IN the SUPREME COURT of OHIO STATE of OHIO, : Case No. 2014-0313 : Appellee, : : Death Penalty Case - Vs - : : RICHARD JAMES BEASLEY, : : Appellant
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed February 06, 2015 - Case No. 2014-0313 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : Case No. 2014-0313 : Appellee, : : Death Penalty Case - vs - : : RICHARD JAMES BEASLEY, : : Appellant. : On Appeal from the Summit County Court of Common Pleas Summit County, Ohio, Case No. CR201201069 MERIT BRIEF OF APPELLEE STATE OF OHIO SHERRI BEVAN WALSH (#0030038) TYSON FLEMING* (#0073135) Summit County Prosecutor *Counsel of Record 53 University Avenue OHIO PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE Akron, OH 44308 250 E. Broad Street, Suite 1400 330-643-2800 (voice) Columbus, OH 43215 330-643-8277 (facsimile) 614-644-9651 (voice) 614-644-0708 (facsimile) Special Assistant Summit County Prosecutor [email protected] THOMAS E. MADDEN (#0077069) DANIEL PAUL JONES (#0041224) Senior Assistant Attorney General OHIO PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE 150 E. Gay Street, 16th Floor 250 E. Broad Street, Suite 14001 Columbus, OH 43215 Columbus, OH 43215 614-995-3234 (voice) 614-466-5394 (voice) 866-239-5489 (facsimile) 614-644-0708 (facsimile) [email protected] [email protected] STEPHEN MAHER* (#0032279) RANDALL LEE PORTER (#0005835) *Counsel of Record OHIO PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE Senior Assistant Attorney General 250 E. Broad Street, Suite 1400 [email protected] Columbus, OH 43215 614-466-5394 (voice) Counsel for Appellee, State of Ohio 614-644-0708 (facsimile) [email protected] Counsel for Appellant, Richard Beasley TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. i INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS .................................................................................................... 7 LAW AND ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 63 Response To Prop. 1: Where The Record Contains Facts That Fairly Support The Imposition Of Consecutive Sentences, And The Imposition Of Court Costs Is Mandatory, Beasley’s Contention Of Error Elevates Form Over Substance And Should Be Rejected. ...............................................................................................................................63 Response to Proposition Of Law 2: Beasley’s Claim Of Biased Jury Due To Pretrial Publicity, Where Prejudice Is To Be Presumed, Fails For A Complete Lack Of Evidence Before The Trial Court, And Any Claim Of Actual Bias Of A Seated Juror Is Waived For Failure To Exercise Two Remaining Peremptory Challenges, In View That Only Two Prospective Jurors Expressed A Bias Due To Pretrial Publicity But Were Excused For Cause. ................................................................................................................... 69 Response to Proposition of Law 3: A Brief and Singular Reference To The Biblical Origin Of A Common Metaphor, Followed By Curative Instruction, Does Not Amount To Prosecutorial Misconduct, Nor Did The Prosecutor Misrepresent The Subordinate Role Of The Law Enforcement Witness Who Aided In Beasley’s Arrest. ............................... 78 Response To Proposition Of Law No. 4: The Juror Bias Claim Has Been Waived For Failure To Object Below, And Plain Error Is Not Present Where Juror No. 5 Gave No Reason To Believe His Acquaintance With A State’s Witness Would Give Rise To Any Bias .................................................................................................................................... 85 Response To Proposition Of Law No. 5: Where Beasley Never Moved The Trial Court For A Mistrial, The Alleged Error Has Been Waived, And Plain Error Is Not Present Since Beasley’s Criminal Past Was A Component Of His Trial Defense Strategy ................. 90 Response to Proposition of Law No. 6: Where Testimony Regarding Out-of-Court Statements Is Presented Without Objection and Is Admissible Under the Rules of Evidence, the Trial Court Does Not Err in Permitting Admission of that Testimony .............. 95 Response To Prop. 7: Where None Of Beasley’s Claims Show Deficient Performance, And Beasley’s Prejudice Analysis Ignores The Adverse Impact Of His Own Testimony, Beasley’s Claims Of Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Should Be Rejected On The Performance Prong And The Prejudice Prong Of The Strickland Test ...... 112 i Response To Prop. 8: Where Following An Express Invitation To Allocute Before Capital Sentencing Beasley Twice Declined To Do So, The Trial Court Fully Complied With Ohio Crim. R. 32(A)(1) Such That Beasley’s Assertion Of Error As To Restricted Capital Allocution Fails On The Facts ................................................................... 140 Response To Prop. 9: This Court Has Repeatedly Rejected The Constitutional Challenges Beasley Presents ...................................................................................................................... 143 Response To Prop. 10: Where Beasley Ignores Abundant Evidence Of Guilt, And Erroneously Criticizes The State’s Theory Of The Case That Is Not Evidence, Beasley’s Claim That His Conviction Is Against The Manifest Weight Of The Evidence Fails To Show Grounds For Relief.......................................................................... 150 Response To Prop. 11: Where The Record Shows Beasley Received A Fair Trial, And There Are No Instances Of Trial Court Error, Beasley has Failed To Show Grounds For Application Of The Doctrine Of Cumulative Error .......................................................... 172 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 173 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................................... 174 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE(S) Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 140 U.S. 76 (1891) .........................................................................................................146, 153 Baird v. State, 831 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. S.Ct. 2005) ..........................................................................................149 Baze v. Parker, 371 F.3d 310 (6th Cir. 2004) .........................................................................................112, 113 Bobby v. Van Hook, 130 S.Ct. 13 (2009) ................................................................................................................113 Bond v. United States, 134 S.Ct. 2077 (2014) ....................................................................................................149, 150 Brady v. Stafford, 115 Ohio St.67 (1926)..............................................................................................................96 Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) ...............................................................................................................145 Buell v. Mitchell, 274 F.3d at 368 ......................................................................................................................147 Burt v. Titlow, 134 S.Ct. 10 (2013) ................................................................................................................113 Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538 (1998) ...............................................................................................................150 In re Callahan, 2014 Ohio 3175......................................................................................................................116 Carter v. Mitchell, 443 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................113 Commonwealth v. Judge, 916 A.2d 511 (Pa S.Ct. 2007) ................................................................................................148 Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) .........................................................................................................111, 112 Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) ...........................................................................................................113 iii D’Ambrosio v. Bagley, 2006 WL 1169926 ................................................................................................................117 D’Ambrosio v. Bagley, 527 F.3d 489 (6th Cir. 2007) ..................................................................................................117 Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) ...............................................................................................................137 Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965) .................................................................................................................73 Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164 (1988) ...............................................................................................................147 Getsy v. Mitchell, 495 F.3d 295 (6th Cir. 2007) (en banc) .................................................................................147 Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) .......................................................................................................144, 150 Gross v. Greer, 773 F.2d 116 (7th Cir. 1985) .................................................................................................108