State v. Metter
2013 Ohio 2039
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Metter, married to ex-husband Metter, was the crime target; Sabo Facebook-friend who proposed a murder-for-hire plan; Zombory (Metter) discussed hitting Metter for $50,000 and life-insurance proceeds; undercover detective posed as 'Vinny' to corroborate the plan; insurance double-indemnity discussed; defendant was indicted for two counts of conspiracy to commit aggravated murder and convicted after trial.
- Investigation involved undercover operation, body-wire meeting, hand-delivered funds, and doctored photos; police obtained statements from Metter without counsel during an undercover scenario; discovery of potentially corroborating statements by co-conspirator Zombory.
- Defense moved to suppress statements and exclude hearsay, and to preclude expert and policy-based evidence; DPs and witnesses were cross-examined; trial court denied suppression and much of defense motion in limine.
- Trial included disputed evidentiary rulings on co-conspirator statements, Evid.R. 801(D)(2)(e), and cross-examination about prior investigations; jury instruction on duress given, abandonment instruction denied; Dr. Fabian testified but ultimate opinion on predisposition excluded; new-trial motion denied.
- Appellant was sentenced to 10 years after merger of counts; conviction affirmed on appeal; dissent argues Sixth Amendment attachment upon filing of complaint/arrest warrant and suppression of statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached before questioning | Metter’s counsel was not present during undercover questioning | Counsel should have been available once proceedings began | No Sixth Amendment attachment at that stage (as adopted by majority) |
| Admission of co-conspirator statements under Crawford | Zombory’s statements were admissible as non-testimonial co-conspirator statements | Crawford prohibits testimonial statements without oath/cross-exam; improper if co-conspirator status unclear | Admissible under non-testimonial/co-conspirator framework (majority) |
| Evidence of conspiracy established independently before Evid.R. 801(D)(2)(e) | Independent proof existed through Sabo's Facebook exchanges and dinner discussions | Conspiracy proof was not sufficiently established before the statements | Sufficient independent evidence found to invoke 801(D)(2)(e) |
| Trial court’s evidentiary rulings on cross-examining Sabo and use of informant policy | Policy and prior investigations of Sabo could impeach credibility | Cross-examination on informant policy and investigations essential to entrapment defense | No abuse of discretion; curtailment not prejudicial; alternate grounds adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545 (1995) (conspiracy evidence must be independently proven before admissibility under Evid.R. 801(D)(2)(e))
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause applies to testimonial statements)
- Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel prohibits interrogation after counsel is invoked)
- Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972) ( Sixth Amendment attaches at commencement of adversarial proceedings)
- United States v. Cromer, 389 F.3d 662 (6th Cir. 2004) (tests for whether a statement is testimonial)
- Dolmas v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180 (1984) (right to counsel during trial-type confrontations)