State v. Lang
129 Ohio St. 3d 512
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Edward Lang was convicted by jury of aggravated murder of Cheek and Burditte, aggravated robbery with gun specs, and corresponding death and life-without-parole sentences plus a merged 3-year gun-spec sentence.
- The jury recommended death for Cheek and life without parole for Burditte; posttrial, the court imposed the sentences and a 10-year term for aggravated robbery, merged with gun specs.
- The State's case tied the killings to a drug-deal robbery plan; evidence included a 9 mm handgun found in Lang’s vehicle and DNA traces on the weapon.
- Co‑defendant Walker testified against Lang; Lang’s statements to police detailed a robbery plan and implied involvement, including shooting the victims.
- Lang challenged multiple trial issues on appeal, including indictment sufficiency, grand jury disclosure, juror misconduct, DNA evidence, and trial instructions; the court affirmed most convictions but remanded for proper postrelease-control imposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment sufficiency for aggravated robbery | Lang argues mens rea missing in Count Three. | Horner/Colon framework supports defect? structural error. | Indictment tracked statute; no error or plain error present. |
| Grand jury testimony disclosure | Lang seeks grand jury transcripts for cross-exam and defense prep. | Need exists for disclosure to assure fair trial. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; no particularized need shown. |
| Juror misconduct due to relationship with victim | Juror was related to Cheek; could prejudice verdict. | Remmer standards require inquiry; potential prejudice. | No reversible error; Remmer inquiry satisfied; no demonstrated prejudice. |
| DNA evidence admissibility and weight | DNA on the handgun links Lang to crimes; weighting appropriate. | DNA testimony unreliable; equal-protection concerns; confrontation issues. | DNA testimony admissible; weight for jury; no plain error. |
| Instructions on the 2929.04(A)(7) death-penalty specification | Instructions incomplete; failed to present prior calculation and design option. | Beck v. Alabama concerns; two options given; harmless error. | Instructions not defective; harmless or invited error analysis upholds. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Colon, 118 Ohio St.3d 26 (2008-Ohio-1624) (indictment defects and mens rea discussed; later clarified in Horner)
- State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St.3d 466 (2010-Ohio-3830) (indictment tracking statute not defective; waiver and plain error standards)
- State v. D’Ambrosio, 67 Ohio St.3d 185 (1993-Ohio-) (DNA testimony treated as weight not admissibility; possibility opinion)
- State v. Pierce, 64 Ohio St.3d 490 (1992-Ohio-) (DNA frequency statistics admissible; weight goes to jury)
- Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980) (constitutional concerns re lesser-included offenses in capital cases)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause and testimonial statements)
- State v. Wogenstahl, 75 Ohio St.3d 344 (1996) (sentencing and proportionality review in capital cases)