State v. Clinton
108 N.E.3d 1
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Defendant Curtis Clinton was convicted by an Erie County jury of aggravated murders of Heather Jackson and her two children, related rapes (including rape of a 3‑year‑old), and aggravated burglary; jury recommended death and trial court imposed death sentences on three counts.
- Forensic and circumstantial evidence: surveillance and cell‑phone records placed Clinton at the scene in the early morning; DNA consistent with Clinton was found on C.J. (anal swab, underwear stain), on ligatures, and on Jackson; autopsies showed ligature strangulation and rectal dilation on Jackson and C.J.
- Separate rape: less than a week earlier Clinton raped 17‑year‑old E.S.; DNA linked Clinton to that assault; state joined those charges with the homicides as other‑acts evidence.
- The state also introduced evidence about a 1999 involuntary manslaughter (Misty Keckler) as other‑acts to show modus operandi/identity; trial court gave limiting instructions.
- Clinton waived presentation of most mitigation (after a competency evaluation); he made an unsworn statement. The defense raised numerous appellate claims (23 propositions), including sufficiency, evidentiary rulings, juror bias, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance, and invalid waiver of mitigation.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Clinton's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joinder of E.S. rape with murders | Joinder proper: E.S. rape was simple, direct, and admissible under Evid.R. 404(B) to prove identity/modus operandi | Joinder prejudiced Clinton and risked intermingling offenses and prevented selective testimony | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; evidence simple and admissible as other‑acts; jury can segregate proofs |
| Pretrial publicity / change of venue | Extensive voir dire and questionnaires cured publicity; no presumed or actual prejudice | Publicity (including social media) made fair trial impossible; trial court should have changed venue | Affirmed: no presumed prejudice; careful voir dire and excusals suffice; no abuse of discretion |
| Other‑acts evidence (Keckler homicide) | Admissible to show identity, motive, modus operandi; limiting instruction given | Testimony and photos were prejudicial and not distinctive enough to show modus operandi | Mostly affirmed: admissible as to adult victims and E.S.; inadmissible as to child victims but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Admission of DNA / Daubert challenge | DNA methods reliable; court held Daubert hearing and admitted DNA evidence | DNA testing consumed samples; reliability challenged and defense lacked retesting ability | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting DNA; reliability goes to weight, not admissibility |
| Admission of videotaped statement / captions | Tape admissible; jury instructed to rely on audio over captions | Captions inaccurate and distracting, prejudiced jury | Affirmed: no material inaccuracies identified; jury instructed accordingly |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel made strategic choices; no showing of deficient performance causing prejudice | Multiple alleged deficiencies (voir dire, experts, mitigation, evidentiary objections) deprived Clinton of fair trial | Affirmed: Strickland not met; errors, if any, were not prejudicial given overwhelming evidence |
| Waiver of mitigation (Ashworth inquiry) | Clinton presented an unsworn statement and had competency evaluation; Ashworth inquiry not required | Court should have personally questioned Clinton to ensure waiver was knowing and voluntary | Affirmed: unsworn statement and record of counsel's advising plus competency report excused full Ashworth inquiry |
| Sufficiency / manifest weight of evidence | Evidence (DNA, surveillance, cell records, admissions) sufficient to convict beyond reasonable doubt | Alternate suspects, untested items, and DNA of unknown contributors raised reasonable doubt | Affirmed: convictions supported; jury did not lose its way; sufficiency and weight claims rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (waiver of rights before custodial interrogation)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective‑assistance standard)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (trial‑court gatekeeping for scientific evidence)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for constitutional error)
- Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1966) (pretrial publicity and trial fairness)
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (U.S. 2010) (presumed prejudice for extreme publicity is rare)
- Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. 28 (U.S. 1986) (voir dire on racial bias in interracial capital cases upon request)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1954) (Remmer hearing required for extrajudicial juror contact)
- State v. Ashworth, 85 Ohio St.3d 56 (Ohio 1999) (trial court inquiry required when defendant waives all mitigating evidence)
- State v. Ricks, 136 Ohio St.3d 356 (Ohio 2013) (limitations on officer testimony recounting out‑of‑court statements that connect defendant to crime)