History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. Barker
945 N.E.2d 1107
Ohio Ct. App.
2010
Read the full case

Background

  • Turner disappeared on Sept. 30, 2006 after leaving with Barker; Turner’s mother watched her children that night.
  • Barker allegedly drove Turner away in a gray Grand Am and Turner later handed him her engagement ring; Barker’s account is contested.
  • Turner has never been found; cadaver dogs did not locate a body.
  • Barker was indicted in 2009 on felonious assault, felony murder, and tampering with evidence based largely on confessions from two witnesses.
  • Trial evidence included two witnesses testifying Barker confessed to killing Turner; Barker was convicted on all three offenses and sentenced to 28 years to life.
  • On appeal, Barker argues corpus delicti-rule error and that felonious assault and felony murder are allied offenses requiring merger; court reverses in part and remands for merger and resentencing.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Corpus delicti rule admissibility of confessions Barker: corpus delicti not established; confessions improperly admitted State: independent evidence satisfied corpus delicti; confessions admissible Satisfied; independent evidence tends to prove death and tampering, allowing confessions
Merger of felonious assault and felony murder Barker: allied offenses merged; only one conviction allowed State: Williams controls; offenses are allied but may be separately convicted Second assignment sustained; sentences for felony murder and felonious assault vacated and merged on remand.

Key Cases Cited

  • State v. Edwards, 49 Ohio St.2d 31 (Ohio 1976) (corpus delicti rule requires independent evidence before confession is admitted)
  • State v. Gabriel, 170 Ohio App.3d 393 (Ohio App. 2007) (corpus delicti rule is a low standard; evidence need only tend to prove a material element)
  • State v. Nobles, 106 Ohio App.3d 246 (Ohio App. 1995) (corpus delicti rule applies to all crimes and operates to exclude confessions lacking independent proof)
  • State v. Manago, 38 Ohio St.2d 223 (Ohio 1974) (defines corpus delicti as death plus criminal agency)
  • State v. Black, 54 Ohio St.2d 304 (Ohio 1978) (endorses liberal application of corpus delicti rule)
  • State v. Nicely, 39 Ohio St.3d 147 (Ohio 1988) (left-behind possessions and relationship context can imply non-voluntary disappearance)
  • State v. Williams, 124 Ohio St.3d 381 (Ohio 2010) (held felonious assault is allied with attempted murder and extends to felony murder analysis for merger)
  • State v. Cabrales, 118 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio 2008) (definitional standard for allied offenses of similar import under 2941.25)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Barker
Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals
Date Published: Nov 24, 2010
Citation: 945 N.E.2d 1107
Docket Number: No. 23691
Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.