State v. Maxwell
139 Ohio St. 3d 12
| Ohio | 2014Background
- Defendant Maxwell was sentenced to death for the aggravated murder of Nichole McCorkle after a jury trial.
- Maxwell and Nichole had a long-term relationship with a child C.M.; Nichole resided at 1046 East 146th Street with her father and two children.
- October 6, 2005: Nichole sustained head injuries from Maxwell; a protective order followed and Maxwell discussed prison time with a coworker.
- November 26–27, 2005: Nichole was shot at her home after Maxwell confronted her about grand-jury testimony; C.M. witnessed the shooting; Maxwell admitted killing Nichole to a third party.
- MAXWELL was indicted on multiple counts including aggravated murder with death-penalty specifications; he waived jury trial on one weapon-offense and was convicted of Counts One and Seven and related specifications.
- The trial court imposed a death sentence, and Maxwell appealed asserting prosecutorial and evidentiary errors, ineffective assistance, and constitutional challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of autopsy evidence and surrogate testimony | Maxwell: autopsy report and surrogate testimony violated Crawford/Confrontation Clause | State: autopsy records are non-testimonial business records or properly admitted surrogate testimony | Autopsy testimony violated Confrontation Clause but errors deemed harmless |
| Amendment of indictment without explicit waiver | Maxwell argues Crim.R. 7(D) amendment changes offense/waives grand-jury rights | State contends no waiver and amendment valid since identity of offense remained, penalty not altered | Amendment not plain error; waiver not required for indictment in this procedural posture |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel in penalty phase | Maxwell claims counsel failed to present Atkins evidence and mitigators; failed to prepare | State argues strategy choices and investigative work were reasonable; guidelines not controlling | No reversible error; defenses and mitigation strategy deemed reasonably pursued |
| Competency of child witness (C.M.) | Maxwell argues C.M. was not competent to testify given age | Court conducted voir dire; child understood truthfulness and consequences | C.M. competent; no plain error in competency ruling |
| Miranda compliance and public-safety exception | Maxwell contends statements at arrest violated Miranda; public-safety exception misapplied | State: initial statements fall within Quarles’ public-safety exception or are admissible non-testimonial | Miranda violation found for the second statement; overall impact considered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Craig, 110 Ohio St.3d 306 (2006-Ohio-4571) (autopsy report admissibility as nontestimonial business record under Crawford/post-Melendez)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial statements require cross-examination)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic-certification testimony is testimonial; cannot be admitted via surrogate)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (surrogate testimony for lab reports generally violates confrontation)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012) (recognizes some expert/testimony can rely on reports without violating Confrontation; plurality opinions varied on primary purpose)
- State v. Crager, 116 Ohio St.3d 369 (2007-Ohio-6840) (DNA report admissible as nontestimonial; later limited by Melendez-Diaz/Bullcoming)
- State v. Monroe, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94768 (2011) (admissibility of autopsy evidence; Craig line of reasoning maintained)