State v. Nowlin
2012 Ohio 4923
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant Terrell Nowlin challenging his conviction for conspiracy to commit aggravated murder, conspiracy to commit kidnapping, kidnapping with a firearm specification, aggravated murder with a firearm specification, three counts of tampering with evidence, and gross abuse of a corpse in Muskingum County case CR2010-0155.
- He sought to father Markia through adoption; he married Heather to facilitate adoption but did not cohabitate with her.
- Tyler Hardin, Markia’s presumed stepfather, was determined to be Heather’s ex-lover’s child; Tyler gained visitation rights after DNA showed Hardin was the father.
- On July 10, 2010, Heather and appellant allegedly planned to confront Tyler at a Tipton property and fled when confronted; Tyler was killed with gunfire and suffocation.
- The body was hidden, disposed of at a farm, and Heather later cooperated with police by providing location information; appellant was arrested July 18–20, 2010 and ultimately convicted after jury trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements to police were properly suppressed | Nowlin argues July 18termed interrogation violated Miranda and subject to suppression | State contends no unambiguous invocation of right to silence and gun independently sourced | First assignment overruled; gun independently sourced and statements admissible |
| Whether spousal privilege barred Heather Nowlin’s testimony | Nowlin contends privilege should exclude Heather’s testimony | Heather’s testimony not protected due to lack of coverture and presence of third parties | Second assignment overruled; privilege did not apply given non-coverture and presence of third parties |
| Whether jury should have been instructed on accomplice testimony | Accomplice testimony required cautionary instruction under R.C. 2923.03(D) | No objection; plain error review | Third assignment overruled; no plain error given corroboration and credibility instructions present |
| Whether the evidence or weight supports the convictions | Convictions supported by independent and corroborating evidence | Challenge to any insufficiency or weight of the evidence | Fourth assignment overruled; substantial support for convictions |
| Whether consecutive sentences were properly imposed under HB 86 requirements | HB 86 requires specific findings for consecutive terms | Trial court made necessary findings under prior law; not required to recite magic words | Fifth assignment sustained; remand for resentencing to make required factual findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) |
Key Cases Cited
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (unambiguous invocation of right to remain silent required to stop questioning)
- State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516 (2001) (unclear invocation of silence not a bar to questioning; waiver valid after counsel request)
- Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344 (1990) (Sixth Amendment allows voluntary waiver of counsel after request)
- State v. Greaves, 2012-Ohio-1989 (2012) (spousal privilege limits when not confidential and marriage not current; threats negate privilege)
- State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 (2003) (consecutive-sentence findings not tied to pre- Foster language; requires record-based reasoning)
- State v. Mowery, 1 Ohio St.3d 192 (1982) (marital harmony policy weighs against privilege where violence occurs)
- State v. Adams, 72 Ohio St.3d 431 (1995) (limitations on spousal privilege when one spouse publicly harms the other)
- Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980) (recognition of the spouse’s right to testify while balancing privilege)