State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St. 3d 233

Powell was convicted of four counts of aggravated murder and one of aggravated arson; the jury recommended death on the murder counts, which the trial court imposed.
The murders occurred at 814 St. John Avenue, Toledo, in a house shared by Mary McCollum, her relatives, and Rosemary McCollum; Powell had a long-running personal relationship with Mary.
Gasoline was poured on the front porch prior to the fire, and investigators found gasoline on Powell’s clothing and a gas can near the scene; Powell had previously threatened to burn the house.
Phone records show extensive calls between Powell and Mary around the time of the fire, and witnesses described Powell’s hostile conduct and confrontations preceding the fire.
Powell challenged pretrial admissibility of Isaac Powell’s grand‑jury statements and Powell’s videotaped interrogation as prior consistent statements; the trial court admitted them, but the Court later found the admission improper and reviewed for harmless error.
The city demolished the crime scene before defense experts could inspect; the court held the demolition did not constitute a due‑process violation due to lack of bad faith and the evidence obtainable from other sources was available.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Isaac Powell’s grand jury testimony and videotaped statement	State relied on prior statements for substantive evidence	Defense challenge to using prior statements as substantive evidence	Admission improper as hearsay; but error harmless under totality of evidence
Demolition of the crime scene and preservation of evidence	Destruction of remains unavoidably hampered defense testing	Destruction violated due process by destroying potentially useful evidence	Demolition did not violate due process; no bad faith shown; not reversible error
Miranda compliance and subsequent questioning	Initial warnings adequate; second interview incidental	Second interview required new warnings due to elapsed time	Initial Miranda warnings not stale; no new warnings required; harmless error otherwise
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing and prearrest silence	Prosecutor urged guilt and commented on silence	Seek to inflame jury or shift focus from evidence	Harmless beyond reasonable doubt; curative instructions given; overwhelming evidence of guilt
Penalty-phase instructions and residual doubt	Court properly instructed on burden and weight of aggravators	Needmerits on mercy/residual-doubt and burden issues	No reversible error; weighing and independent review upheld

California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) (due-process preservation of material evidence; not preserved evidence yields violation only if material exculpatory)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (failure to preserve potentially useful evidence requires bad faith to violate due process)
State v. Leach, 102 Ohio St.3d 135 (2004) (prearrest silence; improper for substantive use; closing argument rules apply)
State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460 (2001) (totality-of-circumstances for waiver/restart of interrogation warnings)
State v. Frazier, 115 Ohio St.3d 139 (2007) (counsel effectiveness and evidentiary challenges in capital cases)