The Sixth Appellate District of Ohio has officially upheld the felonious assault conviction of Tasani Mayes, a man linked to a 2024 shooting in Toledo that left a victim wounded and running for his life through a residential neighborhood.
The decision, released March 27, 2026, addresses a trial where the primary witness—the victim himself—never took the stand.
Despite the absence of live testimony from the man who was shot, the court ruled that his immediate identifications of Mayes to 9-1-1 dispatchers and police were legally admissible and sufficient to keep Mayes behind bars.
The Afternoon of the Shooting
The incident dates back to October 20, 2024. Just before 4:00 p.m., ShotSpotter technology alerted Toledo Police to eight rounds fired on Pinewood Avenue.
Minutes later, a frantic 9-1-1 call came from a nearby home on Vance Street. A resident reported a bleeding man on her porch who claimed he had been “running for his life.”
When officers arrived, they found the victim, identified as C.W., suffering from gunshot wounds to his shoulder and back. Despite fading in and out of consciousness, C.W. told Officer Zachary Cairl that the shooter was “Sani from the RECC.” Police identified “Sani” as Tasani Mayes, an individual known to associate with the “RECC Squad.”
The Legal Battle Over Hearsay
Because C.W. did not testify at the trial, Mayes’s defense team argued that the statements identifying him as the shooter were “hearsay”—out-of-court statements used to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
However, the appellate court noted that Mayes’s own defense counsel at the time stated they had “no objection” to the 9-1-1 recordings or body-cam footage being played for the jury. Under Ohio law, this constituted a waiver of the right to challenge that evidence later.
READ: Millions In Fake Refunds, Real Time In Prison: Texas Family Sentenced For Massive IRS Fraud
Furthermore, the court agreed with the original trial judge that the victim’s statements qualified as “excited utterances.” These are legal exceptions to the hearsay rule made while a person is still under the stress of a startling event—in this case, being shot and nearly losing consciousness.
“Just a Random Shooting?”
Mayes also challenged the “knowingly” element of his conviction. His defense argued the State failed to prove he intended to cause harm, characterizing the incident as a “random shooting spree” with no proven motive.
The court rejected this argument, pointing to the facts:
- Eight shots were fired in a residential area.
- Children were playing nearby at the time.
- Evidence showed a prior feud between Mayes and C.W. via phone messages.
“Intentionally shooting toward or in the vicinity of another person when there is a risk of injury meets the ‘knowingly’ element of felonious assault,” the court noted in its decision.
Sentencing Errors and Next Steps
While the court upheld the guilty verdicts for felonious assault and improperly discharging a firearm into a home, it did find several technical errors in how the trial court handled the sentencing paperwork.
The State of Ohio filed its own cross-appeal, pointing out that the trial judge failed to include mandatory “indefinite” prison terms required for high-level felonies under Ohio’s sentencing laws. The appellate court agreed, reversing the sentence in part and sending the case back to the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas for a corrected sentencing hearing.
Mayes remains convicted, but the trial court must now fix clerical errors in the record and properly calculate his maximum possible time behind bars.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
