State v. Obermiller (Slip Opinion), 147 Ohio St. 3d 175

Background

In August 2010 Denny Obermiller was arrested for the rape and murders of his step-grandmother Candace Schneider and step-grandfather Donald Schneider; DNA linked Obermiller to seminal material found on Candace.
Police found both victims bound and strangled; investigators discovered removed stove parts, a missing flat-screen TV, used condoms, and other items connecting Obermiller to the scene.
A grand jury indicted Obermiller on multiple counts including two counts of aggravated murder with various death-penalty specifications; he waived a jury, pleaded guilty, and the case proceeded to an R.C. 2945.06 hearing before a three-judge panel.
The panel found Obermiller guilty on all counts and, after merger of counts and an Ashworth colloquy in which Obermiller knowingly waived mitigation, sentenced him to death on two counts and 32.5 years on other counts.
Obermiller appealed, raising ten propositions of law challenging self-representation, suppression rulings, admission of evidence (including gruesome photos), ineffective assistance claims, prosecutorial misconduct, and the weighing of aggravating vs. mitigating factors.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Obermiller)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Right to self-representation	Obermiller says the court improperly denied/coerced his Faretta waiver and failed to offer standby counsel	Court and state: panel properly conducted Faretta colloquy, defendant withdrew request and later accepted counsel; no duty to offer standby counsel	Denied — panel’s thorough colloquy complied with Faretta; Obermiller withdrew request and waiver was valid
Suppression / custodial interrogation	Statements at arrest were custodial and should have been suppressed; counsel ineffective for not raising it adequately	Defendant contends plea waived pre-plea constitutional claims; suppression issue is forfeited by guilty plea	Denied — guilty plea waived pre-plea claims (Tollett/Fitzpatrick); ineffective-assistance claim on this ground barred by plea
Evidentiary rulings (gruesome photos, hearsay, silence)	Admission of gruesome photos, hearsay, officer testimony about silence, and juvenile-record references were prejudicial	State: evidence was relevant to guilt and sentencing; objections were mostly not made at trial so only plain-error review applies; three-judge panel presumed to consider only admissible evidence	Denied — no plain error shown; photos admissible in mitigation phase and not outcome-determinative after guilty plea
Ineffective assistance / defense conduct	Counsel failed to cross-examine, object, present mitigation, or make openings/closings; performance prejudiced outcome	State: counsel acted consistently with defendant’s explicit instructions to present no defense or mitigation; attorney performance not deficient under Strickland when following client directives	Denied — no deficient performance because counsel followed defendant’s clear, competent instructions; no prejudice given overwhelming evidence of guilt
Sentencing / mitigation weight & independent review	Court improperly relied on nonstatutory aggravators, failed to meaningfully consider mitigation, and misapplied aggravators between victims	State: panel identified only statutory aggravators, performed Ashworth waiver inquiry, and considered mitigating material in the record; independent reweighing will cure any minor errors	Denied — aggravators supported by the record (course-of-conduct, witness-murder; rape-felony for Candace); mitigating factors given some weight but do not outweigh aggravators; death sentences affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (recognizes Sixth Amendment right to self-representation and requires knowing, intelligent waiver)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (guilty plea waives pre-plea constitutional claims)
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (prohibits comment on defendant’s silence)
Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 (Court must inquire thoroughly into waiver decisions)
McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (standards on pro se representation and counsel’s role)
State v. Fitzpatrick, 102 Ohio St.3d 321 (Ohio; guilty plea bars raising certain pre-plea constitutional claims)
State v. Cassano, 96 Ohio St.3d 94 (Ohio; request to proceed pro se must be unequivocal and timely)
State v. Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467 (Ohio; limits on gruesome-photograph rule and evidentiary review in capital cases)