 25, 2013, two IP addresses were associated
with it during the relevant December 2013 time frame, one ending in .183.198
and one ending in .178.134. On December 6, 2013, the Gmail account was accessed
from the .178.134 address. From December 16, 2013, through December 23, 2013,
the Gmail account was accessed from the .183.198 address. Officer Studer
testified that the dates and times of the emails corresponded to the login
information received from Google.
State v. Eggeman,
supra.
The Court of Appeals continued, explaining that a search of
the
IP addresses was then run using a
website to determine the internet provider associated with the addresses. The
internet provider of the two IP addresses was Frontier Communications. Frontier
Communications was then subpoenaed, and its records indicated that from
December 6, 2013 through December 23, 2013, two physical addresses were
associated with the IP addresses; one of which was not associated with Eggeman
and instead belonged to an individual who lived in Medina. The other physical
address associated with the IP addresses was Eggeman's address on Chestnut
Street.
According to Frontier Communications'
records, from December 3, 2013 until December 11, 2013, the .178.134 address
was associated with the Chestnut Street address and from December 11, 2013 until
December 25, 2013, the .183 .198 address was associated with the Chestnut
Street address. While the .178.134 address was associated with the Medina
household from December 14, 2013 onward, Google's records do not indicate that
the Gmail account was accessed from the .178.134 address during that time
frame. Accordingly, there was evidence that the Gmail account was only accessed
at the Chestnut Street address, where Eggeman resided, during the relevant time
frame.
Additionally, police seized two laptop computers
from the Chestnut street address. While Wingate, Eggeman, Eggeman's father, and
three children all lived at the Chestnut Street address, Wingate testified that
she did not send the emails and the children were not allowed to use the
computers. Additionally, she testified that Eggeman's father was not often home
during the day or on weekends. Officer Cooper created an exact copy of the
images of both hard drives and then processed both through forensic software.
The software allowed Officer Cooper to
search through the data on the hard drives for phrases. In this case, Officer
Cooper chose `Workmam’ as a search term. The search returned 80 plus results.
One of the results appeared to Officer Cooper to be the code for a Google login
screen that included the becky.workmam@gmail.com account as a login option.
Additionally, the internet search history of one of the computers included `How
do I trace the Gmail account?[,]’ `Google account recovery[,]’ `Google delete
account activity [,]’ `how to cure Gmail activity[,]’ and `remove picture from
Google email.’ There was also evidence that that computer was used to access
Mr. Eggeman's email account.
The second computer had documents saved
on it related to computer hacking included, `Secrets of a Super Hacker[,]’ `FBI
Situational Information Report, Sovereign Citizens and the
Internet[,]” “Guide to Mostly Harmless Hacking[,]’ and `Hacking For
Dummies.’ Additionally, there was a document that listed common computer
passwords. Finally, there was a document on the computer entitled, `Screw the B*tch,
Divorce Tactics for Men.’ During his testimony, Eggeman admitted that the
searches and documents were his.
Moreover, when Officer Studer spoke with
Eggeman about the charges, Eggeman seemed fairly knowledgeable about computers
and IP addresses; he even indicated he had his own IP address memorized.
State v. Eggeman,
supra.
The Court of Appeals then explained that, given
all of the foregoing, and viewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude the State
presented sufficient evidence that would allow a trier of fact to find beyond a
reasonable doubt that Eggeman was the person responsible for sending the
emails, that he lied to the police in order to incriminate Workman, and that by
doing so he hindered a police officer in the performance of his duties. There
was circumstantial evidence that the emails were sent from Chestnut Street, where
Eggeman resided. There was also circumstantial evidence that Eggeman was the
person who sent the emails.
The jury could have found it suspicious
that the becky.workmam@gmail.com account included a misspelling of Workman's
name and found it unlikely that Workman would have misspelled her own name if
she created the email address. Additionally, there was evidence that Eggeman
was interested in how Gmail accounts work and how to alter their activity. Finally,
there was evidence that Eggeman had a disagreement with Workman the last time he saw her and that
Eggeman may have held a grudge against her in light of some of the documents
kept on the computers in the house on Chestnut Street. Overall, we cannot say
that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence that Eggeman was the
person involved in these crimes.
State v. Eggeman,
supra.
For these and other reasons, which you can read about in the
court’s opinion, a link to which was included above, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the judgment of the Wadsworth Municipal Court. State v. Eggeman, supra.
No comments:
Post a Comment