State v. Deloney, 2019 Ohio 5213

Background

John Deloney was indicted for aggravated murder with death-penalty and firearm specifications and for aggravated robbery with a firearm specification.
Defense moved for a suggestion of intellectual disability (Atkins) and the trial court held a hearing despite limited cooperation from Deloney and his family.
The trial court found Deloney intellectually disabled and ruled the death penalty unconstitutional for him under Atkins and Ohio law.
The State appealed; this court reversed, holding Deloney had not met his burden to prove intellectual disability, and remanded for further proceedings.
On remand Deloney moved to preclude the death-penalty specifications on double-jeopardy grounds, arguing the prior Atkins finding was an "acquittal"; the trial court denied the motion.
This appellate court affirmed: the Atkins finding was not an acquittal for double-jeopardy purposes and the law-of-the-case doctrine did not bar consideration of the double-jeopardy claim.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Deloney's Argument	Held
Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine barred the trial court from considering Deloney’s double-jeopardy motion	Law-of-the-case does not preclude consideration because prior opinion decided only sufficiency of Atkins proof, not double-jeopardy	Law-of-the-case required the court to follow the earlier Atkins finding and so barred relitigation	The doctrine did not bar consideration; remand did not decide double-jeopardy
Whether the trial court’s prior Atkins finding was an "acquittal" that triggers double-jeopardy protection against retrying death-penalty specifications	The Atkins finding was not an acquittal because it did not resolve guilt/penalty-phase aggravating-factor issues and Deloney had not been convicted or sentenced	The Atkins finding functionally acquitted him of death eligibility and thus bars retrying death specifications	Not an acquittal: Atkins hearing was eligibility determination, unrelated to guilt or penalty-phase findings, so double jeopardy does not bar retrying death specifications
Whether the Atkins hearing was a "trial-like" sentencing proceeding that would bar seeking death on retrial	The Atkins hearing lacked the elements of a capital penalty phase (no proof of aggravators beyond a reasonable doubt; different burdens) and did not make findings equivalent to acquittal	Because the hearing used trial-like procedures, it functioned like a sentencing acquittal barring the death penalty on retrial	The hearing was not equivalent to a trial-like capital sentencing; different burdens and no findings on aggravators/mitigators, so Bullington line protections do not apply

Key Cases Cited

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (Eighth Amendment bars executing intellectually disabled offenders)
Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430 (1981) (double jeopardy can bar a capital resentencing when the first proceeding was an acquittal on sentencing merits)
Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203 (1984) (judge’s findings that preclude death can be an acquittal for double-jeopardy purposes if they resolve merits)
Poland v. Arizona, 476 U.S. 147 (1986) (failure to find a particular aggravating circumstance does not always constitute an acquittal)
Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, 537 U.S. 101 (2003) (touchstone for double jeopardy in capital cases is whether an acquittal on the merits occurred)
United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (1978) (acquittal occurs only when a ruling resolves factual elements in defendant’s favor)
Martin Linen Supply Co. v. United States, 430 U.S. 564 (1977) (government appeal barred only when evidence legally insufficient to sustain conviction)
State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 (2006) (only a finding that the state failed to prove its case for death constitutes an ‘acquittal of the death penalty’ in Ohio)
State v. White, 132 Ohio St.3d 344 (2012) (reaffirming that an acquittal on the merits is required to invoke double-jeopardy bar to resentencing)
State v. Lott, 97 Ohio St.3d 303 (2002) (placing burden on defendant to prove intellectual disability by preponderance in Ohio Atkins proceedings)