State v. Beasley, 108 N.E.3d 1028

Background

Richard Beasley was convicted by a Summit County jury of three counts of aggravated murder (Ralph Geiger, David Pauley, Tim Kern), the attempted murder of Scott Davis, and multiple related noncapital offenses; the jury recommended death on each capital count and the trial court imposed three death sentences.
Prosecution theory: Beasley used online job ads to lure vulnerable men to remote locations, robbed and killed them, and used Geiger’s identity and victims’ property; evidence included witness identifications, cellphone and computer records, physical items recovered at Beasley’s residence, a handwritten map/letter found to be in Beasley’s hand, and the location of victims’ remains.
Defense theory: Beasley claimed he assumed Geiger’s identity earlier to avoid parole revocation, portrayed some events as misunderstandings or self-defense (in Davis’s case), and emphasized lack of direct physical evidence linking him to the shootings.
Trial issues included venue/pretrial publicity, an opening-statement biblical quotation, juror acquaintance with an FBI investigator, hearsay/excited-utterance evidence, prior-bad-acts references, alleged ineffective assistance of counsel on multiple fronts, and sentencing technicalities (consecutive noncapital terms and court costs).
The court affirmed convictions and the three death sentences, rejected claims of venue bias, prosecutorial misconduct, juror bias, hearsay/Confrontation Clause violations, cumulative error, and most ineffective-assistance claims; it vacated and remanded only the noncapital consecutive-sentence determination for resentencing because the trial court did not make an explicit proportionality finding required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Venue / Pretrial publicity	Beasley: publicity made an impartial jury impossible; court abused discretion by denying change of venue	State: no evidentiary showing of prejudicial publicity; voir dire did not show bias	Denied: no abuse of discretion; defendant failed to show actual or presumed prejudice (no evidentiary proof of pervasive prejudicial publicity)
Opening-statement religious language / prosecutorial misconduct	Beasley: prosecutor’s “wolf in sheep’s clothing” and biblical quote injected impermissible religious appeal and prejudiced jury	State: phrase was fair comment on evidence; court struck and instructed jury to disregard the biblical quote	Denied: phrase permissible as fair comment; visual aid excised and limiting instruction given; no substantial prejudice
Juror acquaintance with FBI agent (Juror No. 5)	Beasley: juror’s relationship with an investigator created bias; court and defense failed to rehabilitate or remove juror	State/Trial: relationship was casual/distant; testimony by the investigator was not credibility-contested; juror equivocal but not an admission of bias	Denied: relationship not shown to be close enough to presume bias; juror’s statement ambiguous; no reversible error and counsel not ineffective for not challenging
Hearsay / Confrontation Clause (victim statements, police narrative)	Beasley: numerous out-of-court statements improperly admitted and violated Crawford	State: many statements were offered for nonhearsay purposes (to show statements were made or to explain police conduct); excited utterance exception applied for Davis; business-records exception applied	Denied: court held statements admissible for nonhearsay purposes or as exceptions; Confrontation Clause not implicated or error harmless
Prior-bad-acts / references to fugitive status and request for mistrial	Beasley: witnesses’ references to his parole violations/fugitive status violated an in limine order and prejudiced jury warranting mistrial	State: some references were relevant to specifications and Beasley’s own theory; defense did not seek mistrial or limiting instruction on the record	Denied: testimony was relevant and/or harmless; no timely mistrial request; counsel’s failure to object not ineffective under circumstances
Sufficiency / Manifest weight of evidence	Beasley: evidence insufficient or against the manifest weight to prove murders/attempted murder	State: substantial circumstantial and direct evidence—cellphone/computer records, eyewitness (Davis), physical items, letter/map, witness identifications—supports convictions	Denied: convictions as to all murders and attempted murder affirmed; evidence sufficient and not against weight of evidence
Ineffective assistance of counsel (various)	Beasley: counsel erred (voir dire, failing to object, juror challenges, expert challenges, defective waivers) causing prejudice	State: most choices were tactical; no prejudice shown; many objections were without merit	Denied: Strickland standard not met; most claims speculative or cured; counsel performance not deficient in material respect
Sentencing: consecutive noncapital terms & court costs	Beasley: trial court failed to make all statutory consecutive-sentence findings and imposed costs without adequate record	State: findings can be discerned or fixed by nunc pro tunc; Joseph remand rule superseded by statute permitting postjudgment waiver	Held (mixed): court vacated noncapital consecutive sentences and remanded for resentencing because the proportionality finding required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) was not made on record; court costs need not trigger remand because R.C. 2947.23(C) allows postjudgment waiver

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (legal-sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make certain consecutive-sentence findings on the record and in the entry)
State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460 (2001) (venue/pretrial-publicity standards)
State v. Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467 (2014) (presumed prejudice standard from pervasive pretrial publicity)
State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 (2016) (hearsay vs. Confrontation Clause analysis; police-explanation testimony)
State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 255 (2006) (mitigation/weight of childhood trauma evidence)
State v. White, 82 Ohio St.3d 16 (1998) (prosecutorial-misconduct test and prejudice inquiry)