State v. Osie (Slip Opinion), 140 Ohio St. 3d 131

Osie killed David Williams in Williams’s home on Feb. 14, 2009 and was tried by a three-judge panel; the panel convicted on a felony-murder count with three death specifications and sentenced him to death.
Williams helped fund and mentor UCU, a business venture with Patterson and Wiskur; Osie was Patterson’s boyfriend and not a UCU partner but did occasional odd jobs for Williams.
A forged $375 check to Osie (signed by Patterson) triggered internal scrutiny; Wiskur investigated the forged check and discussed it with Williams.
On Feb. 14, 2009, Williams’s daughter’s phone and Williams’s own debit card activity tied Osie to the crime; texts from Osie to Patterson and other records supported Osie’s contact with the victims.
Police interrogation of Osie occurred with Miranda warnings; his statements evolved from self-defense to admission of stabbing and throat-slitting Williams; he later admitted taking the safe, TV, phone, and knife, and disposed of evidence.
Osie’s confession and cellhouse materials, along with various witness statements, formed the basis for two counts of aggravated murder with multiple specifications and related felonies; sentencing followed with death-penalty determinations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent	Osie argues waiver was not properly inquired into	State asserts proper colloquy and written waiver sufficed	Waiver valid and intelligent; no reversible error
Whether the three-judge panel was properly selected under R.C. 2945.06	Osie contends Powers improperly selected panel; Sage signed the panel entry	Panel selection complied with law; no plain error	Panel properly constituted; no plain error
Voluntariness of the confession	Osie claims coercion via questioning and threats to Patterson	Interrogation lacked coercive tactics; totality supports voluntariness	Confession voluntary; admissible under totality-of-circumstances
Whether Williams’s out-of-court statements were hearsay or violated confrontation	Statements used as substantive evidence	Not hearsay; used nonhearsay to show Osie’s motive	Not hearsay; Confrontation Clause not violated; admissible for motive
Whether the burglary-murder and witness-murder specifications should merge	Specifications were duplicative	Specs should merge; but independent review can cure	Specifications merge; error cured through independent sentence review

Ruppert v. State, 54 Ohio St.2d 263 (Ohio 1978) (jury waiver must be voluntary, knowing, intelligent; silence not conclusive)
Foust v. State, 2004-Ohio-7006 (Ohio 2004) (written jury waiver presumptively voluntary and intelligent)
Bays v. State, 87 Ohio St.3d 15 (1999) (advice of counsel supports voluntariness of waiver)
Jells v. State, 53 Ohio St.3d 22 (1990) (waiver need not be accompanied by explicit mental-health inquiry)
State v. Malone, 121 Ohio St.3d 244 (2009) (limits on ‘criminal action or proceeding’ for witness intimidation; Malone construes term narrowly)
State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412 (2006) (witness-murder specification can apply even when no pending proceeding at time of murder)
State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163 (2010) (merger of duplicative death specifications)
State v. Maxwell, 2014-Ohio-1019 (Ohio) (construes witness-murder specification; discusses timing of proceedings)
Conway ( Maxwell cited), - (-) (see Maxwell discussion above)