Brief of Plaintiff-Appellee, State of Ohio, State V. Sheppard, Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals Case No. 23400

Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU 1954-1955 Post-Trial Motions and Ohio Eighth 1954-1966 Post-Trial Motions, Appeals, & District Court of Appeal Habeas Corpus 4-1-1955 Brief of Plaintiff-Appellee, State of Ohio, State v. Sheppard, Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals Case No. 23400 Frank T. Cullitan Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office Saul S. Danaceau Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office Thomas J. Parrino Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office Gertrude Bauer Mahon Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/ sheppard_eight_district_1950s How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Recommended Citation Cullitan, Frank T.; Danaceau, Saul S.; Parrino, Thomas J.; and Mahon, Gertrude Bauer, "Brief of Plaintiff- Appellee, State of Ohio, State v. Sheppard, Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals Case No. 23400" (1955). 1954-1955 Post-Trial Motions and Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeal. 2. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/sheppard_eight_district_1950s/2 This Appeal No. 23400 is brought to you for free and open access by the 1954-1966 Post-Trial Motions, Appeals, & Habeas Corpus at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1954-1955 Post-Trial Motions and Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeal by an authorized administrator of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CtJyahoga County Coroner's Office Case # 76629 ~>) • y Jf7tltcfi c;c; No. 23400 IN Tl:IE COUR1' OF APPEALS Eighth Judicial District of Ohio Cuyal1oga County , ______ _____ _ STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee~ vs. SAM H. SHEPPARD D e·f en dan t-A pp e·llan t. ~~---------·----~-----...-..--~-'-=~ BRIEF' OF PLAfNTIFF-APP.ELLEE FRANK T. CULLITAN, Prosecuting Attorney of Cuyahoga County. SAUL S. DAN AC EAU. THOMAS J. PARRINO GERTRUDE M. BAUER,. Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys. Attorneys for Plaintlff-Appellee. Court Lithography by MUL'l'I-STAT COPY COMPANY (Neu.. 1kirh, Fincu.n., H.z;tan & !Ylarse) Clt!udand - 1-1'1.ilin J~a9HJ i TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE HISTORY OF TH.E CASE 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS 2 ARGUMENT 6 I THERE WAS NO ERROR IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE AND A CONTINUANCE. 36 II THERE WAS NO ERROR IN DENYING THE MOTIONS FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT OR FOR DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT. 43 III THERE WAS NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN EMPANEL- ING THE JURY, 44 IV THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ADMISSION OF CERTAIN TESTIMONY. 49 v THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN TESTIMONY. 55 VI THERE WAS NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN THE CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL. 59 VII THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE CHARGE OF THE COURT. 65 VIII THERE WAS NO ERROR IN OVERRULING THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. 67 THE VERDICT WAS SUSTAINED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE 71 - 90 CONCLUSION 90 ii EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY Pages Mayor Houk 10 and 11 Officer Fred Drenkhan 12 Dr" Lester Adelson 13 Dr. Sam Sheppard 14 - 1 7 and 3 4-3 Dr, Samuel R. Gerber 17-19 Robert T" Schottke 20-27 Chief Eaton 62 and 63 AUTHORITIES CITED Cases State v, Rkhards, 43 Ohio Appo 212 42 State v. Huffman" 86 Ohio SL 22 9 44 Harrington Vo State, 14 19 Oo S. 264 66 Stewart v, State, 22 0. So 477 66 Bandy v. State, 102 0. s. 384 67 State v, Wayne Neal, 97 0, A, 339, 351 67 Hinshaw v" State, 47 N, Eo 157 (Supreme Court Indiana) 88 Statutes Revised Code of Ohio Section 2945, 29 (13443~,13) 48 24 Section 2313. 37 49 25 Section 2945, 83 03449~5) 89 No. 23400 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS Eighth Judicial District of Ohio 4 Cuyahoga County ii 6 7 ST ATE OF OHIO, g Plaintiff-Appellee, 9 vs. 10 SAM H, SHEPPARD, 11 Defendant-Appellant. 12 13 BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 14 15 FRANK T. CULLITAN, 16 Prosecuting Attorney of Cuyahoga County. 17 SAUL S. DANACEAU. THOMAS J. PARRINO, 18 GERTRUDE M. BAUER, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys. 19 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee. 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 No. 23400 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS Eighth Judicial District of Ohio Cuyahoga County STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SAM H. SHE PP ARD, Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE HISTORY OF THE CASE On August 17, 1954, the defendant-appellant Sam H. 17 hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was indicted by the Grand Jury of Cuyahoga County on a charge of Murder in the First Degree for the killing of his wife, Marilyn Sheppard, on July 4, 1954. The case was tried to a jury before the Honorable Judge 21 Edward Blythin, commencing on October 18, 1954. The trial lasted nine 22 weeks and on December 21, 1954, the jury returned a verdict against the 28 defendant of guilty of Murder in the Second Degree. 24 A Motion for New Trial was filed on December 23, 1954, 25 and a supplement thereto was filed on December 24, 1954, and the Trial 3 Court overruled both motions on January 3, 1955. A Motion for New Trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence was also filed but was later withdrawn. The Memorandum of the Trial Court ruling upon the motion for new trial was ordered filed and made a part of the record. A stay of execution of sentence has been granted pending this appeal. STATEMENT OF FACTS Because of the numerous opinions and interpretations of counsel for the defendant that are interspersed with the alleged facts in their brief, and because of certain omissions of pertinent evidence, the State believes that it is necessary to restate such pertinent facts. 14 The defendant, Dr. Sam H. Sheppard, thirty years of age, 15 resided at 2 8924 Lake Road, Bay Village, Ohio, with his wife, Marilyn 16 Sheppard, age thirty-one, and their son, Samuel Reese Sheppard, Jr., 17 age seven, known as "Chip. " Living at the home also was the family dog named Koko. The defendant worked at Bay View Hospital, located in 20 Bay Village, Ohio, which, to a great degree, was established through 21 the efforts of Dr. Richard Sheppard, Sr., the father of the defendant. Working at the hospital also were the defendant's brothers, Dr. Stephen 23 Sheppard and Dr. Richard Sheppard, Jr., all osteopathic physicians and 24 surgeons. 25 The home of the defendant is located on the north side of 4 Lake Road, which extends in an easterly and westerly direction. A door leads to a screened in porch on the so-called front of the home, which faces Lake Erie on the north. Beyond this porch to the north is a lawn of some 20 or 30 feet, ending in a sharp descent, at the base of which is a beach on Lake Erie. There is a series of 5 2 steps from the top of the hill leading down to a bath house and in turn to the beach. The area from 7 the top of the hill to the beach is covered with thick, high grass, brush, weeds and stones. North of the house is a small building used as a storage room. To the east of the house is a two-car garage. A wide lawn extends to Lake Road from the back, or south side, of the home. There are trees on the lawn. There is a door on the south side of the house, leading to a vestibule to the west of which is the kitchen. In the northwest corner of the kitchen there is a door leading to a series of eight steps descending into the basement. To the east of the vestibule is a room that was used as a combination den and doctor's 16 cffice. 17 The vestibule then leads into an L-shaped living room in 18 which there is an assortment of furniture and a television set against the 19 north wall. From both the kitchen and the living room, on the south side, 20 three steps lead to a small landing, and from there 12 steps ascend to the 21 second floor. Both on the wall at the point of the small landing leading 22 to the second floor, and at the top of the stairs in the second-floor hallway 23 are electric light switches for lights that illuminate both the stairway and 24 the upper hallway, which extends east and west and is approximately four 25 feet in width. 5 Directly at the top of the stairs and across this hallway is 2 r! the room that was occupied by the murdered Marilyn. To the west off ii this hallway there is a guest bedroom. Chip's room was next to and east : ii of Marilyn's room. Across the hallway and south of Chip's room is a reading room in which was the only light burning at the time of the arrival , II of the Houks and the police. Another guest bedroom is located to the east 6 ·I 7 \i of this room, occupied the night before the murder by Dr. Lester Hover- ' Ii sten. Also across from Chip's room is a bathroom. :: 9 I: On Thursday afternoon, July 1, 1954, Dr. Lester Hoversten, lO j' a former schoolmate of the defendant, arrived at the defendant 1s home as Jj 11 a guest. He came there from the Grandview Hospital in Dayton, Ohio, 12 where he had been working. He stayed at the Sheppard home until the 13 morning of July 3, 1954, when he left to visit another friend, Dr. Richard 14 Stevenson, at Kent, Ohio, intending to spend the evening with him and to 15 ii play golf with him the next day.

Load more