LIFE IS A BOWL OF BERRIES
Who knows how neighbor feuds that simmer for years and years suddenly explode? Maybe Tom Schwendeman knows.
Tom lives next to the Roaches (who are people, not insects). About 14 years ago, the Roaches surrounded their property with a chain link fence, which was clearly on their land. They even had a surveyor lay down pins before the fence went up. Since that time, the Roaches have engaged in such loathsome activities as building campfires in their back yard on as many as five, yes, FIVE occasions, and for spraying herbicide on poison ivy growing along the fence.
We get a sense of how things were going with the Roaches, given that grumpy neighbor Tom called the EPA to complain about the campfires (which occurred at a frequency of about one every two years, if our math skills remain sharp). The EPA, being busy creating environmental disasters of its own, apparently declined to intervene. Also, Tom liked to pick berries that grew along the fence. The herbicide on there poison ivy was the last straw for Tom. Convinced that his next blueberry smoothie would be his last, Tom tried to kick the fence down.
You of course have heard on countless police shows the Miranda warning, you know, “you have the right to remain silent…” Heed it well. Tom should have. As we like to tell clients, remaining silent is not just your right: usually, it’s a damn good idea, too.
Tom did not remain silent, but rather vented his spleen at the deputies who responded to the call. He admitted the fence belonged to the Roaches and was on their land, but… well… the campfires! And the berries! How much is a man supposed to endure?
When it came time for Tom’s misdemeanor trial, his lawyer did not have a lot to work with, other than Tom’s fanciful argument that the fence was already in bad shape, and his tirade did not make it materially worse. For good measure, Tom threw in the woof story that he was only trying to get the fence off his land. The last defense might have worked… if Tom had kept his mouth shut when the cops had first shown up.
State v. Schwendeman, Case No. 17CA7 (Ct.App. Athens Co., Jan. 17, 2018) 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 242. The state charged Tom Schwendeman with criminal damaging, a misdemeanor, because he damaged a chain-link fence between his property and that of his neighbors, Dawn and Gordon Roach.
The Roaches installed the fence about 13 years ago. One day last summer, Tom – apparently furious because the Roaches had sprayed herbicide along the fence to kill poison ivy – began yelling and kicking and showing “a lot of anger towards the fence,” as a witness put it. Someone called the sheriff, and Tom admitted to a deputy that he knew it was not his fence, but that the Roaches liked to have campfires in their back yard that bothered him, and that they had sprayed herbicides for poison ivy along the fence line. Tom said he picked berries along the fence.
By the time he got to trial, Tom had an explanation that was a little more congruent. He complained about his problems with the five or six fires the Roaches had built in their backyard, and argued that because the fence was 12 years old, the only damage he saw to it was “wear and tear that’s happened over the period of twelve years. More than twelve years it’s been there.” He claimed that he witnessed tree branches falling on the fence and the Roaches’ children climbing the fence, causing the fence to come apart, and that one more than one occasion, the kids made “the fence pull loose and collapse on the children when they were climbing it.” He said he disconnected the cyclone fence from the posts carefully, because it was on his property and he wanted to move it. Tom claimed the Roaches knew it was on Tom’s land, but refused to move unless Tom had the property surveyed and took him to court.
But on cross-examination Tom admitted he was angry when he began dismantling the fence, “I had been poisoned. My berries had been poisoned… my food had been poisoned and my next smoothie would make me very ill.” Tom admitted he did not “own” the fence, but continued his claim that “it was on my property.”
Tom’s lawyer argued that children, dogs, and trees caused the damage to the Roaches’ fence. However, defense counsel did not seek a jury instruction that Tom was exercising a privilege to remove an obstruction on his own land and did not object to the court’s jury instructions.
The jury found Tom guilty. He was ordered to pay restitution and a fine. Tom appealed.
Held: The conviction was upheld. Tom claimed on appeal he had the right to remove obstructions from his land, but he never asked the court to instruct the jury on that defense.
When a party fails to object in the trial court, generally he or she cannot make the claim on appeal that was not raised below unless he can show “plain error” that affects substantial rights. It’s a tough standard to meet.
Ohio law does indeed hold that a landowner has the right to use self-help to remove encroachments on his property, provided the landowner acts with reasonable care. That is what is called an “affirmative defense” to the criminal damaging charges that were brought against Tom. But a defendant is not entitled to have the court instruct the jury that unless he has come forward with at least some evidence that, if believed, raises the affirmative defense. Otherwise, the court is not permitted to give a jury instruction on the affirmative defense.
Tom testified the fence was on his land, but he didn’t offer any evidence that that was so. He could have shown a deed, or a survey, or even a plat map. But he had to show something. What’s more, not only did he offer nothing at trial, his testimony that the fence was on his land directly contradicted his statements to two sheriff’s deputies. Without providing a rationale for the inconsistency with his prior admissions to the deputies, the Court said, Tom’s trial testimony was not credible. Because there was no credible evidence supporting his contention that he owned the land, the trial court as a matter of law could not properly give a jury instruction on the affirmative defense.
Tom also argued to the court of appeals that his defense attorney was a putz. The 6th Amendment to the constitution guarantees all criminal defendants effective assistance of counsel. Here, Tom fumed, his attorney was ineffective because he failed to request the jury instruction on Tom’s privilege to remove an encroachment from his land. The appellate court said no dice: based on the lack of evidence supporting the claim, a request for an instruction would have been meritless. Tom’s trial counsel cannot be deficient for failing to request an unwarranted jury instruction. Anyway, the Court of Appeals observed, Tom’s lawyer was pursuing a “wear and tear” defense at trial, making a decision not to argue that Tom also had the right to move it off his property fairly sound trial strategy.
Trial counsel cannot be found deficient, the Court of Appeals said, for failing to request an unwarranted jury instruction or for exercising sound trial strategy.
– Tom Root