YOUNGSTOWN — The appeal of Brandon Crump Jr.’s convictions and sentence in the 2020 killing of 4-year-old Rowan Sweeney states Mahoning County Common Pleas Court Judge Anthony D’Apolito erred in allowing jurors to see “over 100 gruesome and repetitive photographs” of the crime scene and that they unfairly prejudiced the jury, which found Crump guilty of aggravated murder and other offenses.

The issue was one of six errors that attorney Rhys Cartwright-Jones alleges the judge made while handling Crump’s February trial and July sentencing.

The appeal also argues that the judge should have dismissed a “conspiracy” charge for lack of an “overt act,” should not have allowed testimony suggesting that Crump committed “other acts” in Youngstown that connected to evidence in the Rowan murder and that there was insufficient evidence to convict Crump of Rowan’s killing because of “unreliable eyewitness testimony.”

Finally, the filing in the 7th District Court of Appeals argued that the judge failed to adequately consider the mitigating factors presented during Crump’s sentencing hearing regarding Crump’s “severe childhood trauma” and “mental health diagnoses.” The judge sentenced Crump to 52 years to life in prison in July.

The appeal seeks reversal of Crump’s convictions and removal of his sentence and an order sending the case back to common pleas court for a new trial.

Crump, 22, was convicted at trial in the Sept. 21, 2020, killing and robbery in a home on Struthers that also resulted in four adults being shot and seriously injured, including Rowan’s mother, Alexis Schneider.

Two co-defendants, Kimonie Bryant, 28, and Andre McCoy, 24, took plea agreements and were both sentenced to shorter life prison sentences than Crump, with McCoy, Scheider and victim Cassandra Marsicola testifying in Crump’s trial.

The filing, called a merit brief, focused on the unreliability of the witnesses in the case, noting how Schneider and Marsicola both identified Bryant as the shooter, then Schneider changed her identification to Crump. Marsicola initially identified Bryant as the shooter but at the trial said she no longer knew who the shooter was.

The filing noted that the crime scene was “bad,” and Crump’s trial attorney, Lou DeFabio, objected to some of the crime-scene photos being shown to the jury, as being “graphic,” which “rendered them overly prejudicial” to Crump.

Cartwright-Jones urged the appeals panel to consider the issue by a higher standard than normally applied to non-capital (not death penalty) crimes because this case involves “the gravest of offenses” and Crump was 17 — a juvenile — at the time of the offenses, “a fact that necessitates heightened caution to ensure fairness and prevent undue prejudice.”

Cartwright-Jones cited an Ohio appeals court ruling in which the higher standard was applied to noncapital cases. He noted that the Ohio Supreme Court describes gruesome photographs as those showing “actual bodies” and noted the “associated ‘shock value’ often seen” in images of death. “The court has criticized the admission of excessive autopsy photographs in murder trials, highlighting that such images might not serve any useful purpose but might inflame the jurors’ passions,” he stated.

“Lately, courts apply a ‘stricter evidentiary standard’ for admitting gruesome photographs and ‘strongly cautioned’ judicious use,” he stated. In the Crump trial, DeFabio objected to the prosecution showing “over 100 photographs, depicting a small living room where the incident occurred,” stating that the “repetitive images served no purpose beyond inflaming the jury.”

The appeal argued that to convict Crump of conspiring with Bryant and McCoy to commit a robbery that resulted in the killing of the boy and shootings of the adults, the prosecution needed to prove an “allegation of a specific, substantial overt act.” It argues that Crump’s indictment did not contain the necessary “allegation and proof” of such an act “in furtherance of the conspiracy.”

RAVENWOOD EVIDENCE

Allowing testimony and evidence regarding shell casings recovered at a home on Ravenwood Avenue in Youngstown where a gun and glove were retrieved that prosecutors linked to Crump was improper because the evidence was “unrelated and prejudicial information that portrayed Crump as someone prone to violence and criminal activity,” the filing states.

DeFabio “contended that these pieces of evidence lacked direct relevance to the charges Crump faced,” and prosecutors “failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the Ravenwood evidence and the Perry Street events, rendering its admission improper” under Ohio Rules of Evidence.

Similarly, the judge failed to provide a limiting instruction to the jury on the use of the “other acts” evidence from the home on Ravenwood Avenue, the filing states. Such instructions “protect against jurors improperly using the evidence to infer the defendant’s bad character or propensity for criminal behavior,” it adds.

The appeal argued when the judge sentenced Crump, he “acknowledged Crump’s youth and difficult upbringing as mitigating factors,” but he “found the gravity of the offenses and the harm inflicted on the victims and their families to outweigh these considerations.” The judge emphasized the need for accountability and the importance of public safety, stating that a sentence above the minimum ensured justice for the victims and reflected the seriousness of Crump’s actions.

But the judge “failed to adequately consider Brandon Crump’s severe childhood trauma and its profound influence on his actions, as detailed in the psychological report,” the filing states. According to the report, Crump endured “frequent beatings by his father and neglect by his mother, leading to a lack of stability and guidance during his formative years. This neglect and abuse deprived Crump of the foundational structure necessary to develop sound decision-making and coping skills.”