ROMINGER LEGAL
Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS
NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH
This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH
COURT REPORTERS
PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS
PROCESS SERVERS
DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS
EXPERT WITNESSES

 

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

 
Web Rominger Legal

Legal News - Legal Headlines

 


THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT, v. SMITH, APPELLANT AND
CROSS-APPELLEE.
[Cite as State v. Smith (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 89.]
Criminal law -- Aggravated murder -- Death penalty -- Appeals -- Amendments
to Section 2(B)(2)(c) and Section 3(B)(2), Article IV, Ohio Constitution and
R.C. 2953.02 are constitutional -- All cases in which sentence of death has
been imposed for an offense committed on or after January 1, 1995 shall be
directly appealed from the trial court to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
1.
The amendments to Section 2(B)(2)(c) and Section 3(B)(2), Article IV,
Ohio Constitution, and the implementing statute, R.C. 2953.02, are
constitutional.
2.
The courts of appeals shall not accept jurisdiction of any case in which the
sentence of death has been imposed for an offense committed on or after
January 1, 1995. Appeals in such cases shall be made directly from the trial
court to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
(Nos. 96-677 and 96-678 -- Submitted March 5, 1997 -- Decided October 15,
1997.)
APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Common Pleas Court of Butler County, No.
CR 95-05-0471.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Butler County, No. CA96-02-024.

On May 12, 1995, sometime around 11:00 p.m., defendant-appellant,
Kenneth W. Smith ("defendant"), and his brother, Randy Smith ("Randy"),
brutally murdered Lewis Ray and Ruth Ray in their Hamilton, Ohio home. Lewis
was severely beaten, his skull was fractured, and his throat was slit, severing his
windpipe and carotid arteries. Ruth died from manual strangulation. Their home
was ransacked, and money and jewelry were taken. The following morning, David


L. Lester, Ruth's son, discovered the bodies of his mother and stepfather and
called the police.

In the Rays' home, police observed signs of a struggle, blood on the kitchen
floor, and bloody footprints throughout the house. Police found a damaged white
ceramic coffee pot covered with blood stains in the trash can and a green army
camouflage hat on the floor. A knife had recently been removed from a butcher
block set. Police found Lewis lying on the kitchen floor and Ruth lying in the
doorway between the hall and bedroom. The Rays' bedroom had been ransacked,
and the contents of dressers were strewn about the floor.

Earlier in the evening of May 12, 1995, defendant and Randy had gone to
the Crystal Lounge, a.k.a. Crystal Bar, with a friend, Russell C. Baker. At
approximately 10:20 p.m., defendant borrowed Baker's car allegedly to pick up
his wife, Brenda Smith, and some friends. By midnight, defendant had not
returned Russell's car. At about that time, Brenda and Lillian Canafax, Randy's
live-in girlfriend, arrived at the Crystal Lounge also looking for the Smith
brothers. About forty-five minutes later, Russell and the two women decided to go
to Chasteens Bar. Defendant eventually showed up at Chasteens Bar at
approximately 1:30 a.m. When Russell questioned defendant about the car,
defendant claimed that he was late because he had been in a fight at a gas station.
Defendant showed Russell a bump on his head. At the time, Russell also noticed
that defendant had changed his clothes.

At approximately 2:00 a.m., defendant left Chasteens Bar in his Monte
Carlo automobile with Brenda, Randy, Lillian, and Russell. Defendant drove to
his house, handed his car keys to Randy, and instructed Randy to take a stuffed
pillowcase from a nearby blue automobile and put it into the trunk of the Monte
Carlo. Russell accused the Smith brothers of being "out thieving with my car."

2


Defendant replied, "Russell, I wouldn't do that." The group then drove to
Buckeye Street, where Russell's brother, James, was staying. Russell soon went
home and to bed.

In the early hours of May 13, 1995, defendant admitted to his friend, James
Baker, that he had killed Lewis Ray and that his brother, Randy, had strangled
Ruth Ray. James testified that on May 12, 1995, he was staying at his mother's
apartment, when defendant and Randy arrived at approximately 1:30 a.m. in
Russell's automobile. The Smiths had been to the apartment earlier in the evening
before going to the Crystal Lounge. Defendant told James that he had been in a
fight, and James noticed that defendant had cleaned up and changed clothes.
Defendant was wearing a sweater and boots instead of tennis shoes. He was not
wearing a hat. James further testified that defendant left the apartment again at
1:35 a.m. to go to Chasteens Bar.

When defendant returned to James's mother's apartment at approximately
2:45 a.m., he began to tell James about the murders. James testified that defendant
told him that he had taken a hammer and "struck Louie Ray between his eye[s],"
and that during this time, defendant had winked at his brother, Randy, who
followed Ruth into a bedroom and strangled her. Defendant also told James that
they took gold and jewelry in a pillowcase from the Rays' home.

James testified that when he asked defendant why he killed the Rays,
defendant replied that they had killed them to prevent the Rays from identifying
them. James testified that defendant "was talking how he sliced Lewis Ray's
throat from ear to ear and just laughing about it." Defendant also told James that
after he killed Lewis, he "kicked Ruth's brain in" to make sure she was dead.
James testified that defendant brought a pillowcase stuffed with jewelry inside the
apartment, but James asked him to take it back to the car.

3



Later that morning, James was driving around with defendant and Brenda.
They stopped to buy cigarettes and marijuana. Defendant mentioned to James that
he was concerned because he lost his green army camouflage hat in the struggle
with Lewis. Eventually they drove to Russell's home. There, out of defendant's
presence, James told Russell what defendant had admitted. Defendant then
suggested to James that he hide the remaining jewelry. This prompted Russell to
contact the police. Police later recovered the jewelry in the attic of a garage.

In addition to the testimony of James Baker, Lillian Canafax testified that
she was outside Chasteens Bar arguing with Randy when he showed her a gun.
She testified that she saw the same gun in her bedroom the following morning.
Several days later, after she found the gun and money under the bed, she
authorized police to search the apartment. Lillian also turned over to police three
money orders she had purchased for Randy the day after these crimes occurred.

Another witness testified that around 11:15 or 11:30 p.m., he saw Randy
standing outside a pizza parlor about a block from the Rays' residence. The
witness testified that Randy had a hammer in his hand as he ducked behind the
building. Russell testified that a hammer was missing from his car after he had
loaned his car to defendant.

That afternoon, the police detained defendant for questioning. At the time,
police observed cuts and scratches on defendant's face, and a long cut and bruises
near his right collarbone. Police also searched Brenda's purse and discovered a
cellophane bag containing rings, two $100 bills, and a quantity of nonsequentially
numbered food stamps. Police knew that Lewis sold similar jewelry and suspected
that he may have dealt in food stamps as currency.

At the police station, defendant waived his Miranda rights and admitted that
he and Randy had killed Lewis and Ruth. Defendant said that while at the Crystal

4


Bar, he and Randy had talked about going to rob the Rays, and decided that they
would have to kill the Rays because they did not want the Rays to be able to
identify them. Defendant told police that after arriving at the Rays' house, he and
Lewis began to argue about money that defendant supposedly owed Lewis.
Defendant further admitted that he picked up an object from the kitchen counter
and struck Lewis, eventually overpowering him. Defendant claimed that Lewis
said, "I'm going to kill you, Kenny," so defendant grabbed a knife and cut Lewis's
throat. He then rolled Lewis on his side and took his wallet. Defendant said he
walked to the bedroom and saw Ruth's body on the floor. Randy had choked her
to death. The two men ransacked the bedroom and left in Russell's automobile.

Police apprehended Randy Smith. They found $344 in bloodstained
currency on him. Randy initially denied any knowledge of the murders. Police
allowed Randy to speak with his brother, who said, "They got us brother,
everybody is telling on us, tell the truth, that's what I did." Randy then explained
to the police his involvement in the crimes.

Later, after again being advised of his Miranda rights, defendant gave the
police a written confession. In his statement, defendant said that while playing
pool at the Crystal Lounge, he talked with Randy about robbing Lewis. He
borrowed Russell's car and drove to a pool hall about half a block from the Ray
home. Defendant stated that he and his brother walked to the Rays' house. Lewis
invited the Smiths into his home. Defendant and Lewis began to argue about
$2,500 that defendant owed Lewis. The men began to fight in the kitchen and
defendant grabbed something from the counter and struck Lewis's head. They
continued to wrestle on the floor. Defendant knew he was going to have to kill
Lewis to keep him from telling anyone what happened. Defendant then grabbed a
knife and "sliced Louie across the throat."

5



In his written confession, defendant further admitted that he took Lewis's
wallet, then walked into the bedroom. Ruth was lying on the floor in the doorway,
and defendant had to step over her body. Defendant said he asked Randy what
had happened, and Randy said he had choked Ruth. Defendant further admitted
that he then ransacked the bedroom, taking rings, watches, and necklaces, and
placed the items in a plastic bag and left.

According to his signed confession, defendant went home after the murders
to shower and change clothes. He and Randy divided the money found in Lewis's
wallet. Defendant's share was around $625. Defendant then put his bloody
clothes, the knife, and Lewis's wallet into a green trash bag that Randy later threw
into the river. The two men then drove to Chasteens Bar.

In his confession, defendant explained that after leaving Chasteens Bar, he
drove to the apartment where James Baker was staying and began to go through
the jewelry that the defendant and Randy had taken from the Rays' house.
Defendant picked out some items he wanted to keep. The following morning he
placed some rings into a plastic bag and gave them to Brenda, who put them into
her purse. Defendant put the remainder of the jewelry into the trunk of his Monte
Carlo. He and James then put the jewelry into the attic of James's grandmother's
garage. During police questioning, defendant also admitted that the wristwatch he
was wearing had belonged to Lewis.

At trial, defendant testified that he and Randy went to the Rays, intending
only to steal saws and drills from the yard. They parked the car away from the
house, but as they walked into the yard, Lewis opened the gate and saw them.
Lewis invited them into the house, and the men began to argue about money that
defendant allegedly owed Lewis. Defendant testified that within ten minutes,
"everything got real violent." Lewis "jumped up," told defendant he "was going

6


to shoot" him, and hit defendant "upside the head with something." Defendant
testified that he grabbed something from near the stove and struck Lewis.
Defendant testified that Lewis tried to push him down the basement steps.
Defendant then grabbed a knife and cut Lewis as he approached. Defendant bent
down, turned Lewis on his side, and grabbed his wallet. Defendant further
testified that Randy told him that he had choked Ruth. The brothers then
ransacked the bedroom, taking jewelry.

Defendant denied that he intended to kill the Rays. Defendant claimed that
Lewis was his best friend, and he "wouldn't cold blooded kill him for nothing."
Defendant testified that he was very upset about the Rays because they were "like
family" to him. He admitted that he told James about killing Lewis, but testified
that he wasn't laughing or joking, but instead, he was "in tears."

Kenneth Smith was charged in two counts with the aggravated felony-
murder of Lewis Ray and Ruth Ray in violation of R.C. 2903.01(B). Each murder
charge contained three death specifications: the offense was committed to escape
detection, apprehension, trial, or punishment for other offenses, R.C.
2929.04(A)(3); the offense was part of a course of conduct involving the
purposeful killing of two or more persons, R.C. 2929.04(A)(5); and the offense
was committed during the course of an aggravated robbery, R.C. 2929.04(A)(7).
He was also charged with two counts of aggravated robbery that included the
allegation of a prior felony conviction for attempted burglary. The jury convicted
defendant as charged and recommended the death penalty on the aggravated
murder counts. The trial court sentenced defendant to death.

In case No. 96-677, defendant directly appeals his convictions and sentence
from the trial court to this court, and the state cross-appeals on an issue related to
the merger of the murder specifications. Defendant attempted to appeal to the

7


court of appeals, but his appeal was dismissed because the appellate court stated
that it lacked jurisdiction over death penalty appeals under the Ohio Constitution
as amended in 1994. In case No. 96-678, defendant appeals the court of appeals'
dismissal. Upon motion, this court consolidated the cases.
__________________

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Michael L. Collyer, Assistant
Attorney General; John F. Holcomb, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Daniel
G. Eichel and John M. Holcomb, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee and
cross-appellant.

David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, Kathleen A. McGarry and Stephen
A. Ferrell, Assistant State Public Defenders, for appellant and cross-appellee.

Joseph T. Deters and William E. Breyer, urging affirmance for amicus
curiae, Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association.

W. Andrew Hasselbach, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Association
of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

J. Dean Carro, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Law Professors' Amicus
Curiae Brief Committee.
__________________

LUNDBERG STRATTON, J. In these appeals, Kenneth Smith challenges the
constitutionality of the 1994 amendments to the Ohio Constitution that provide for
the direct appeal of capital cases from common pleas courts to the Supreme Court
of Ohio. Defendant also raises nineteen propositions of law for review. For the
reasons that follow, we hold that Ohio's appellate process for capital cases does
not violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause of the United
States Constitution. Upon review of each proposition of law, we find none

8


warrants reversal of defendant's convictions or death sentence. Pursuant to R.C.
2929.05(A), we have independently weighed the aggravating circumstances
against the mitigating factors, and compared the sentence to those imposed in
similar cases for both counts of aggravated murder. Accordingly, we affirm his
convictions and uphold the sentences of death.
I
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DIRECT REVIEW

On November 8, 1994, Ohio voters approved Issue I, which amended
Section 2(B)(2)(c), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution to provide for direct appeal
to this court "as a matter of right in cases in which the death penalty has been
imposed." Concurrently, Section 3(B)(2), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution was
amended to eliminate any jurisdiction of the courts of appeals "to review on direct
appeal a judgment that imposes a sentence of death." The General Assembly
enacted implementing statutory changes, e.g., amendment to R.C. 2953.02 by
1995 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 4. These changes applied only to offenses committed on
or after January 1, 1995. Sub.H. Joint Resolution No. 15, Schedule, 145 Ohio
Laws, Part IV, 7811, 7814; see, also, Baldwin's Ohio Revised Code, Section 2,
Article IV, Ohio Constitution, 1994 Editor's Comment. Defendant's convictions
and sentences are the first case to be considered by this court under the 1994
amendments to the Ohio Constitution. Accordingly, the first issue before this
court is whether the constitutional amendments to the Ohio Constitution allowing
for the direct appeal of capital cases from the trial court to the Supreme Court of
Ohio pass constitutional muster. After thoroughly reviewing this issue, we
conclude that they do.

In 1802, Ohio's first Constitution established a system of appellate review.
Sections 2 and 4, Article III, 1802 Ohio Constitution. The 1851 Constitution

9


limited the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction and introduced intermediate
appellate courts. In 1968, with the Modern Courts Amendment, Ohio established
a two-tier system of review for capital cases. See Baldwin's Ohio Revised Code,
Section 2, Article IV, Ohio Constitution, 1990 Editor's Comment. When Ohio
revised its death penalty statute in 1981 pursuant to the United States Supreme
Court ruling in Gregg v. Georgia (1976), 428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d
859, the two-tiered system was retained.

However, the general public, both in Ohio and across the nation, has been
increasingly dissatisfied with inordinate delays that pervade the death penalty
system. Since the enactment of Ohio's present death penalty statute in 1981,
following Gregg, as of July 1997, over one hundred seventy people have been
sentenced to death. None of these is yet close to execution. Ohio's last execution
was carried out in 1963. The public's frustration is clearly understandable.

The Supreme Court of Ohio recognized the public's frustration in State v.
Steffen (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 399, 639 N.E.2d 66, when the court ruled that lower
courts could not stay an execution date set by the Supreme Court of Ohio. Justice
Moyer's pronouncement at that time bears repeating:

"The constitutions and courts of our country have established procedural
safeguards reflecting our society's concern for the rights of citizens accused of
committing crimes. When those safeguards are used to thwart judgments rendered
pursuant to the procedures, it is predictable that citizens will lose confidence in the
ability of the criminal justice system to enforce the judgments. * * *

"Whatever one's views regarding capital punishment, the reality is that
some thirteen [now sixteen] years ago the General Assembly adopted a death
penalty as the public policy of this state. The courts have declared the law to be
constitutional; this court has affirmed eighty-seven [now one hundred twenty-five]
10


death penalties, and the law has not yet been fully implemented. That fact creates
doubt about the ability of the justice system to carry out the death penalty and,
perhaps even more importantly, a perception that the entire criminal justice system
is not working. Inaccurate as those perceptions are, they do persist.

"* * *

"In Ohio, many death penalty actions are reaching the point of judicial
saturation. As in the cases presently before us, the criminal justice system has
more than satisfied the defendant's constitutional rights to due process and fair
trials. Their convictions have been viewed and reviewed." Id. at 406-407, 639
N.E.2d at 73-74.

Against this backdrop of extraordinary delay and loss of public confidence
in the integrity of the death penalty system, the citizens of the state of Ohio have
spoken through constitutional amendment. In November 1994, the Ohio citizens
passed amendments to the Ohio Constitution allowing for direct appeal of cases
from the trial court to the Supreme Court of Ohio. The first of the two
amendments establishes a direct right of appeal from the trial court to the Supreme
Court of Ohio, and the second amendment removes such right of appeal from the
intermediate appellate courts.

Section 2(B)(2), Article IV, Ohio Constitution now states:

" (2) The supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction as follows:

"* * *
"(c) In direct appeals from the courts of common pleas or other courts of
record inferior to the court of appeals as a matter of right in cases in which the
death penalty has been imposed[.]" (Emphasis added to new material.)

Section 3(B)(2), Article IV, Ohio Constitution now reads:

"(2) Courts of appeals shall have such jurisdiction as may be provided by
11


law to review and affirm, modify, or reverse judgments or final orders of the
courts of record inferior to the court of appeals within the district, except that
courts of appeals shall not have jurisdiction to review on direct appeal a judgment
that imposes a sentence of death." (Emphasis added to new material.)

The amendments became effective January 1, 1995 and applied to all cases
in which the crime was committed on or after January 1, 1995. In response to
these constitutional amendments, the legislature also amended R.C. 2953.02 to
state:

"In a capital case in which a sentence of death is imposed for an offense
committed on or after January 1, 1995, the judgment or final order may be
appealed from the trial court directly to the supreme court as a matter of right. The
supreme court in criminal cases shall not be required to determine as to the weight
of the evidence, except that, in cases in which a sentence of death is imposed for
an offense committed on or after January 1, 1995, and in which the question of the
weight of the evidence to support the judgment has been raised on appeal, the
supreme court shall determine as to the weight of the evidence to support the
judgment and shall determine as to the weight of the evidence to support the
sentence of death as provided in section 2929.05 of the Revised Code."

Defendant now challenges the constitutionality of these constitutional and
statutory amendments on several bases. Defendant's general attack on the
constitutionality of Ohio's death penalty statute is summarily rejected. State v.
Poindexter (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 1, 520 N.E.2d 568, syllabus; State v. Jenkins
(1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 164, 15 OBR 311, 473 N.E.2d 264.
Eighth Amendment Challenges

Initially, all parties concede that there is no constitutional right to an
appellate review of a criminal sentence. The United States Supreme Court in
12


Estelle v. Dorrough (1975), 420 U.S. 534, 536, 95 S.Ct. 1173, 1175, 43 L.Ed.2d
377, 380, held, "[T]here is no federal constitutional right to state appellate review
of state criminal convictions." The Supreme Court has stated that "the right of
appeal is not essential to due process, provided that due process has already been
accorded in the tribunal of first instance." State ex rel. Bryant v. Akron Metro.
Park Dist. (1930), 281 U.S. 74, 80, 50 S.Ct. 228, 230, 74 L.Ed. 710, 715. The
United States Supreme Court laid out the rationale most clearly in Ross v. Moffitt
(1974), 417 U.S. 600, 610-611, 94 S.Ct. 2437, 2444, 41 L.Ed.2d 341, 351:

"The defendant needs an attorney on appeal not as a shield to protect him
against being `haled into court' by the State and stripped of his presumption of
innocence, but rather as a sword to upset the prior determination of guilt. This
difference is significant for, while no one would agree that the State may simply
dispense with the trial stage of proceedings without a criminal defendant's
consent, it is clear that the State need not provide any appeal at all."

However, once the right of appeal is established, "these avenues must be
kept free of unreasoned distinctions that can only impede open and equal access to
the courts." Williams v. Oklahoma City (1969), 395 U.S. 458, 459, 89 S.Ct. 1818,
1819, 23 L.Ed.2d 440, 442; Rinaldi v. Yeager (1966), 384 U.S. 305, 310, 86 S.Ct.
1497, 1500, 16 L.Ed.2d 577, 581. Accord Blackledge v. Perry (1974), 417 U.S.
21, 25, 94 S.Ct. 2098, 2101, 40 L.Ed.2d 628, 633, fn. 4; Lindsey v. Normet (1972),
405 U.S. 56, 77, 92 S.Ct. 862, 876, 31 L.Ed.2d 36, 52-53.

Moreover, "[t]he state has a wide discretion in respect to establishing its
systems of courts and distributing their jurisdiction." Bryant, 281 U.S. at 81, 50
S.Ct. at 231, 74 L.Ed. at 716. Accord Missouri v. Lewis (1880), 101 U.S. 22, 30,
25 L.Ed. 989, 992. The United States Supreme Court has consistently been
"unwilling to say that there is any one right way for a State to set up its capital
13


sentencing scheme." Spaziano v. Florida (1984), 468 U.S. 447, 464, 104 S.Ct.
3154, 3164, 82 L.Ed.2d 340, 355; Cabana v. Bullock (1986), 474 U.S. 376, 106
S.Ct. 689, 88 L.Ed.2d 704. In Spaziano, the United States Supreme Court was
reviewing a capital sentencing structure in which a judge was permitted to
override a jury's recommendation of a life sentence. In finding such a structure
constitutional, the court noted that thirty out of thirty-seven jurisdictions with
capital sentencing gave that decision to the jury, with only three allowing the
judge to overrule a recommendation of a life sentence. Spaziano, 468 U.S. at 463,
104 S.Ct. at 3164, 82 L.Ed. 2d at 354. The court stated:

"The Eighth Amendment is not violated every time a State reaches a
conclusion different from a majority of its sisters over how best to administer its
criminal laws." Id., 468 U.S. at 464, 104 S.Ct. at 3164, 82 L.Ed.2d at 355. In fact,
the thirty-eight states that now authorize capital punishment exhibit a wide variety
of appellate review procedures in criminal cases. Nine capital-punishment states
generally have only a single appellate court with statewide appellate jurisdiction in
criminal cases.1

At least twenty-nine capital-punishment states, including Ohio, have a two-
tier appellate court system. Of these states, about twenty-five, now including
Ohio, require a capital case to be reviewed only in the state supreme court and not
in intermediate appellate courts. These states include Arizona, California, Florida,
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.2 In
addition, Massachusetts and Minnesota, which do not have capital punishment,
nonetheless specify that first-degree murder cases (but not other criminal cases)
bypass intermediate courts and go directly to the state supreme court.3 See, e.g.,
Dickerson v. Latessa (C.A.1, 1989), 872 F.2d 1116 (discussing Massachusetts
procedures). Thus, in very few capital punishment states will a case involving a
14


death sentence be reviewed by two appellate courts. See, also, Bundy v. Wilson
(C.A.1, 1987), 815 F.2d 125, 136-142.

Therefore, having reviewed the United States Supreme Court cases and the
protections afforded in other jurisdictions, we find no violation of the Eight
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Equal Protection

Defendant argues that the one-tier system violates the Equal Protection
Clause of the United States Constitution, or at the very least, the one-tier system
violates equal protection when other defendants are afforded a two-tier appellate
review process. First, we start with the proposition that amendments to a state
constitution and statutes, when tested against a higher authority, are entitled to a
strong presumption of legitimacy. Before a legislative enactment may be declared
unconstitutional, "it must appear beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislation
and constitutional provisions are clearly incompatible." State ex rel. Dickman v.
Defenbacher (1955), 164 Ohio St. 142, 57 O.O. 134, 128 N.E.2d 59, paragraph
one of the syllabus. Accord State v. Thompkins (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 558, 560,
664 N.E.2d 926, 928. "Further, doubts regarding the validity of a legislative
enactment are to be resolved in favor of the statute." State v. Gill (1992), 63 Ohio
St.3d 53, 55, 584 N.E.2d 1200, 1201, citing State ex rel. Swetland v. Kinney
(1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 567, 23 O.O.3d 479, 433 N.E.2d 217.

Defendant argues that the constitutional amendments are unconstitutional
because the appellate review process no longer treats similarly situated defendants
equally. Defendant claims that someone now convicted of a minor misdemeanor
is afforded greater protection than one sentenced to death. However, the reality is
that capital and noncapital defendants were not treated similarly even before the
amendments at issue took effect. Under the prior system, capital defendants had a
15


guaranteed right to have all issues, capital or noncapital, constitutional or
statutory, reviewed by the Supreme Court of Ohio, a right only discretionary with
all noncapital defendants. Only two to three percent of all noncapital defendants
who seek review by this court even have their cases heard. In 1995, defendants
filed five hundred eighty-three felony discretionary appeals and in 1996, six
hundred forty-two such appeals, but this court allowed only seventeen such
appeals in 1995 and sixteen in 1996. 1995 Ohio Courts Summary at Appendices
A and C; The Supreme Court of Ohio Annual Report 1996 at Appendices A and
C. Therefore, a noncapital defendant rarely can hope for Supreme Court review
and has a right to only one appeal of all issues.

On the other hand, under the amendments, a capital defendant also has one
right to appeal of all issues, but all of the capital defendant's noncapital
convictions are still reviewed by the Supreme Court of Ohio, along with his or her
capital convictions, thereby affording him or her a broader right of review than
that afforded to noncapital defendants. Capital defendants also had and still have
numerous additional rights, such as appointment of two counsel if indigent.

In addition, defendants sentenced to imprisonment are usually already
serving their terms and have a great interest in expediting their appeals. Capital
defendants, on the other hand, while seeking to overturn their convictions, also
seek to prolong the appeal process as long as possible, using every conceivable
avenue of attack, and the statistics show they have been extremely successful in
Ohio.

As a result, lengthy delays have arisen in enforcing death penalty sentences
in Ohio. See Steffen. Under these circumstances, Ohio voters had a rational basis
to decide that the Supreme Court of Ohio would -- in a single appeal as of right
-- directly review capital cases for crimes committed on or after January 1, 1995.
16



Indeed, as defendant points out, the state has taken other steps to expedite
the resolution of criminal cases, including capital cases, such as limiting the time
within which to file postconviction petitions. See R.C. 2953.21, as amended by
1995 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 4. The United States Supreme Court has also recognized
the problem of excessive delays in capital cases. See Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d at
411, 639 N.E.2d at 76. But governments are not restricted to a single method of
resolving a pervasive problem; here, the "erosion of the finality of judgments in
criminal cases undermines the deterrent effect of criminal law." Id.

The distinction drawn between appeal rights in capital and noncapital cases
must bear " `some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is made.' "
See Estelle, 420 U.S. at 539, 95 S.Ct. at 1176, 43 L.Ed.2d at 382. The state has a
direct, legitimate and compelling interest in ensuring that the final judgments of its
courts are expeditiously enforced. "When those [procedural] safeguards are used
to thwart judgments * * *, citizens will also lose confidence in the ability of the
criminal justice system to enforce its judgments." Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d at 406,
639 N.E.2d at 73.

Defendant also claims that equal protection is violated because defendants
charged with crimes committed on or after January 1, 1995 are not treated the
same as preamendment defendants who still have a two-tier system of review,
even though they are similarly situated. However, to adopt defendant's position
would be to freeze law in time and to never allow amendments to the criminal
justice system. Ohio's death penalty statutes, enacted in 1981, treated all criminals
committing murders after enactment differently from defendants committing
murders before enactment. See Dobbert v. Florida (1977), 432 U.S. 282, 301, 97
S.Ct. 2290, 2302, 53 L.Ed.2d 344, 361 (Defendant sentenced to death in case tried
after the effective date of remedial statutes amending Florida's capital sentencing
17


procedure in the wake of Furman v. Georgia [1972], 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726,
33 L.Ed.2d 346, was not similarly situated to those tried before the statute's
effective date, whose death sentences had been commuted to life imprisonment --
hence no equal protection violation.). The Equal Protection Clause does not
forbid statutes to have a beginning. Williams v. Walsh (1912), 222 U.S. 415, 32
S.Ct. 137, 56 L.Ed. 253; Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Rhodes (1911), 220 U.S.
502, 31 S.Ct. 490, 55 L.Ed. 561. For such a reason, the constitutional amendments
apply only to crimes committed on or after the effective date, January 1, 1995,
thereby avoiding ex-post-facto complications. Therefore, we find that defendant's
position is without merit.

Other jurisdictions have rejected the arguments made by defendant. The
Virginia Supreme Court specifically rejected an equal protection challenge to a
single appeal to that state's highest court. In Payne v. Commonwealth (1987), 233
Va. 460, 474, 357 S.E.2d 500, 508-509, the court held, "It was rational for the
General Assembly, given the gravity of cases involving a sentence to death, to
provide those defendants an automatic, plenary review in the Commonwealth's
highest court."

The Arizona Supreme Court also upheld the constitutionality of a death
penalty procedure almost identical to Ohio's against an equal protection challenge.
In State v. Ramirez (1994), 178 Ariz. 116, 871 P.2d 237, the Arizona Supreme
Court rejected a challenge that the statute was unconstitutional because it limited
capital defendants to one direct appeal as of right to the Supreme Court, whereas
noncapital defendants had two possibilities for appeal -- direct appeal to the court
of appeals and discretionary review by the Supreme Court. In rejecting an equal
protection challenge, the Arizona Supreme Court relied on Proffitt v. Florida
(1976), 428 U.S. 242, 259-260, 96 S.Ct. 2960, 2970, 49 L.Ed.2d 913, 927, in
18


which the United States Supreme Court reviewed Florida's capital sentencing
procedures, which were similar to Arizona's.

In fact, defendant fails to cite any case holding that the Equal Protection
Clause of the United States Constitution requires two levels of state appellate
review in capital cases.
Due Process

Additionally, a single-tier system does not violate the capital defendant's
right to due process. A direct appeal to this court affords a capital defendant
significant advantages in comparison with other criminal defendants. As stated,
all of a defendant's issues, both noncapital and capital, constitutional or statutory,
are reviewed by the Supreme Court. A court of appeals must apply this court's
existing precedents, but this court can directly reverse its own precedents. A
defendant can still directly challenge existing precedent and seek change. Indeed,
his or her opportunities are better, as a lower court could not reexamine precedent
from the Supreme Court.

Further, this court can more readily judge both the appropriateness and
proportionality of death sentences on a statewide basis, instead of the geographical
limits of an appellate district. See, also, Payne, 233 Va. at 474, 357 S.E.2d at 508.
An appellate court does not have the breadth and scope of experience that this
court has to review the death sentences of all eighty-eight counties and to measure
the appropriateness and proportionality of all cases in the state.

Defendant also argues that due process is denied the capital defendant
because the Supreme Court of Ohio cannot consider weight-of-the-evidence
arguments during the guilt phase (although defendants often argue that the
Supreme Court does have jurisdiction to do so). Despite some admittedly
conflicting case law on this issue, there is no provision in the Ohio Constitution or
19


statutes that prevents this court from reviewing weight of the evidence in capital
cases. See Article IV of the Ohio Constitution.4 Further, this court, in its prior
review of capital cases, has often responded to claims concerning evidence. For
example, in State v. Greer (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 236, 237-240, 530 N.E.2d 382,
388-389, this court devoted two pages of the opinion to reviewing an argument on
weight of the evidence. See, also, State v. Montgomery (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 410,
416, 575 N.E.2d 167, 173; State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 123-124,
552 N.E.2d 913, 922-923. In fact, R.C. 2953.02 and 2929.05, even before the
adoption of Issue I, required this court to "review and independently weigh" the
evidence as to any death penalty sentence. This court has regularly done so
without objection from defendants as to its lack of constitutional power to do so.
See State v. Jenkins (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 164, 199, 203, 15 OBR 311, 341, 345,
473 N.E.2d 264, 296, 299; State v. Claytor (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 234, 244, 574
N.E.2d 472, 481.

However, the Supreme Court of Ohio has always had the constitutional
grant of "appellate jurisdiction" in capital cases. (Preamendment Section 2[B][2],
Article IV.) The phrase "appellate jurisdiction" means the power to hear and
resolve all issues necessary to determine an appeal, including weight-of-the-
evidence claims. On direct appeals, this court now assumes all roles performed by
the lower appellate courts, including a full weight-of-the-evidence review. The
legislature has not expanded this court's jurisdiction by the amendment of R.C.
2953.02, but has merely spelled out the new role of the Supreme Court as the only
court of appellate review in death penalty cases.

Nor is there any requirement in the Constitution, including the amendments,
that this court must be unanimous (as a court of appeals must be) on decisions to
overturn on a weight-of-the-evidence finding (nor, certainly, would defendant seek
20


such a strict standard). Supreme Court review thus provides greater protection for
a capital defendant, since we can reverse on weight of the evidence with a mere
majority.

Defendant also claims that the appellate courts perform a more thorough
review than the Supreme Court, citing Poindexter, 36 Ohio St.3d 1, 520 N.E.2d
568:

"When issues of law in capital cases have been considered and decided by
this court and are raised anew in a subsequent capital case, it is proper to
summarily dispose of such issues in the subsequent case." Id., syllabus.
However,
defendant
misconstrues Poindexter. Nowhere does the court
imply that it will not continue to thoroughly consider and review all issues.
Indeed, we do review all issues. We merely do not need to discuss and address, in
opinion form, settled issues of law but may deal with them in summary fashion.
"[W]e are not required to consume limited judicial resources writing opinions
which analyze time-worn legal arguments raised in a multiplicity of printed
pages." State v. Spisak (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 80, 82, 521 N.E.2d 800, 801-802.
Appellate Review of Noncapital Charges

Defendant also appeals the dismissal by the court of appeals of his
noncapital charges, arguing that only the capital charges can go directly to the
Supreme Court of Ohio. However, the plain language of the amendments speaks
of "cases in which the death penalty has been imposed" and "judgment that
imposes the sentence of death." (Emphasis added.) Section 2(B)(2)(c), Article IV
and Section 3(B)(2), Article IV, Ohio Constitution. Thus the Supreme Court has
jurisdiction over the whole case, instead of counts, charges, or sentences.

However, "courts must interpret the Constitution broadly in order to
accomplish the manifest purpose of an amendment [to the Constitution]."
21


Swetland, 69 Ohio St.2d at 570, 23 O.O.3d at 481, 433 N.E.2d at 220. "In the
interpretation of an amendment to the Constitution, the object of the people in
adopting it should be given effect * * *." Castleberry v. Evatt (1946), 147 Ohio
St. 30, 33 O.O. 197, 67 N.E.2d 861, paragraph one of the syllabus. Indeed, to so
separate the convictions and appeals would lead to further delay, confusion in
record transmittal, waste of judicial resources, possible inconsistency in decisions,
and a further wait for the appeal to the Supreme Court from the appellate court on
noncapital cases (albeit now only a two to three percent chance of being accepted
instead of the current certainty of review). Such absurd consequences were surely
never intended by the voters in passing such amendments and would thwart the
very purpose of expeditious review of capital cases.

In conclusion, we have determined that the amendments to the Ohio
Constitution, Section 2(B)(2) and Section 3(B)(2), Article IV, and the
implementing statute, R.C. 2953.02, are constitutional. Therefore, the courts of
appeals shall not accept jurisdiction of any cases in which the sentence of death
has been imposed for an offense committed on or after January 1, 1995. Appeals
in such cases shall be made directly from the trial court to the Supreme Court of
Ohio.
II
TRIAL ISSUES

We now address defendant's propositions of law that pertain to the pretrial
and trial.
Voir Dire and Jury Selection

In Proposition of Law XII, defendant contends that the trial judge erred by
not allowing for "complete and thorough questioning in voir dire." However,
defendant does not specify what, if any, questions the court did not permit. A
22


review of the transcript shows that the court placed few restrictions on defense
counsel's questioning of the potential venire. Furthermore, the court's decision to
question the entire jury panel and not sequester individual jurors "is a matter of
discretion within the province of the trial judge." State v. Mapes (1985), 19 Ohio
St.3d 108, 19 OBR 318, 484 N.E.2d 140, paragraph three of the syllabus.

It was within the discretion of the trial court to use its own jury
questionnaire instead of the questionnaire submitted by the defense. The court
allowed counsel an opportunity to modify by agreement the court's proposed
questionnaire. State v. Carter (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 555, 651 N.E.2d 965,
975; State v. Loza (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 61, 73, 641 N.E.2d 1082, 1098-1099.

Defendant further contends that the trial judge should have, sua sponte,
excused four jurors for cause because each one had a personal experience or
acquaintance with a victim or investigator in the case that indicated he or she
could not be fair and impartial. However, neither the defense nor the prosecution
objected to these jurors for cause. Under these circumstances, the trial judge
should be very reluctant to intervene.

Whether to disqualify a juror for cause is "a discretionary function of the
trial court * * * [not reversible] on appeal absent an abuse of discretion." Berk v.
Matthews (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 161, 559 N.E.2d 1301, syllabus. "[T]he trial
judge saw and heard" the prospective jurors and could evaluate their responses.
State v. Allen (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 626, 629, 653 N.E.2d 675, 681. We find no
abuse of discretion. See State v. Allard (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 482, 493-496, 663
N.E.2d 1277, 1287-1289. Furthermore, defendant waived any potential error by
failing to challenge the prospective jurors at trial. State v. Williams (1977), 51
Ohio St.2d 112, 5 O.O.3d 98, 364 N.E.2d 1364, paragraph one of the syllabus,
vacated on other grounds by 438 U.S. 911, 98 S.Ct. 3137, 57 L.Ed.2d 1156.
23


Accordingly, Proposition of Law XII is without merit.
Admissibility of Evidence
A. Defendant's
Confession

In Proposition of Law XI, defendant challenges the admission of his written
confession on the basis that his initial arrest was illegal. He claims police had no
probable cause and no warrant. Thus, he claims all evidence obtained as a direct
result should be suppressed. When reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, a
court must remain mindful that "the weight of the evidence and credibility of
witnesses are primarily for the trier of the fact." State v. DePew (1988), 38 Ohio
St.3d 275, 277, 528 N.E.2d 542, 547; State v. Fanning (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 19,
20, 1 OBR 57, 437 N.E.2d 583, 584.

The trial court rejected defendant's claim that the police lacked probable
cause to detain and arrest him. The court found that the police had ample cause to
arrest defendant based upon information supplied by Russell Baker. Police
learned from Russell that defendant had borrowed his car under suspicious
circumstances, had not come back for a long period of time, and had changed
clothes and been in a fight. Russell also disclosed to police that defendant had
admitted to James Baker that defendant and Randy had killed the Rays, and
Russell disclosed details about the crime scene that only the killer would have
known. Based upon the totality of the circumstances, police had specific and
articulable facts that warranted defendant's detention and arrest. See Loza, 71
Ohio St.3d at 71, 641 N.E.2d at 1097; State v. Comen (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 206,
210, 553 N.E.2d 640, 644.

Defendant also contends that his confession to police was not voluntary and
that he did not knowingly waive his Miranda rights because he was under the
influence of drugs and alcohol at the time. There was no evidence presented of
24


such influence. Police advised defendant of his Miranda rights on more than one
occasion. At no time did defendant ask for counsel. The trial court properly
found that defendant "was fully advised of his constitutional rights," and he
"knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his rights to remain silent and to
have the assistance of counsel." We find that the court properly admitted
defendant's confession. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d at 551-552, 651 N.E.2d at 972-973;
State v. Brewer (1990), 48 Ohio St.3d 50, 57-58, 549 N.E.2d 491, 498-499.

Defendant's argument that his confession should be suppressed because
police did not electronically record it is also without merit. Neither the Ohio
Constitution nor the United States Constitution requires that police interviews, or
any ensuing confessions, be recorded by audio or video machines. See State v.
Rhoades (1991), 121 Idaho 63, 73, 822 P.2d 960, 970; People v. Raibon
(Colo.App.1992), 843 P.2d 46, 49; State v. Buzzell (Me.1992), 617 A.2d 1016,
1018-1019; Williams v. State (Miss.1988), 522 So.2d 201, 208; State v. Gorton
(1988), 149 Vt. 602, 606, 548 A.2d 419, 422; State v. Kilmer (1993), 190 W.Va.
617, 628, 439 S.E.2d 881, 892. But, see, Stephan v. State (Alaska 1985), 711 P.2d
1156, 1159-1160 (based on Alaska Constitution). Consequently, we reject
defendant's Proposition of Law XI.
B.
Victims' Character Evidence

In Proposition of Law XIV, defendant claims the trial court erred in
allowing the prosecutor to comment on and to introduce favorable character
evidence about the victims while restricting cross-examination regarding bad
character. Defendant contends it was improper to allow testimony about the
duration of the victims' marriage, their occupations, and the number of their
children, and to admit photographs of the victims. However, proving the facts of a
murder necessarily involves disclosure of details as to the victims and their lives.
25


"The victims cannot be separated from the crime." State v. Lorraine (1993), 66
Ohio St.3d 414, 420, 613 N.E.2d 212, 218-219. Accord Allard, 75 Ohio St.3d at
499-500, 663 N.E.2d at 1292; State v. Fautenberry (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 435,
438-439, 650 N.E.2d 878, 882.

Moreover, the record reflects that defendant did not object during the
prosecutor's opening statement that foreshadowed this testimony. Neither did he
object when David Lester, the victim's son, referred to the personal details
regarding the victims, or when the prosecutor offered the victims' photographs
into evidence. We need not consider a claim of error that was not raised in any
way in the court below. See State v. Williams, 51 Ohio St.2d 112, 5 O.O.3d 98,
364 N.E.2d 1364. Having failed to object at trial, defendant waived any perceived
error except for plain error. Because the references to the victims' background
were minimal and relatively innocuous, we find they did not constitute plain error.

As for defendant's claim that the trial judge restricted cross-examination
regarding Lewis Ray's bad character, e.g., whether police had previously arrested
Ray, especially for dealing in food stamps, defendant was not prejudiced by the
court's restriction because evidence that Lewis may have been dealing in stolen
merchandise and food stamps was presented to the jury through defendant's own
testimony and the testimony of police officers. Accordingly, we reject Proposition
of Law XIV.
C.
Playing of 911 Tape

In Proposition of Law XV, defendant contends that playing the 911 tape
recording of the victim's son notifying police of the homicides was inadmissible
hearsay, as well as irrelevant and highly prejudicial. The trial court correctly ruled
that the tape qualified as an excited utterance and did not constitute inadmissible
hearsay. "To be admissible under Evid.R. 803(2) as an excited utterance, a
26


statement must concern `some occurrence startling enough to produce a nervous
excitement in the declarant,' which occurrence the declarant had an opportunity to
observe, and must be made `before there had been time for such nervous
excitement to lose a domination over his reflective faculties. * * *' " State v.
Huertas (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 22, 31, 553 N.E.2d 1058, 1068, quoting paragraph
two of the syllabus in Potter v. Baker (1955), 162 Ohio St. 488, 55 O.O. 389, 124
N.E.2d 140. See, also, State v. Kinley (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 491, 497, 651 N.E.2d
419, 425; State v. Simko (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 483, 490, 644 N.E.2d 345, 352.

Defendant also contends that the relevancy of the tape and its prejudicial
impact under Evid.R. 403(A) should have precluded admission. However,
defendant failed to object on that basis at trial and, given the nature and brevity of
the relevant portion of the tape, we find that any inflammatory impact on the jury
would be slight. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
admitting the tape into evidence. See State v. Lundgren (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d
474, 486, 653 N.E.2d 304, 318; Allen, 73 Ohio St.3d at 636, 653 N.E.2d at 686.
Accordingly, we reject Smith's Proposition of Law XV.
D.
Gruesome Photographs and Other Exhibits

In Proposition of Law XVI, defendant argues that the trial court erred in
admitting crime-scene and autopsy photographs that were both gruesome and
cumulative in nature. The admission of photographs is left to the discretion of the
trial court. Evid.R. 403; State v. Landrum (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 107, 121, 559
N.E.2d 710, 726; State v. Maurer (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 239, 264, 15 OBR 379,
401, 473 N.E.2d 768, 791. In order to be admissible, the probative value of a
photograph must outweigh the danger of material prejudice to the defendant and
the photograph must not be repetitive. See State v. Morales (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d
252, 258, 513 N.E.2d 267, 274; Maurer, paragraph seven of the syllabus.
27



Defendant urges this court to overrule DePew, in which we held that
photographs of bloodstains are generally not gruesome. "The photos of blood
stains * * * do not have a shock value equivalent to the photograph of a corpse.
The term `gruesome' in the context of photographic evidence should, in most
cases, be limited to depictions of actual bodies or body parts." Id., 38 Ohio St.3d
at 281, 528 N.E.2d at 550. The photographs of blood and blood splatters in the
kitchen were not gruesome so as to preclude their admission into evidence.

Defendant claims that the twelve photographs of Lewis Ray in the kitchen
and the twelve autopsy photographs of his body were cumulative in nature and
were prejudicial. The court admitted the autopsy photographs because each one
illustrated the coroner's testimony and demonstrated defendant's specific intent to
kill. Details in the photographs, such as the depressed skull fracture caused by a
hammer-like object, conflicted with defendant's version of the injuries he inflicted
upon Lewis.

The court determined that the photographs of Lewis in the kitchen were
taken from different angles and showed the condition of the kitchen. "While it is
true that the sheer number of photographs admitted may constitute error where
they are needlessly cumulative, Evid.R. 403(B), the mere fact that there are
numerous photos will not be considered reversible error unless the defendant is
prejudiced thereby. Absent gruesomeness or shock value, it is difficult to imagine
how the sheer number of photographs admitted can result in prejudice requiring
reversal." Id. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the
photographs. The probative value of the photographs outweighed any prejudicial
impact on the jury.

The six autopsy photographs of the body of Ruth Ray also illustrated the
coroner's testimony. We have reviewed the photographs and determined that they
28


were not cumulative or inflammatory and that defendant was not prejudiced by
their admission.

We have reviewed the photographs of the crime scene and find that the trial
court's decision to admit those photos did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
The court's casual reference to the photographs as "excessively gruesome" or
"excessively repetitive" does not indicate that the court used an incorrect legal
standard when deciding upon their admissibility. The probative value of the
photographs outweighed any danger of prejudice to defendant. We find that the
admission of the photographs into evidence was not an abuse of discretion. See
Morales, 32 Ohio St.3d at 258, 513 N.E.2d at 274; Maurer.

In Proposition of Law XVII, defendant also contends it was error to admit
numerous pieces of evidence directly connected to Randy Smith, such as Randy's
boots, a stolen gun that was traced to Randy, photographs of Randy, and money
and money orders either seized from or traced to him. However, because
defendant and Randy jointly planned and executed the robbery and murders, this
evidence helped prove defendant's guilt and corroborated details of defendant's
confessions. Therefore, it was admissible.

Defendant also claims that the court should not have reintroduced exhibits
from the guilt phase of the trial during the sentencing phase. However, these
exhibits were relevant to the nature and circumstances of the specified aggravating
circumstances. See State v. Wogenstahl (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 344, 352-356, 662
N.E.2d 311, 318-322; State v. Woodard (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 70, 78, 623 N.E.2d
75, 81; DePew, paragraph one of the syllabus. Consequently, we reject
Propositions of Law XVI and XVII.
Jury Instructions

In Proposition of Law X, defendant contends that the trial court erroneously
29


instructed the jury during both the guilt and penalty phases of the trial. However,
but for an objection during the penalty phase to an instruction on mitigating
factors, defendant did not object to the jury instructions given. Thus, he waived
all but plain error. Lundgren, 73 Ohio St.3d at 493, 653 N.E.2d at 322.

Defendant objected when the court denied his request to specifically instruct
jurors on seven ostensible mitigating factors, e.g., "ability to make a well behaved
and peaceful adjustment to prison life," "victim of child abuse and substance
abuse," "ability to lead a useful life in prison," and "deprived of parental
nurturing." Six of the factors fit within defendant's "history, character, and
background," on which the court did instruct the jury. However, the court did
instruct the jury that it could consider "other factors" in its decision. All seven of
the factors, including "remorse," may be categorized as "other factor[s]" within the
meaning of R.C. 2929.04(B)(7). Consequently, we find no error and we reject
Proposition of Law X. See State v. Garner (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 56, 656
N.E.2d 623, 632; Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d at 122, 559 N.E.2d at 727.
Prosecutorial Misconduct

In Proposition of Law VIII, defendant claims that he was denied a fair trial
and due process because of pervasive prosecutorial misconduct. However,
defendant's failure to object at trial to much of the alleged misconduct about
which he now complains results in waiver of all but plain error. State v. Williams,
51 Ohio St.2d 112, 5 O.O.3d 98, 364 N.E.2d 1364.

Defendant claims that during voir dire, the prosecutor "embellished" the
phrase, "a man's home is his castle," making it into a legal concept. Defendant did
not object to the comment at the time. However, he now argues that he was
prejudiced by this phrase because the location of the murders was irrelevant and
he was not charged with burglary. This legal maxim relates "to the rights of an
30


individual to defend his house against violence, and his person against death."
State v. Nieto (1920), 101 Ohio St. 409, 415, 130 N.E. 663, 664. Accord State v.
Thomas (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 323, 327, 673 N.E.2d 1339, 1342. Defendant
claimed that Lewis Ray attacked him. Defendant robbed the Rays in their home.
Reference to the Ray home was not irrelevant, and the prosecutor's reference to
this phrase did not result in plain or prejudicial error.

Defendant also claims that, during voir dire, the prosecutor improperly
explained the concept of weighing of aggravating circumstances and mitigating
factors during sentencing. Again, there was no objection to these comments.
Furthermore, we find that the mere reference to these legal concepts during voir
dire did not result in prejudicial or plain error. See State v. Campbell (1994), 69
Ohio St.3d 38, 51, 630 N.E.2d 339, 352.

Defendant claims that the court improperly permitted the prosecutor to ask
leading questions of James Baker, a witness crucial to the state's case. Evid.R.
611(C) provides that "[l]eading questions should not be used on the direct
examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop his testimony."
Furthermore, the court exercises reasonable control over the mode of interrogation
so that its presentation will effectively ascertain the truth. Evid.R. 611(A). In a
sidebar conference, the court explained that it was exercising latitude to get at the
truth in the examination of Baker because he appeared to be nervous and "a little
slow" and "straining" with his answers. We find that the court properly exercised
its discretion and there was no error. See, generally, State v. D'Ambrosio (1993),
67 Ohio St.3d 185, 190, 616 N.E.2d 909, 914.

We also find that the cross-examination of defendant did not constitute
prosecutorial misconduct that affected the fairness of the trial. See State v. Benge
(1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 136, 142, 661 N.E.2d 1019, 1026; Lundgren, 73 Ohio St.3d
31


at 488, 653 N.E.2d at 319-320. During direct examination, defendant testified that
he and James drove to the homicide scene and Baker talked with the Rays'
children. Defendant also testified that Lewis was like "a daddy" to him. Thus, the
prosecutor's reference to the Rays' children was not outside the scope of cross-
examination.

Because defendant claimed that parts of his written confession to police
were untrue, it was not improper for the prosecutor to ask defendant to identify
those parts of his confession. Defendant's testimony also conflicted with the
crime-scene photographs. Thus, it was not improper for the prosecutor to question
defendant about the photographs in evidence.

Defendant also claims that during closing argument in the guilt phase of the
trial, the prosecutor improperly referred to defendant's testimony as "concocted."
He also emphasized irrelevant information and argued that defendant lacked
remorse for these crimes. As to the comment about defendant's "concocted"
testimony, defendant waived all but plain error by failing to timely object.
Wogenstahl, 75 Ohio St.3d at 356-357, 662 N.E.2d at 322. Later, when defendant
did object to the comment and moved for a mistrial, the court sustained the
untimely objection and gave the jury a thorough curative instruction. We presume
the jury followed the instruction. See State v. Wilson (1972), 30 Ohio St.2d 199,
204, 59 O.O.2d 220, 223, 283 N.E.2d 632, 636. Thus, we do not find plain error.

Prosecutors are entitled to latitude as to what the evidence has shown and
what inferences can reasonably be drawn from the evidence. State v. Lott (1990),
51 Ohio St.3d 160, 165, 555 N.E.2d 293, 300; State v. Stephens (1970), 24 Ohio
St.2d 76, 82, 53 O.O.2d 182, 185, 263 N.E.2d 773, 777. The prosecutor's
reference to defendant's lack of remorse may have been intended to question his
credibility.
32



Defendant claims there were numerous instances of prosecutorial
misconduct during the penalty phase of the trial. Upon review of the record, we
find that no misconduct occurred that would have affected the fairness of the trial.
"Prosecutors can urge the merits of their cause and legitimately argue that defense
mitigation evidence is worthy of little or no weight." State v. Wilson (1996), 74
Ohio St.3d 381, 399, 659 N.E.2d 292, 309. See, also, State v. Steffen (1987), 31
Ohio St.3d 111, 31 OBR 273, 509 N.E.2d 383, paragraph two of the syllabus.
Further, the prosecutor could comment on the absence of defense witnesses. State
v. Bies (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 320, 326, 658 N.E.2d 754, 760; D'Ambrosio, 67
Ohio St.3d at 193, 616 N.E.2d at 916. Finally, defendant did not object to the
prosecutor's closing argument. We find that no plain error exists. Loza, 71 Ohio
St.3d at 82, 641 N.E.2d at 1104; State v. Combs (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 278, 282,
581 N.E.2d 1071, 1076. Accordingly, we reject Proposition of Law VIII.
Effective Assistance of Counsel

In Proposition of Law IX, defendant contends that his constitutional rights
were violated because he was denied effective assistance of counsel during pretrial
and trial proceedings. Defendant provides numerous instances of his counsel's
alleged ineffectiveness and urges this court to focus on the "totality of the
representation" in order to conclude that his counsel was ineffective.

Reversal of a conviction or sentence based upon a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel requires that a defendant show, first, that counsel's
performance was deficient and, second, that the deficient performance prejudiced
the defense so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Strickland v. Washington
(1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693. Accord
State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373. We find that the
performance of defendant's counsel did not fall "below an objective standard of
33


reasonable representation." Id., paragraph two of the syllabus. The cumulative
effect of the perceived errors is not "so serious that counsel was not functioning as
the `counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment." Strickland, 466
U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d at 693.

Defendant claims that his counsel did not arrange for him to undergo a drug
screening test that was ordered by the court. However, defendant failed to
demonstrate how results of a drug test taken almost a week after these crimes
occurred would be relevant to prove his intoxication the night the crimes occurred
or at the time of his arrest and confession. Defendant also claims that his counsel
should have developed evidence at a suppression hearing of defendant's
intoxication at the time he was arrested and confessed to the crimes. Intoxication
affecting one's state of mind, absent coercive police activity, would be an
insufficient reason to exclude his voluntary confession. See Colorado v. Connelly
(1986), 479 U.S. 157, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473.

We addressed defendant's complaints about counsel's actions during voir
dire under his Propositions of Law VIII and XII. The record indicates that the
court conducted a comprehensive voir dire. We cannot now second-guess
counsel's tactical decisions.

Defendant's counsel planned to have defendant testify and knew that he
would have been subject to cross-examination on his 1987 conviction for
attempted burglary. Thus, counsel's failure to seek severance of the prior offense
specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.142 did not fall below the objective standard
of representation. See Evid.R. 609; State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d at 145, 538
N.E.2d at 382.

We find that counsel's tactical decisions throughout the guilt and penalty
phases of the trial did not fall below "an objective standard of reasonableness."
34


Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. at 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d at 693. Defendant has
not demonstrated "a reasonable probability that, were it not for counsel's errors,
the result of the trial would have been different." Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538
N.E.2d 373, paragraph three of the syllabus. We reject Proposition of Law IX.
Sufficiency and Weight of the Evidence

In Proposition of Law XIII, defendant contends that the evidence is
insufficient to sustain his convictions and, further, that his convictions are against
the manifest weight of the evidence. Having already determined that this court has
power to assess the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, we must review those
issues.

Sufficiency of the evidence is the legal standard applied to determine
whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient as
a matter of law to support the jury verdict, State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio
St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541, 546, whereas the "[w]eight of the evidence
concerns `the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered in a
trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other.' " (Emphasis sic.) Id.
at 387, 678 N.E.2d at 546.

In reviewing the record for sufficiency, "[t]he relevant inquiry is whether,
after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven
beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d
492, paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia (1979), 443 U.S.
307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560. We find that the record contains sufficient
evidence to support the jury's finding that defendant intended to kill both Lewis
and Ruth Ray.

The evidence indicates that, while at the Crystal Lounge, the Smith brothers
35


planned to rob the Rays. The Smiths also decided "they were going to have to kill
them * * * both" because they "didn't want [the Rays] to tell on them." Later,
defendant told James that he struck Lewis in the head with a hammer. Lewis's
skull fracture was consistent with a hammer blow. Russell's hammer later turned
up missing from the car that defendant had borrowed. Defendant also told James
that, after he killed Lewis, he kicked Ruth in the head to make sure she was also
dead. Defendant's claim that he only intended to steal saws and drills from the
Rays' back yard does not comport with other evidence produced at trial.

There was also sufficient evidence that defendant directly aided in Ruth's
murder with prior calculation and design. Even if defendant did not personally
strangle Ruth, the jury could reasonably find that his brother did in accordance
with their agreed plan, and Kenneth then kicked her in the head to make sure she
was dead. See State v. Ballew (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 249, 667 N.E.2d 369,
376. See State v. Taylor (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 15, 676 N.E.2d 82; State v. Cotton
(1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 8, 10 O.O.3d 4, 381 N.E.2d 190; State v. Robbins (1979), 58
Ohio St.2d 74, 12 O.O.3d 84, 388 N.E.2d 755.

We find there was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider each of the
three death penalty specifications. Defendant told James he had to kill both of the
Rays so that he and Randy would not be identified. R.C. 2929.04(A)(3), the
specification of purpose to escape detection, does not require the aggravated
robbery of the Rays to have preceded their murders. See Williams, 74 Ohio St.3d
at 576-577, 660 N.E.2d at 732; State v. Lewis (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 200, 205, 616
N.E.2d 921, 925.

R.C. 2929.04(A)(5) requires only that the offense was part of a course of
conduct involving the purposeful killing of or attempt to kill two or more persons
by the offender. There was sufficient evidence that defendant planned both
36


murders, killed Lewis Ray, and directed and aided in the murder of Ruth Ray.
There was also abundant evidence that the murders occurred in the course of
aggravated robbery as required by R.C. 2929.04(A)(7).

In accordance with R.C. 2953.02, we also find that the greater amount of
credible evidence, or the manifest weight of the evidence, supports defendant's
convictions. Following a review of the entire record, weighing the evidence and
all reasonable inferences, and considering the credibility of witnesses, we find no
basis to believe that the jury clearly lost its way, that a manifest miscarriage of
justice occurred, or that defendant's convictions are against the manifest weight of
the evidence. The jury could reasonably find that defendant's testimony at trial
lacked credibility and defendant's oral confession to James just hours after the
crimes occurred and his subsequent statements to the police were more believable
than his trial testimony. The jury could also reasonably find that defendant's
confession, corroborated by the other evidence, established the elements of the
offenses of which he was convicted. Accordingly, we reject Proposition of Law
XIII.
III
SENTENCING ISSUES
Unsworn Statement

In Proposition of Law VI, defendant complains because the trial judge
informed the jury that they could take into consideration the fact that the
prosecution was not permitted to cross-examine defendant as to his unsworn
statement made during the mitigation hearing.

The court was simply attempting to explain to the jury that the state would
not be cross-examining defendant. However, we need not decide whether the
court's comment exceeded the boundary in DePew, 38 Ohio St.3d at 285, 528
37


N.E.2d at 554, because defendant's failure to object waived all but plain error.
State v. Underwood (1983), 3 Ohio St.3d 12, 3 OBR 360, 444 N.E.2d 1332,
syllabus. See Lundgren, 73 Ohio St.3d at 493, 653 N.E.2d at 323; Lorraine, 66
Ohio St.3d at 418, 613 N.E.2d at 217. We find no plain error. Accordingly, we
reject Proposition of Law VI.
Merger of Aggravating Circumstances and Cross-Appeal

The two murder charges filed against defendant contained three capital
specifications: murder to escape detection, multiple murder, and murder in the
course of aggravated robbery. R.C. 2929.04(A)(3), (5), and (7). At defendant's
request, the trial court merged the three specifications into a single specification
and instructed the jury to weigh the specifications as one aggravating
circumstance. In Proposition of Law II, defendant contends that, despite the
instruction, the court continued to emphasize three separate specifications so that
the instruction created one "super" aggravating circumstance. Consequently,
defendant argues it was impossible for the jury to fairly balance the aggravating
circumstances and mitigating factors. Defendant claims the court also erroneously
instructed the jury to focus on the quality of the evidence, not the quantity.

Because the court merged those specifications at defendant's request, he
cannot now assert error. "A party cannot take advantage of an error he invited or
induced." State v. Seiber (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 4, 17, 564 N.E.2d 408, 422;
Center Ridge Ganley, Inc. v. Stinn (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 310, 313, 31 OBR 587,
590, 511 N.E.2d 106, 109. Furthermore, defendant did not object at trial to the
instruction merging the three specifications. The failure to object constitutes a
waiver of any claim of error but for plain error. Underwood, at the syllabus. We
do not find that plain error exists.

The court's repeated emphasis to the jury to consider "the quality of the
38


evidence and not the quantity" served to negate any prejudice to defendant. In
addition, we have independently determined that the aggravating circumstances
outweighed the mitigating factors. See Cook, 65 Ohio St.3d at 527, 605 N.E.2d at
82; Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d 164, 15 OBR 311, 473 N.E.2d 264, paragraph five of
the syllabus.

The state in its cross-appeal contends that the trial court improperly merged
the multiple murder specification with the other two death specifications in both
aggravated murder counts. Merger of specifications may occur when they are
duplications and arise from the same act. However, the specifications for
multiple-murder and for felony-murder represent distinct and separate aggravating
circumstances. Williams, 74 Ohio St.3d at 579, 660 N.E.2d at 734; State v.
Frazier (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 247, 256, 574 N.E.2d 483, 490. They "are not
duplicative since they did not arise from the same act or indivisible course of
conduct." Id., 61 Ohio St.3d at 256, 574 N.E.2d at 490. Therefore, as to both
counts, the R.C. 2929.04(A)(3) and (A)(7) specifications are merged, but the R.C.
2929.04(A)(5) specification should not have merged.

Accordingly, we reject defendant's Proposition of Law II and sustain the
state's cross-appeal.
Consecutive Sentences

In Proposition of Law IV, defendant argues the trial court erred when it
refused to allow defense counsel to inform the jury that the trial judge could
impose consecutive rather than concurrent life sentences for the two murders. The
court allowed counsel to comment on possible sentences within the jury's
province, but informed counsel that "you may not tell the jury whether they can be
consecutive or concurrent."
In
Allard, 75 Ohio St.3d at 492-493, 663 N.E.2d at 1287, we held the trial
39


court properly instructed the jury, "You are not to speculate as to what sentence
the Court is actually going to impose or whether the sentences will be run
concurrent or consecutive." Accord State v. Grant (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 465,
482, 620 N.E.2d 50, 69. Since a jury does not have the option of recommending
whether the life sentences should run consecutively or concurrently, it is not a
matter for the jury to determine. Allard, 75 Ohio St.3d at 492, 663 N.E.2d at 1287.

We find the trial court did not err by refusing to allow defense counsel to
discuss consecutive versus concurrent life sentences as potential penalties. This
did not undermine the reliability of the capital sentencing process. Accordingly,
we reject Proposition of Law IV.
Death Penalty for Accomplice

In Proposition of Law III, defendant argues that the actions of the
accomplice, not the principal offender, must be examined when the state seeks a
death sentence for complicity. Defendant contends that for an accomplice to be
eligible for the death penalty under the felony-murder specification, the
accomplice must commit the murder with prior calculation and design. The
Eighth Amendment does not prohibit the death penalty for an accomplice whose
participation in the felony murder was significant, and whose mental state is one
of reckless indifference. Tison v. Arizona (1987), 481 U.S. 137, 107 S.Ct. 1676,
95 L.Ed.2d 127.
In
State v. Ballew, 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 251, 667 N.E.2d 369, 377-378, we
held that to sustain a conviction under R.C. 2929.04(A)(7), the felony-murder
specification, the defendant need not be the actual killer or "principal offender" if
the defendant acted with "prior calculation and design" in the aggravated murder.
In State v. Taylor (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 295, 306, 612 N.E.2d 316, 324, we
explicitly recognized that an accessory could be sentenced to death for felony-
40


murder. Accord State v. Brown (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 305, 318, 528 N.E.2d 523,
539; R.C. 2923.03(F). Here, the jury specifically found that defendant purposely
intended to kill Ruth Ray, and that he did so with "prior calculation and design" as
an aider and abettor in her aggravated murder.

Defendant's argument that he cannot be convicted of R.C. 2929.04(A)(5),
the multiple-murder specification, because he did not personally kill Ruth ignores
the evidence that the multiple killing was a planned, concerted effort by defendant
and his brother. The jury's findings that defendant specifically intended to kill
both Lewis and Ruth and that he acted with "prior calculation and design" and as
an aider and abettor with respect to Ruth's murder, satisfied the constitutional
safeguards relating to an accomplice's liability. See Tison.

Defendant's conviction of the R.C. 2929.04(A)(3) specification of purpose
to escape detection for both murders does not violate double jeopardy protections.
The specifications differ in detail. One alleged that defendant murdered Lewis to
escape detection for the aggravated robbery and the second one alleged that he
murdered Ruth to escape detection for the aggravated robbery and for the
aggravated murder of Lewis. Moreover, the two murder counts involved different
persons. The specifications do not involve punishment for the same offense.
Hence, they were not duplicative. See State v. Jones (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 116,
18 OBR 148, 480 N.E.2d 408. Accordingly, we reject defendant's Proposition of
Law III.
Double Jeopardy

In Proposition of Law XVIII, defendant claims that his sentences for the
two felony murders and for the underlying felonies violate the Double Jeopardy
Clause. He argues that because felony-murder contains all the elements necessary
to prove the underlying robbery, simultaneous punishment for both crimes
41


constitutes double jeopardy. Defendant's argument is not persuasive. We have
held that "[a]ggravated murder * * * is not an allied offense of similar import to
aggravated robbery * * * for purposes of R.C. 2941.25(A)." State v. Bickerstaff
(1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 62, 10 OBR 352, 461 N.E.2d 892, syllabus. See, also,
Frazier, 73 Ohio St.3d at 342, 652 N.E.2d at 1016; Grant, 67 Ohio St.3d at 475,
620 N.E.2d at 63; R.C. 2941.25. Consequently, we find there is no violation of
defendant's constitutional rights.

Defendant also makes a double-jeopardy argument that he should be subject
to a single prison sentence under R.C. 2941.25(A) because there was a single
robbery and the two counts of aggravated robbery were allied offenses of similar
import. However, injury is an element of aggravated robbery. Because defendant
inflicted injuries on each victim, the offenses were separate. Cf. 1974 Legislative
Service Commission Comment to R.C. 2941.25 ("[A] thief who * * * steals
different property from three separate victims * * * can be charged with and
convicted of all three thefts."). Accord Jones.

Notwithstanding the above, defendant failed to object; thus, he waived these
issues. Wilson, 74 Ohio St.3d at 400, 659 N.E.2d at 310; Comen, 50 Ohio St.3d at
211, 553 N.E.2d at 646. Therefore, we reject defendant's Proposition of Law
XVIII.
Trial Court Opinion

Defendant's Proposition of Law VII, that the trial court's written opinion
imposing the death penalty diminished the weight given to mitigating factors and
inflated the significance of aggravating circumstances, lacks merit. We have
repeatedly held that "the assessment and weight to be given mitigating evidence
are matters for the trial court's determination." Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d at 171, 555
N.E.2d at 305. See, also, State v. Hill (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 433, 441, 653 N.E.2d
42


271, 280. Furthermore, our independent reassessment of the sentence will
eliminate the effect of any deficiencies found in a trial court's sentencing decision.
State v. Eley (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 174, 186, 672 N.E.2d 640, 651; State v. Fox
(1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 183, 191, 631 N.E.2d 124, 131.
IV
INDEPENDENT SENTENCE EVALUATION

In Proposition of Law V, defendant argues that imposing the death penalty
in his case is inappropriate, excessive, and disproportionate when compared with
other cases. Defendant points to what he regards as abundant mitigating evidence
produced at trial and also to the fact that his brother, Randy, received only a life
sentence for the murders of Lewis and Ruth Ray.

We continue to adhere to the statement set forth in Steffen, 31 Ohio St.3d
111, 31 OBR 273, 509 N.E.2d 383, at paragraph one of the syllabus, that "[t]he
proportionality review required by R.C. 2929.05(A) is satisfied by a review of
those cases already decided by the reviewing court in which the death penalty has
been imposed." Because Randy received a life sentence and the record of his case
is not before this court, we decline to include a review of Randy's case in our
analysis of proportionality. Id., 31 Ohio St.3d at 123, 31 OBR at 283, 509 N.E.2d
at 395. Accord State v. Green (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 141, 151, 609 N.E.2d 1253,
1262; see, also, State v. Jamison (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 182, 191, 552 N.E.2d 180,
188-189.
Penalty Hearing

We will consider the appropriateness of the death penalty in this case in the
context of our independent evaluation of the sentence. At the penalty hearing,
defendant presented a variety of mitigating evidence. His wife, Brenda, testified
that she had known defendant as a child and that they had been married for eight
43


years. Two children were born during the marriage, Kenneth, Jr., age eight, and
Amanda, age five. Defendant treated Brenda and the children very well.

Brenda testified that since she had known defendant, he had abused alcohol
and drugs. His father was also an alcoholic. After his release from prison in 1989,
defendant stopped "shooting up" drugs, but he continued to drink heavily and use
marijuana. Aside from some "thieving to make money," Brenda testified that
defendant also worked and drew Social Security disability benefits. She claimed
that he stayed out of trouble and was not violent. However, on cross-examination,
Brenda admitted that defendant told her that he had robbed the Rays and almost
"cut Mr. Lewis Ray's head off." Brenda also admitted that she had looked over
the jewelry stolen from the Rays and picked out items she liked and wanted to
keep.

Psychologist Janice Ort performed a wide variety of tests on defendant and
examined numerous records. Defendant's IQ of 77 reflected low average
intelligence. He exhibited characteristics of an antisocial personality disorder and
was dependent on alcohol and sedatives, evidenced by a history of significant
substance abuse. At age ten, defendant was using mood-altering substances. By
age twelve, he was sniffing glue and using alcohol and marijuana. At age thirteen,
he was using Valium, and by age fourteen shooting drugs intravenously. At age
sixteen, he was using amphetamines and hallucinogens. At age nineteen, he was
using cocaine. By age twenty-one, defendant had stopped injecting drugs, but
continued to abuse sedatives, marijuana and alcohol. In April 1983, defendant
was hospitalized for a week for severe depression and drug abuse with suicidal
thoughts. In 1984, he was convicted of gross sexual imposition and served six
months at a youth detention center, after which he underwent a one-month
inpatient treatment program for alcoholics, followed by outpatient drug
44


counseling. He was later convicted of other offenses such as trespassing, assault,
and petty theft and served short jail terms. In October 1987, he began a prison
term for attempted burglary. Upon release in January 1990, he entered another
drug counseling program; however, his drug and alcohol abuse continued.

According to Dr. Ort, defendant's history and background suggest drugs
and alcohol have caused organic brain impairment. After attending drug treatment
programs, defendant's drug use temporarily abated. Dr. Ort testified that if
defendant were placed in the same setting and conditions, a very great possibility
exists that he would kill again. However, if he were in prison, away from drugs
and alcohol, he could adjust and adapt well. Psychologist Jeffrey L. Smalldon
agreed with Dr. Ort's findings that defendant suffered from a "relatively mild
degree" of "brain impairment" as a result of heavy drinking on a daily basis, his
abuse of barbiturates and antianxiety medications, and his history of sniffing
lacquer, glue, and gasoline. Despite these "profound problems," defendant had
functioned well in jail as "an excellent worker" and was "someone who never
create[d] disturbances."

In an unsworn statement, defendant said he was born in November 1965,
making him twenty-nine at the time of the offenses. Defendant stated that by age
thirteen, he was stealing to support himself and his drug habit. He would sell
stolen bikes and other things to Lewis Ray. When he was fourteen, his mother
died. Afterward, his alcoholic father did not take care of the four children.
Defendant lived on the street or wherever he could find a place to stay. Before his
arrest for these murders, defendant stated that he had worked installing drywall
and in auto shops. He was also receiving Social Security disability payments
because of his drug addiction and alcoholism.

Defendant said he was "still in shock" over what happened because Lewis
45


"was just like my father." He expressed remorse to the Rays' family and
appreciation to his own family for standing by him. He said he hoped to influence
his own children in the future to stay out of trouble. Defendant explained that he
has adjusted well in jail and gets along with the guards and other inmates. When
he was in prison before, he also got along well, helped make furniture, and
participated in schooling and drug therapy programs.
Sentence Assessment

After independent assessment, we find that the evidence proves beyond a
reasonable doubt the aggravating circumstances charged against defendant.
Defendant killed both Lewis and Ruth Ray to escape detection for other crimes,
R.C. 2929.04(A)(3); as part of a course of conduct to kill two or more, R.C.
2929.04(A)(5); and during an aggravated robbery, R.C. 2929.04(A)(7). We have
agreed that the R.C. 2929.04(A)(3) and (A)(7) specifications are merged and
consider them as a single specification. (See discussion, Proposition of Law II.)

As to mitigating features, we find nothing in the nature and circumstances
of the offense to be mitigating. Defendant devised a plan to rob and kill an elderly
couple who had befriended him and his brother. Defendant and Randy secured
entry at night into their friends' home, then, as they had planned, defendant
brutally murdered Lewis while his brother killed Ruth. After killing and robbing
the Rays, they rejoined their other friends in drinking and enjoying themselves.

We find nothing in defendant's character remotely mitigating: even his
good friends knew him as a thief. But his history and background do offer modest
mitigating features. His mother died when he was fourteen, and his alcoholic
father did not support or assist the family. At fourteen, defendant stole to support
himself and his acquired drug habit. Defendant's very substantial history of drug
abuse and multiple drug-dependence stretching back to his preteens deserve some
46


weight. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d at 125, 559 N.E.2d at 730. Yet, despite the
opportunities provided to him when he underwent several drug rehabilitation
programs, he never dealt effectively with his drug dependences.

We find that the statutory mitigating factors in R.C. 2929.04(B)(1) through
(B)(5) are inapplicable. As to the R.C. 2929.04(B)(1) factor, defendant claimed
that Lewis acted as a fence to buy stolen property from him. Yet Lewis was
clearly not involved in any illegal activity when defendant killed him. Defendant
also claimed that he and Lewis argued and that Lewis was the aggressor.
However, the jury rejected that claim. Accordingly, we find no basis to apply R.C.
2929.04(B)(1) as a mitigating factor. See State v. Clark (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d
252, 263, 527 N.E.2d 844, 856.

Defendant was not under any "duress, coercion, or strong provocation";
hence, R.C. 2929.04(B)(2) is inapplicable. Despite testimony from two
psychologists, no evidence exists that defendant lacked substantial mental capacity
under R.C. 2929.04(B)(3). His drug dependence does not qualify as a mental
disease or defect. See State v. Slagle (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 597, 614, 605 N.E.2d
916, 931. Defendant was twenty-nine at the time of the offense and had a
significant criminal record; hence, R.C. 2929.04(B)(4) and (B)(5) do not apply.
The R.C. 2929.04(B)(6) mitigating factor (degree of participation in the offense)
was relevant, but only as to the murder of Ruth Ray.

We recognize that several mitigating R.C. 2929.04(B)(7) "other factors"
exist, although their combined weight is marginal. Psychological testimony
suggested that defendant suffered from mild brain impairment, and his significant
drug abuse over many years contributed to that problem. At trial, defendant
expressed remorse over killing his friend Lewis, but given defendant's remarks to
James Baker shortly after the murders, we question his sincerity. The fact that
47


defendant has the support and love of his wife and two children militates against
the death penalty. Defendant's cooperation with police was also a mitigating
factor. Further, we give some slight mitigating weight to evidence that defendant
adjusts well in prison, once he is removed from the influence and availability of
drugs. See Skipper v. South Carolina (1986), 476 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 1669, 90
L.Ed.2d 1.

As to appropriateness of the sentence, defendant argues that he should not
receive the death penalty because the jury trying Randy's case did not recommend
the death penalty. Since both brothers had the same background and upbringing,
and committed the same offenses, defendant argues that he should not receive a
death sentence when Randy did not. However, the jury's independent verdict of a
life sentence in Randy's case cannot control the jury's recommendation in
defendant's case; nor can the verdict in Randy's case affect our own independent
evaluation of defendant's case. As we have said before, "disparity of sentence
does not justify reversal of a death sentence when that sentence is neither illegal
nor an abuse of discretion." Green, 66 Ohio St.3d at 151, 609 N.E.2d 1253, 1261;
Jamison, 49 Ohio St.3d 182, 191, 552 N.E.2d 180, 188.

In addition, while the offenses were the same, the evidence before the juries
could not have been identical. Each brother's role in the offenses differs.
Defendant's testimony indicates that he, not Randy, came up with the initial idea
to rob and kill the Rays. Additionally, defendant showed little remorse, but Randy
may have demonstrated more remorse. In fact, we have no knowledge of what
mitigating evidence was presented in Randy's sentencing hearing. Hence, we
reject any claim that the jury's verdict in Randy's case should control our decision.

As to Count One, we have concluded that the two aggravating
circumstances, R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) and (A)(5), outweigh the very modest
48


mitigation offered beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant murdered and robbed
his elderly friend, Lewis, in Ruth's presence and within the sanctity of their home.
Defendant did so brutally by nearly cutting Lewis Ray's head off, and his motive
was greed. We find that the aggravating circumstances, weighed together, are
very strong when compared with the very modest mitigating factors offered.

In other aggravated-robbery/aggravated-murder cases, we have found the
death penalty appropriate despite stronger mitigation. Compare Carter, 72 Ohio
St.3d 545, 651 N.E.2d 965; State v. Dunlap (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 308, 652 N.E.2d
988; Slagle, 65 Ohio St.3d 597, 605 N.E.2d 916. Also, in other cases, we have
found the multiple-murder specification to outweigh significant mitigating
evidence. See State v. Awkal (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 324, 667 N.E.2d 960;
Lorraine, 66 Ohio St.3d 414, 613 N.E.2d 212.

As to Count Two, we find that the R.C. 2929.04(A)(5) and (A)(7)
aggravating circumstances also outweigh the mitigation offered beyond a
reasonable doubt, even considering the additional R.C. 2929.04(B)(6) mitigating
factor. Defendant planned, with "prior calculation and design," the murder of frail
and elderly Ruth Ray, in her own home, at night, in the presence of her husband.
After his brother killed her, defendant said he kicked Ruth in the head to make
sure she was dead. Even though defendant only aided, abetted, and planned
Ruth's murder, and was not the principal offender in her murder, we have still
determined that the aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating factors and
that he should also receive the death sentence for her murder.

Imposing the death penalty in this case is neither excessive nor
disproportionate when compared with the penalty imposed in other cases of
felony-murder during an aggravated robbery. Allen, 73 Ohio St.3d 626, 653
N.E.2d 675; State v. Mack (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 502, 653 N.E.2d 329; Hill, 73
49


Ohio St.3d 433, 653 N.E.2d 271; Woodard, 68 Ohio St.3d 70, 623 N.E.2d 75;
Lewis, 67 Ohio St.3d 200, 616 N.E.2d 921; Green, 66 Ohio St.3d 141, 609 N.E.2d
1253; Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357, 582 N.E.2d 972, including cases cited at 62 Ohio
St.3d at 377-378, 582 N.E.2d at 989.

The death penalty is also proportionate when compared with prior "course
of conduct" murder cases. Williams, 74 Ohio St.3d 569, 660 N.E.2d 724; Dunlap,
73 Ohio St.3d 308, 652 N.E.2d 988; Loza, 71 Ohio St.3d 61, 641 N.E.2d 1082;
Grant, 67 Ohio St.3d 465, 620 N.E.2d 50; Lorraine, 66 Ohio St.3d 414, 613
N.E.2d 212; State v. Hawkins (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 339, 612 N.E.2d 1227; State
v. Montgomery (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 410, 575 N.E.2d 167; and Combs, 62 Ohio
St.3d 278, 581 N.E.2d 1071, including cases cited at 62 Ohio St.3d at 294, 518
N.E.2d at 1084.

Accordingly, we sustain the state's Proposition of Law I in its cross-appeal
in case No. 96-677, by reversing the trial court's finding that the death penalty
specifications in R.C. 2929.04(A)(5) and (A)(7) are merged.

We affirm the court of appeals judgment in case No. 96-678, which
dismissed defendant's appeal to that court finding that the court of appeals lacked
jurisdiction over the appeal.

Otherwise, we affirm defendant's convictions and sentence, including the
death sentences.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ.,
concur.
FOOTNOTES:
1.
Delaware [Del.Code Ann. 11-4209(g) (1996)]; Mississippi [Miss.Code Ann.
99-19-105 (1996)]; Montana [Mont.Code Ann. 46-18-308 (1995)]; Nevada
50


[Nev.Rev.Stat.Ann. 177.055 (1997), and S.Ct.Rule 250(1997)]; New Hampshire
[N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. 630:5(X)(1996)]; Oklahoma [Okla.Stat.Ann. 21-701.13A
(1997), Art.7, Sec.4, Okla. Constitution]; South Dakota [S.D.Codified Laws
23(A)-27A-9(1996)]; Texas [Tex.Crim.Proc.Code Ann. Art. 37.071, Sec.
2(h)(1997)]; and Wyoming [Wyo.Stat. 6-2-103(1996)].
2. Arizona [Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 13-4031 (1996)]; California [Cal.
Const.Art.VI, Secs. 11, 12(d)(1997)]; Colorado [Colo.Rev.Stat.Ann. 16-12-101.5,
201 (1996)]; Florida [Fla. Const. Art.V, Sec.3(b)(1)(1997)]; Illinois [Ill.
Const.Art.6, Sec.4(b)(1997)]; Indiana [Ind. Const.Art.7,Sec.4 (1997)]; Kansas
[Kan.Stat.Ann. 21-4627(1997)]; Kentucky [Ky. Const.Sec. 110(2)(b)(1996)];
Louisiana [La. Const.Art.V, Sec.5(D)(1997), and La.Code Crim.Proc.Art.
912.1(1997)]; Maryland [Md. Cts. & Jud.Proc.Code.Ann.12-307(1996)]; Missouri
[Mo. Const.Art.V, Sec.3(1996)]; Nebraska [Neb. Const. Art. 1,Sec.23(1995)];
New Mexico [N.M. Const.Art.VI, Sec. 2(1997)]; New York [N.Y. CLS/CPL
450.70 (1996)]; North Carolina [N.C.Gen.Stat.7A-27(a)(1995)]; Ohio [Ohio R.C.
2953.02 (1997)]; Oregon [Ore.Rev.Stat. 163.150(1)(g)(1996)]; Pennsylvania [42
Pa.Cons.Stats. 722 (1997)]; South Carolina [S.C.Code.Ann. 18-9-20; 16-3-25(F)
(1996)]; Utah [Utah Code Ann. 78-2-2(3)(i)(1996)]; Virginia [Va.Code.Ann. 17-
110.1(1997)]; Washington [Wash.Rev.Code 10.95.100, 2.06.030 (1997)]. Also in
Idaho, Arkansas, and Connecticut, but in those states, some cases filed in the
Supreme Court can be transferred to intermediate courts. See Idaho [Idaho Code
1-2406 (1997), Idaho App.R.11(1997)]; Arkansas [Ark.Sup.Ct. & Ct.App.Rule 1-
2(a)2 (1997)]; and Connecticut [Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. 51-199(b)(3)(1997)].
3.
Mass.Gen.Laws Ann., Chapter 278, Section 33E (1997); Minn. Const.Art.6,
Sec.2 (1997), and Minn.Stat.Ann. Sec.632.14 (1997).
4.
This court has held that it is not required to review weight-of-the-evidence
51


claims. See State v. Tyler (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 24, 33, 553 N.E.2d 576, 589;
State v. Eley (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 169, 172, 10 O.O.3d 340, 341-342, 383 N.E.2d
132, 134; State v. Robinson (1955), 162 Ohio St. 486, 487, 55 O.O. 388, 124
N.E.2d 148, 149. We have even gone so far as to say that we are not forbidden to
review weight-of-the-evidence claims. See State v. Frohner (1948), 150 Ohio St.
53, 75-76, 37 O.O. 406, 415, 80 N.E.2d 868, 880. However, we have also held
that we may not review weight-of-the-evidence claims. See State v. Shoemaker
(1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 664, 664-665, 660 N.E.2d 1197, 1198-1199; State v. Eley
(1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 174, 180, 672 N.E.2d 640, 648; State v. Waddy (1992), 63
Ohio St.3d 424, 432, 588 N.E.2d 819, 827; State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d
259, 263, 574 N.E.2d 492, 496; State v. Powell (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 255, 260,
552 N.E.2d 191, 197; State v. Cooey (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 20, 26, 544 N.E.2d
895, 905-906. Those issues are now mooted by the passage of the Issue I
amendments to the Ohio Constitution.
52

 

Ask a Lawyer

 

 

FREE CASE REVIEW BY A LOCAL LAWYER!
|
|
\/

Personal Injury Law
Accidents
Dog Bite
Legal Malpractice
Medical Malpractice
Other Professional Malpractice
Libel & Slander
Product Liability
Slip & Fall
Torts
Workplace Injury
Wrongful Death
Auto Accidents
Motorcycle Accidents
Bankruptcy
Chapter 7
Chapter 11
Business/Corporate Law
Business Formation
Business Planning
Franchising
Tax Planning
Traffic/Transportation Law
Moving Violations
Routine Infractions
Lemon Law
Manufacturer Defects
Securities Law
Securities Litigation
Shareholder Disputes
Insider Trading
Foreign Investment
Wills & Estates

Wills

Trusts
Estate Planning
Family Law
Adoption
Child Abuse
Child Custody
Child Support
Divorce - Contested
Divorce - Uncontested
Juvenile Criminal Law
Premarital Agreements
Spousal Support
Labor/Employment Law
Wrongful Termination
Sexual Harassment
Age Discrimination
Workers Compensation
Real Estate/Property Law
Condemnation / Eminent Domain
Broker Litigation
Title Litigation
Landlord/Tenant
Buying/Selling/Leasing
Foreclosures
Residential Real Estate Litigation
Commercial Real Estate Litigation
Construction Litigation
Banking/Finance Law
Debtor/Creditor
Consumer Protection
Venture Capital
Constitutional Law
Discrimination
Police Misconduct
Sexual Harassment
Privacy Rights
Criminal Law
DUI / DWI / DOI
Assault & Battery
White Collar Crimes
Sex Crimes
Homocide Defense
Civil Law
Insurance Bad Faith
Civil Rights
Contracts
Estate Planning, Wills & Trusts
Litigation/Trials
Social Security
Worker's Compensation
Probate, Will & Trusts
Intellectual Property
Patents
Trademarks
Copyrights
Tax Law
IRS Disputes
Filing/Compliance
Tax Planning
Tax Power of Attorney
Health Care Law
Disability
Elder Law
Government/Specialty Law
Immigration
Education
Trade Law
Agricultural/Environmental
IRS Issues

 


Google
Search Rominger Legal


 


LEGAL HELP FORUM - Potential Client ? Post your question.
LEGAL HELP FORUM - Attorney? Answer Questions, Maybe get hired!

NOW - CASE LAW - All 50 States - Federal Courts - Try it for FREE


 


Get Legal News
Enter your Email


Preview

We now have full text legal news
drawn from all the major sources!!

ADD A SEARCH ENGINE TO YOUR PAGE!!!

TELL A FRIEND ABOUT ROMINGER LEGAL

Ask Your Legal Question Now.

Pennsylvania Lawyer Help Board

Find An Attorney

TERMS OF USE - DISCLAIMER - LINKING POLICIES

Created and Developed by
Rominger Legal
Copyright 1997 - 2010.

A Division of
ROMINGER, INC.