State v. Hunter, 2012 Ohio 2859

Background

Hunter was convicted in 2007 of aggravated murder, rape, and endangering children, with death-penalty sentences based on two death specifications.
He challenged convictions on direct appeal and via a 2008 postconviction petition; this appeal challenges the denial of his postconviction petition.
The Ohio Supreme Court previously rejected his direct-appeal challenges, including on the jury-waiver, evidentiary, and mitigation-related issues.
The trial court denied postconviction claims, including prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and proportionality/constitutional challenges to the death sentence, and did so without an evidentiary hearing in many instances.
The First District affirmed, holding that postconviction relief requires substantive grounds supported by the petition and that, where outside evidence is not dispositive, res judicata can bar claims; many of Hunter’s claims were appropriately denied.
The court also concluded Hunter was not entitled to discovery or funding for experts because his claims were properly denied without an evidentiary hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Postconviction hearing and res judicata application	Hunter asserts unresolved substantive grounds and reliance on outside evidence merits discovery	State contends claims were properly barred by res judicata where they could have been raised on direct appeal	Claims properly denied; res judicata applicable where outside evidence not outcome-determinative
Prosecutorial misconduct—Withholding material evidence	Non-disclosure of exculpatory evidence denied fair trial	No demonstrable material exculpatory evidence; discovery requests insufficient	No reversible error; postconviction claim properly dismissed for lack of evidence and inability to demonstrate material impact
Ineffective assistance of counsel claims	Counsel deficient in trial preparation, medical-evidence handling, and mitigation	Trial.record showed reasonable strategy; no prejudice shown by withheld or deficient performance	Claims denied without an evidentiary hearing; no prejudice established under Strickland-Bradley
Constitutionality and proportionality of death sentence	Death penalty arbitrary and discriminatory; disproportional compared to similarly situated defendants	Proportionality review within statutorily permitted scope; no constitutional violation shown	Proportionality and related constitutional challenges denied; death sentence affirmed
Discovery rights and funding for experts in postconviction	Right to off-record development and funding for experts is essential	Discovery not warranted where substantive grounds for relief were not shown; no entitlement to funding	Discovery and funding denied; postconviction claims resolved on record

Key Cases Cited

State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio (1967)) (establishes res judicata for postconviction claims that could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (Ohio (1982)) (supports preclusion of newly raised postconviction claims)
State v. Pankey, 68 Ohio St.2d 58 (Ohio (1981)) (limits postconviction discovery absent substantive grounds)
State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107 (Ohio (1980)) (recognizes procedural limits on postconviction relief)
State v. Issa, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 5762 (Ohio App. (2001)) (discovery available only if substantive grounds shown)
State v. Steffen, 31 Ohio St.3d 111 (Ohio (1987)) (proportionality review and sentencing considerations in postconviction)
Mayola v. Alabama, 623 F.2d 992 (5th Cir. 1980) (pretrial publicity may lead to presumed juror bias in rare cases)
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S.153 (U.S. Supreme Court (1976)) (upholds death penalty; concerns about discretion do not render unconstitutional)
McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (U.S. Supreme Court (1987)) (rejects racial-disparity challenges to capital punishment without proof of discriminatory intent)