State v. Du
2011 Ohio 6306
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Du appealed his convictions for two counts of attempted aggravated murder arising from a 1997 Wright State University knife attack.
- Mai (ex-girlfriend) and Borton (Mai’s boyfriend) were the two victims; Du pursued Mai and attacked Borton when Mai rejected him.
- Du pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated murder of Mai and proceeded to trial on attempted aggravated murder of Borton, resulting in a jury verdict against him for Borton.
- The trial court imposed consecutive ten-year sentences for the two attempted-murder convictions.
- Du challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence and (2) weight of the evidence for the Borton conviction, (3) admissibility of Mai’s injuries and related photographs, and (4) maximum, consecutive-sentencing findings.
- The court affirmed, applying modern law on sufficiency, weight, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing post-Foster/Hodge/Ford developments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for intent to kill Borton | Du argues insufficient evidence of purposeful design to kill | Du claims lack of calculated plan | Evidence supports purpose and prior design |
| Manifest weight of the evidence for Borton conviction | State asserts record shows clear guilt beyond reasonable doubt | Du contends weights favor acquittal | Not against the manifest weight; sober review supports conviction |
| Admissibility of Mai’s injuries and photos | Evidence relevant to motive, intent, and design; probative value outweighs prejudice | Evidence unfairly prejudicial since Mai was previously pled guilty | Admission not an abuse of discretion; probative value outweighed prejudice |
| Consecutive sentences and required findings | Findings needed under R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) for consecutive terms | Law as applied post-Foster/Hodge is unsettled and not retroactive | Statutory findings not required at the time; term remains valid; HB86 amendments not retroactive to this case |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hawn, 138 Ohio App.3d 449 (Ohio App.3d 2000) (sufficiency review framework)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (test for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (weighing evidence; miscarriage of justice standard)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio App.3d 1983) (manifest weight standard)
- State v. Stallings, 89 Ohio St.3d 208 (Ohio 2000) (intent to kill inference from deadly-weapon wounds)
- State v. Hayden, (Sept. 16, 1997) (Franklin App.) (infer intent to kill from abdomen wounds)
- State v. Luster, (July 25, 1985) (Franklin App.) (intent to kill can be inferred from stabbing the abdomen)
- State v. Braden, 98 Ohio St.3d 354 (2003) (prior calculation and design analysis guidance)
- State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163 (2010) (prior calculation and design evidence)
- Cotton, 56 Ohio St.2d 8 (Ohio 1978) (safety-rule on prior calculation)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (unconstitutional sentencing-facts framework; no judicial fact-finding required for consecutive terms)
- State v. Hodge, 2010-Ohio-6320 (Ohio 2010) (post-Foster treatment of consecutive-sentence findings)
- State v. Ford, Clark App. No. 11-CA-26, 2011-Ohio-5203 (Ohio 2011) (consecutive-sentencing standards post-Foster/Hodge)