2023 Ohio 337
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Victim Roman Roshchupkin was found dead July 6, 2020 in the master bedroom of an apartment shared with defendant Stormy Delehanty; body wrapped in blankets and showing multiple sharp‑force injuries.
- Autopsy: multiple serrated‑pattern superficial wounds plus five stab wounds, including fatal neck and back wounds penetrating the jugular and lung; cause of death was multiple sharp‑force injuries.
- Crime‑scene evidence: visible and latent blood throughout the apartment, tied pillowcase and cinched belt on the body, blood‑stained cleaning items and trash bags, missing knives from a KitchenAid block.
- Financial/flight evidence: $7,000 transfer from joint account on July 6 and hotel charge; surveillance showed Stormy making multiple store purchases (cleaning supplies, trash bags, duffel) and leaving the apartment; Stormy was later arrested in Las Vegas with a duffel containing handwritten notes including a statement, "I killed my husband accidentally," and two KitchenAid knives.
- Recorded interview: Stormy told police, "I'm the one who did it," described heavy intoxication and memory gaps, and admitted cleaning the scene and leaving; at trial she testified about prior alleged abuse and inconsistent memories.
- Procedural: jury convicted Stormy of murder, two counts of felonious assault, and tampering with evidence; trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 18 years to life and required violent‑offender registration and APA supervision; on appeal convictions affirmed but sentence vacated and remanded for statutory advisements and resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Delehanty) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of gruesome/crime‑scene and autopsy photographs | Photos were relevant to show location, wounds, weapon characteristics (serrated), and scene cleanup; probative value outweighed prejudice | Photos were repetitive, gruesome, and unfairly prejudicial under Evid.R. 403(A) | Court affirmed admission; photographs were relevant, non‑cumulative, and probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice (error, if any, harmless given overwhelming evidence) |
| Request for self‑defense jury instruction | Not applicable (State opposed instruction) | Trial court should instruct on self‑defense based on testimony of past abuse and the alleged struggle immediately before the killing | Denied: no evidence of a bona fide, reasonable belief of imminent deadly harm or that defendant used force in self‑defense; claim inconsistent with admissions and concealment conduct |
| Failure to give R.C. 2903.42(A)(1) violent‑offender advisements at sentencing | Advisements omission does not require vacating convictions; court can remedy on remand | Trial court failed to provide statutorily required pre‑sentencing notifications to a violent offender; sentencing defective | Merits remand: sentence vacated and remanded so trial court can provide mandatory R.C. 2903.42(A)(1) advisements and resentence |
| Alleged imposition of lifetime post‑release control / APA supervision | Court’s sentencing language properly informed about supervision | Sentence improperly ordered lifetime APA supervision and suggested lifetime post‑release control; murder as a special felony not subject to post‑release control | Court found wording inaccurate (parole eligibility statute misapplied); issue rendered moot by remand for resentencing but noted trial court should correct clerical/statutory errors regarding APA supervision on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio 1984) (gruesome photographs not per se inadmissible; admissible if probative and not unfairly prejudicial)
- State v. Monroe, 105 Ohio St.3d 384 (Ohio 2005) (photographs admissible to give jury an appreciation of manner and circumstances of the crime)
- State v. Wright, 48 Ohio St.3d 5 (Ohio 1990) (Evid.R. 403 standard: only unfairly prejudicial evidence is excludable)
- State v. Jackson, 107 Ohio St.3d 53 (Ohio 2005) (gruesome photographs can be probative to explain intent, manner, and circumstances)
- State v. Adams, 144 Ohio St.3d 429 (Ohio 2015) (standard for giving requested jury instructions: correct law, applicable to facts, and reasonable minds could reach the requested conclusion)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (elements of self‑defense and duty to retreat considerations)