State v. Buck
81 N.E.3d 895
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Victim Michelle Johnson (21) was found murdered in a shed behind a Stow, Ohio residence on March 15, 2014; her roommate Roxanne Buck was indicted for murder (R.C. 2903.02(A)) and tampering with evidence.
- Buck was arrested March 20, 2014, waived a speedy-trial right in writing on July 3, 2014 (limited to a continuance until Sept. 15, 2014), later revoked the waiver, and trial was ultimately held October 6, 2014.
- At trial the State presented medical testimony of 32 stab/incised wounds, autopsy photographs, shoeprint analysis, and extensive DNA evidence linking Buck to bloodstains in the lower level of the home, fingernail scrapings, items in the laundry/garage, and materials in Buck’s car.
- Defense challenged (among other things) speedy-trial compliance and voluntariness of the waiver, ineffective assistance of counsel, admission of autopsy photos and DNA evidence (including timing of a late BCI report on a bleach bottle), and prosecutorial misconduct in closing.
- The jury convicted Buck of both counts; the trial court sentenced her to 18 years to life. The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed on all eight assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Buck) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy trial compliance (statutory) | Waiver signed by Buck tolled speedy-trial time back to arrest date, so trial within allowable period. | Waiver was limited to Sept. 15 and could not be retroactively applied to toll from arrest; trial delay violated R.C. 2945.71. | Affirmed: waiver deemed effective from arrest when no start date specified; trial timely (trial Oct. 6 after tolling until Sept. 15). |
| Voluntariness of waiver | Waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made (presumed regularity absent omitted transcript). | Waiver was not knowingly/intelligently voluntary because Buck did not know it related back to arrest. | Affirmed: presumption of regularity applies because pretrial transcript not in record; waiver valid. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel’s performance not shown to be deficient or prejudicial; appellate-ineffective claim premature under App.R. 26(B). | Trial counsel failed to advise re: speedy-trial tolling; initial appellate counsel failed to include pretrial transcript. | Affirmed: appellant failed to meet Strickland burden and record deficiencies preclude relief. |
| Admissibility of autopsy photos (Evid.R. 403) | Photos were probative to explain medical testimony, show nature/intent, and link wounds to defendant; court reviewed and trimmed presentation. | Photos were gruesome, repetitively inflammatory, prejudicial outweighing probative value. | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; probative value outweighed prejudice; limited use and not sent to jury during deliberations. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (closing) | Remarks were within allowable latitude and did not deprive defendant of fair trial given strong evidence. | Prosecutor improperly attacked credibility, called testimony a lie, and impermissibly argued levels of offense. | Affirmed: no abusive misconduct requiring mistrial; defendant failed to raise plain error for some remarks. |
| Crim.R.16(K) disclosure of DNA report (bleach bottle) | Late BCI report did not prejudice defense in light of overwhelming DNA evidence and other favorable test results. | Late disclosure of amended DNA report for bleach bottle deprived defense of opportunity to prepare and violated rule. | Affirmed: no showing of willful violation or prejudice given other, stronger DNA evidence. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for murder (R.C. 2903.02(A)) | Evidence (32 stab/incised wounds, DNA, bloodstains localized to Buck’s living area, shoeprint and eyewitness presence) establishes purposeful killing. | Evidence insufficient or against manifest weight. | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to support murder conviction; number/nature of wounds supports intent to kill. |
| DNA testimony procedure (multiple-step testing) | Testimony admissible; defendant did not preserve specific objection that analyst did not perform all steps and failed to argue plain error on appeal. | Analyst did not perform all four steps and testimony should be excluded. | Affirmed: objection not preserved for appeal; no plain error argument advanced. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pachay v. Ohio, 64 Ohio St.2d 218 (recognizing statutory speedy-trial scheme enforces constitutional right)
- O'Brien v. Ohio, 34 Ohio St.3d 7 (statutory and constitutional speedy-trial rights are coextensive)
- King v. Ohio, 70 Ohio St.3d 158 (waiver of speedy trial must be written or made on the record)
- Adams v. Ohio, 43 Ohio St.3d 67 (defendant may waive speedy trial if knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily done)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Maurer v. Ohio, 15 Ohio St.3d 239 (trial court discretion on admission of photographs; gruesomeness alone not dispositive)
- Jenks v. Ohio, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Scudder v. Ohio, 71 Ohio St.3d 263 (multiple stab wounds can establish intent to kill)