State v. Kirkland (Slip Opinion), 157 N.E.3d 716

Background

Between 2006 and 2009 Anthony Kirkland killed four women (two teenagers, Casonya C. and Esme K., and two adults, Mary Jo Newton and Kimya Rolison); bodies were burned or otherwise mutilated and some forensic evidence tied Kirkland to the crimes.
Kirkland pleaded guilty to Newton’s and Rolison’s murders (sentenced to 70 years-to-life) and was convicted by jury of aggravated murder for Casonya and Esme; the jury originally sentenced him to death for both.
This court affirmed convictions and sentences, but on postconviction review vacated the death sentences and remanded for a resentencing hearing under R.C. 2929.06(B). On remand a jury again recommended death for both aggravated-murder counts and the trial court imposed death sentences.
Kirkland appealed the resentencing ruling, raising 11 propositions of law challenging voir dire procedures, juror excusals, evidentiary rulings, counsel performance, prosecutorial remarks, jury instructions/verdict forms, courtroom security (stun cuff), and argued cumulative error.
The Ohio Supreme Court addressed each claim, conducted the required independent review of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and affirmed both death sentences.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Kirkland's Argument	Held
Denial of individual/sequestered voir dire	Group death-qualification is within judge’s discretion and did not prejudice defendant	Court should have conducted individual, sequestered voir dire for 15 prospective jurors	Denial was discretionary and not an abuse; no prejudice shown; claim overruled
Excusals for cause (death-penalty views)	Trial court properly excused jurors whose views would prevent/substantially impair duties	Some excusals (and retention of certain jurors) were erroneous and biased jury	Deference to trial court; excusals of jurors 2, 8, 27 proper; juror 36 claim forfeited and no plain error
Jury-questionnaire cover page (public-records notice)	Notice was proper and curtailed identifying info; no chilling shown	Notice chilled candor and impaired voir dire	Cover-page notice permissible and not shown to reduce candor; claim overruled
Ineffective assistance (voir dire & witnesses)	Counsel’s choices fell within trial strategy; no showing of prejudice	Counsel failed to probe biased juror 36 and failed to cross-examine/call mitigation witnesses	No deficient performance or prejudice established; ineffective-assistance claims denied
Admissibility of evidence about Newton/Rolison and 1987 murder	Other killings were part of same course-of-conduct aggravator; admissible; 1987 murder had been disclosed earlier	Evidence of other crimes and 1987 murder was unfairly prejudicial and violated Evid.R.404(B)	Newton and Rolison admissible as part of course-of-conduct aggravator; 1987 murder references not plain error because jury already knew of it
Admission of gruesome autopsy and crime-scene photos	Photographs were authenticated, noncumulative and probative of burning, injuries, and attempted rape	Graphic photos were unduly prejudicial and should have been excluded	Trial court did not abuse discretion; probative value outweighed prejudice
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing	Remarks were permissible argument or mitigated by court instruction/withdrawal	Prosecutor speculated about victim’s dying thoughts, attacked expert personally, and disparaged mitigation	Two isolated improper remarks found but mitigated; no denial of due process
Jury instructions & verdict form (parole eligibility; moral culpability; "should" v. "shall")	Instructions and forms accurately stated law and did not diminish jury responsibility	Jury should have been told precise parole-eligibility timing; moral-culpability language and "shall" required	Instructions adequate and accurate; verdict language "should" not improper under Caldwell; claim denied
Requirement to wear concealed stun cuff	Security measure necessary; device was concealed from jury	Forcing cuff (and visible remote) violated due process and distracted defendant	No Deck error: restraint was concealed and no plain error shown
Cumulative error and independent review of death sentences	Errors, if any, were harmless; aggravators outweigh mitigators beyond reasonable doubt	Cumulative errors rendered resentencing fundamentally unfair; death sentences disproportionate	No cumulative error found; independent review affirmed aggravators outweigh mitigating factors and sentences are proportionate

Key Cases Cited

State v. Mapes, 19 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 1985) (trial judge discretion on sequestered voir dire)
Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1968) (limits on excluding jurors for general death-penalty opposition)
Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1980) (standard for juror exclusion when views would prevent performance)
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1985) (deference to trial judge on juror bias findings)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance two-prong test)
State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio 1984) (standards for admitting gruesome photographs)
State v. Morales, 32 Ohio St.3d 252 (Ohio 1987) (stricter balancing test for gruesome photos in capital cases)
Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (U.S. 2005) (visible physical restraints and due process)
Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (U.S. 1985) (limits on diminishing jury’s sense of responsibility)
State v. Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12 (Ohio 2014) (instructions/helpfulness regarding jury’s recommendation language)
State v. Bey, 85 Ohio St.3d 487 (Ohio 1999) (jury recommendation language not unconstitutional)