State v. McFeeture
2014 Ohio 5271
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Victim Matthew Podolak died in 2006; autopsy (performed by Dr. Daniel Galita) concluded cause of death chronic intoxication by ethylene glycol; manner was initially “undetermined” (2007) and later amended to “homicide” (2010) by the county coroner.
- In 2012 Holly McFeeture (live-in girlfriend) was indicted for aggravated murder and contaminating a substance; trial in 2013 produced a guilty verdict.
- Prosecution theory: McFeeture repeatedly placed antifreeze (ethylene glycol) into Podolak’s sweetened iced tea over months, producing cumulative (chronic) poisoning. Medical evidence: calcium oxalate crystals in kidneys, myocarditis, and metabolite findings supporting chronic exposure.
- Defense theory: suicide/acute single ingestion; presented expert Dr. Robert Bux who disputed chronic-poisoning conclusions; also attacked credibility of some state witnesses (e.g., Jamison Kennedy, who testified to a confession).
- Procedural and evidentiary disputes on appeal: sufficiency/manifest weight; Confrontation Clause challenges to autopsy amendment and toxicology testimony; admission of other-acts/demeanor evidence; Brady nondisclosure (Kennedy as informant); denial of motion in limine to exclude Dr. Galita; preindictment delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McFeeture) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Circumstantial proof (medical examiner, motive, opportunity, confession to Kennedy) suffices to convict | Evidence insufficient; case depends on unreliable witnesses | Guilty verdict supported; evidence sufficient to sustain convictions |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | Medical and circumstantial evidence weighty; jury properly credited Dr. Galita | Jury lost its way; defense theory (suicide) more plausible | No manifest miscarriage; conviction affirmed |
| Confrontation Clause — amended autopsy manner; toxicology reports | Testifying ME (Galita) performed autopsy, participated in investigation, and was cross-examined; toxicology reports were business records | Amendment to manner (2010) and toxicology testimony required testimony of coroner/toxicologist who signed reports | No Confrontation violation; testimony admissible; defense had full cross-examination opportunity |
| Admission of other-acts/demeanor evidence | Testimony about relationship, defendant’s post-death behavior, and motive were relevant and admissible (Evid.R. 404(B), 701) | Such evidence was character/unduly prejudicial and should be excluded under Evid.R. 403/404 | Trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence admissible to show motive, context, intent |
| Brady nondisclosure — Kennedy as informant | Undisclosed informant status was cumulative impeachment; defense vigorously attacked Kennedy at trial | Failure to disclose materially undermined ability to impeach and warrants new trial | Not material under Brady; no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Motion in limine to exclude ME testimony / amendment procedure | Galita qualified under Evid.R. 702; coroner may amend manner without court hearing (R.C. 313.19 not triggered) | Science did not reliably support chronic-poisoning conclusions; amendment required court hearing | Court properly admitted Galita’s expert testimony and amendment procedure did not require pre-change hearing |
| Preindictment delay | Investigation and forensic development justified time; no showing of specific prejudice | Six-year delay prejudiced defense (witnesses, officials unavailable) | No plain-error; defendant failed to show actual, particularized prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc., 364 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1960) (circumstantial evidence can be as persuasive as direct evidence)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause: testimonial statements require opportunity for cross-examination)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic reports may be testimonial; analysts may need to testify)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (U.S. 2011) (surrogate testimony for an analyst’s report can violate Confrontation Clause)
- State v. Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12 (Ohio 2014) (medical-examiner testimony about autopsies and confrontation analysis)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel two-prong test)