Portage County Legal News

Court rejects appeal from man who attacked ex-girlfriend

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: April 15, 2014

A three-judge appellate panel in the 8th District recently found little merit to an appeal that challenged a guilty verdict rendered in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas convicting Rudy Casey of aggravated burglary.

Casey challenged the sufficiency and weight of the evidence presented against him and claimed that he had permission to enter the home in which he was accused of trespassing.

The court of appeals ruled that the prosecution succeeded in proving all elements of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt and reviewed trial testimony where Casey admitted that he had no permission to be on the property.

Casey was indicted on charges of aggravated burglary, kidnapping, domestic violence, child endangering, assault and aggravated menacing.

The victim, Laura Caraballo, testified at a bench trial that Casey was her ex-boyfriend and that they had three children together.

She told the court that Casey had been living with a new girlfriend, Callie Kho, since March 2012.

On the evening of Oct. 20, 2012, Casey pounded on Caraballo’s front door and she refused to let him in.

He proceeded to break through the door and enter the house where Caraballo was present with her three children and her friend, Carlie Deal.

Casey was angry that Caraballo was not returning his phone calls and that Deal was in the home because he disliked her boyfriend.

According to case summary, he began screaming at Deal and then grabbed her by the throat and held her over the porch railing.

He then shoved Caraballo on the couch and demanded that she call Deal’s boyfriend. Instead, Caraballo dialed 911.

On the recording of the 911 call, which was played at trial, Caraballo was heard telling Casey to leave the house.

Casey grabbed Caraballo’s cell phone and went outside, where he told Kho, who was sitting in a vehicle, to pick up a friend and bring a gun.

As Kho drove away, Casey grabbed Caraballo and threw her to the ground.

Police arrived shortly thereafter and Casey was arrested.

Caraballo testified that, while Casey stored some of his old things in the basement, he did not live at the home and did not pay rent or receive any mail at the house.

She said Casey and Kho had helped her move in to that house in August 2012, but Casey did not have permission to enter on the night of Oct. 20.

She explained that she had taken back a set of spare keys that she had previously given to Casey.

Kho testified that Casey had previously lived in Caraballo’s house but that he did not have permission to enter the home since Oct. 10, 2012.

On cross-examination, the state played recording of Casey’s jail phone conversations where he was heard coaching Kho on what to say at trial.

Casey testified that he lived with Caraballo and did not need permission to enter the house.

He said that he broke through the front door because he saw Deal inside and was concerned for the children’s safety.

That story changed when he was confronted with his jail phone conversations.

At that point, Casey admitted that Caraballo took his keys away, that Caraballo was the sole tenant of the house and he did not have permission to come inside.

At the conclusion of the trial, Casey was found guilty of aggravated burglary, domestic violence, assault, aggravated menacing and a single count of child endangering.

The trial court sentenced him to three years in prison for the aggravated burglary to be served concurrently with six-month terms for the other offenses.

On appeal, Casey only challenged the aggravated burglary conviction and the 8th District affirmed.

“In finding Casey guilty of aggravated burglary, the court acknowledged that privilege was a pivotal issue, noting that Casey had previously possessed a key to the premises and that he stored belongings on the premises,” wrote Judge Eileen T. Gallagher on behalf of the appellate panel.

Despite Casey’s statements to the contrary, Judge Gallagher noted that the trial court found that Caraballo had sole custody and control of the house because her name was on the lease, she alone paid rent and she had revoked Casey’s privilege when she had taken his keys from him.

Casey, however, contended that his rights were violated when the trial court failed to discuss the “knowing” element of aggravated burglary.

The appellate panel held that, on cross-examination, Casey admitted that he did not have permission to enter the residence.

“Therefore, even if the court failed to make an express finding that Casey ‘knowingly’ entered Caraballo’s house without privilege to do so, the weight of the evidence demonstrates that the state proved this element and all the elements of aggravated burglary beyond a reasonable doubt,” wrote Judge Gallagher.

As a result, the Cuyahoga County court’s judgment was affirmed.

Presiding Judge Sean Gallagher and Judge Kenneth Rocco concurred.

The case is cited State v. Casey, 2014-Ohio-1229.

[Back]