State v. Grate (Slip Opinion)
172 N.E.3d 8
Ohio2020Background
- Shawn Grate lived in a rented house in Ashland County and over summer 2016 lured three women to that location; two (E.G. and S.S.) were murdered by strangulation and hidden in the house; L.S. was kidnapped and raped but survived and escaped to summon police.
- Police found victims' belongings and suspected sexual devices in the home; DNA from vaginal swabs and devices matched Grate; autopsies concluded both deaths were asphyxia by cervical compression.
- Grate gave multiple confessions and demonstrated how he strangled the victims; he pleaded guilty to many noncapital counts midtrial; a jury convicted him on the remaining counts and recommended death on two aggravated-murder counts with statutory specifications; the trial court imposed two death sentences and consecutive prison terms totaling 90 years to life for noncapital counts.
- On appeal Grate raised 12 propositions including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to move for change of venue, mishandling of an NGRI plea, failure to obtain/introduce neuroimaging, failure to seek merger of allied offenses, and many other trial/mitigation objections), evidentiary and procedural challenges (gag order, hearsay exclusions in mitigation, replacement of a juror), statutory and constitutional sentencing claims (consecutive terms, Hurst challenge), and proportionality.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed each issue, applied Strickland and related standards for ineffective-assistance claims, conducted independent review of the death sentences under R.C. 2929.05(A), and affirmed convictions and sentences.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Grate's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pretrial publicity / change of venue | Voir dire and juror assurances cured any publicity; no presumptive prejudice | Counsel ineffective for not moving to change venue in small county with media coverage | No ineffective assistance; voir dire adequate; no actual or presumed bias shown |
| Joint gag order | Gag order protected juror pool and reinforced ethical rules; reasonable restriction on parties | Counsel ineffective for joining gag order and waiving hearing; limited counsel's ability to shield jury | No ineffective assistance; joint motion appropriate and hearing waiver permissible |
| Withdrawal of NGRI plea in defendant's absence | Defense counsel had expert evaluations finding Grate sane; plea withdrawal was strategic and Grate voluntarily absent | Counsel ineffective for withdrawing NGRI plea outside Grate's presence and when evidence supported NGRI | No ineffective assistance; experts did not support NGRI; Grate voluntarily absent and counsel permitted to act |
| Failure to obtain additional neuroimaging / continuance | Daubert gatekeeping required proof of reliability; Mindset expert did not appear so tests excluded | Counsel ineffective for not securing DTI/fMRI results or seeking continuance; mitigation harmed | No ineffective assistance; court properly excluded unreliable proffered imaging; no reasonable probability outcome would differ |
| Merger of kidnapping and rape (L.S. and S.S.) | Offenses involved prolonged restraint, secretive confinement, and separate animus so they need not merge | Counsel ineffective for failing to argue merger; insufficient evidence for kidnapping count | No ineffective assistance; Logan/Ruff analysis shows separate animus; guilty plea waived some challenges |
| Other-acts evidence objections | Many extrinsic acts were relevant background or context; some assertions were de minimis | Counsel ineffective for failing to object to irrelevant or prejudicial other-acts evidence | Some omissions deficient but not prejudicial given overwhelming evidence; convictions stand |
| Cumulative ineffective assistance | Individual errors not reversible but cumulative effect could undermine fairness | Cumulative errors deprived Grate of fair trial and reliable mitigation presentation | Court rejects cumulative-error claim; overwhelming proof of guilt and mitigation not sufficiently affected |
| Hearsay/exclusion of family statements in mitigation | Rules of Evidence apply in mitigation; expert may rely on hearsay but underlying statements are not substantive evidence | Excluding family statements improperly limited mitigation evidence | No reversible error; excluded material was cumulative and jury instructed properly; independent review cures error |
| Replacement with alternate juror before mitigation | Replacement permitted by Crim.R.24(G); counsel moved to excuse juror and had earlier questioned alternate | Structural error or deprivation because alternate was seated without new voir dire | No structural error; invited error doctrine applies; replacement within court's discretion |
| Consecutive noncapital sentences after death verdict | Trial court made required Bonnell findings on record; consecutive terms lawful even with death sentences | Imposing consecutive terms alongside death sentence is nonsensical and unlawful | No error; statutory scheme permits consecutive sentences and court complied with Bonnell |
| Hurst challenge to Ohio procedure | Ohio precedent (Mason) distinguishes Ohio scheme from Hurst and upholds constitutionality | Hurst renders Ohio's death-sentencing unconstitutional | Court declines to overrule Mason; Hurst claim rejected |
| Proportionality review | Appellate review under R.C. 2929.05 supports sentence comparability | Death sentence disproportionate | Death sentences affirmed as appropriate and proportionate after independent review |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966) (trial court duty to protect proceedings from prejudicial publicity)
- Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) (standards for prior restraint on media and factors to consider)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial-court gatekeeping for scientific expert reliability)
- State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521 (2012) (three-step test for other-acts evidence under Evid.R. 404)
- State v. Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467 (2014) (presumed prejudice from pretrial publicity requires clear and manifest showing)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make statutory findings on record for consecutive sentences)
- Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92 (2016) (jury-trial implications for death-penalty factfinding)
- State v. Mason, 153 Ohio St.3d 476 (2018) (Ohio Supreme Court ruling distinguishing Ohio scheme from Hurst)