State v. Calise
2012 Ohio 4797
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- August 9, 2010: 911 call about a severely injured 23‑month‑old, Aaliyah Ali, after bath incident; paramedics found her in the living room, brain injury signs led to surgery but coma persisted and life support was discontinued.
- Aaliyah suffered subdural hemorrhage, brain swelling, and retinal hemorrhages; doctors concluded injuries were from severe trauma not a bathtub fall, leading to homicide ruling by the medical examiner.
- Indictment charged Calise with murder, involuntary manslaughter, and two counts of child endangering; the defense and State consulted experts, including Dr. Lloyd for a biomechanics experiment.
- Daubert hearing denied Dr. Lloyd’s testimony; court excluded his bathtub‑fall experiment as unreliable and his pediatric brain‑injury opinions as lacking qualifications.
- Jury convicted Calise on all counts; she received a sentence of 15 years to life; her timely appeal raised numerous assignments of error, including evidentiary and trial‑conduct challenges.
- Court ultimately affirmed the convictions and denied the motions for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Lloyd’s testimony | Calise argues Lloyd’s testimony is scientifically reliable | State argues Lloyd’s methods meet Evid.R. 702 standards | Court did not abuse discretion; Lloyd’s testimony excluded as unreliable |
| Medical witnesses’ testimony on cause of injuries | Calise contends doctors were not competent to opine on causation | State properly presented medical causation via four experts | Court properly admitted medical experts; causation supported by medical testimony |
| Exclusion of Dr. Stephens’ second report; new trial impact | Calise claims exclusion affected defense theory and warranted new trial | State argues no Brady violation; exclusion appropriate to prevent surprise | Court did not abuse discretion; exclusion did not deny right to defense; cross‑examination permitted |
| Admission of Pompeo and Rothacher testimony (other acts/background) | Calise claims testimony was improper character evidence | Testimony admissible for background/context of offense | Testimony admissible as background evidence; no abuse of discretion |
| Motion for new trial timeliness and denial | Calise argues new‑trial motion timely due to extensions | State argues strict Crim.R. 33 deadlines apply | Court properly denied new trial; certain procedural extensions did not require reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Bike Athletic Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 607 (Ohio 1998) (reliability factors for scientific evidence under Daubert/Evid.R. 702)
- Valentine v. Conrad, 110 Ohio St.3d 42 (Ohio 2006) (gatekeeper reliability; tests for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (establishes standard for admissibility of scientific expert testimony)
- State v. Nemeth, 82 Ohio St.3d 202 (Ohio 1998) (reliability requirement under Evid.R. 702; threshold inquiry)
- State v. Wooden, 2008-Ohio-3629 (Ohio Ninth Dist.) (affirming exclusion of unreliable expert testimony)
- Barrios v. Barrios, 2007-Ohio-7025 (Ohio Ninth Dist.) (abuse of discretion standard for trial‑court evidentiary rulings)