State v. Roberts, 137 Ohio St. 3d 230

Roberts was convicted of aggravated murder of her former husband Fingerhut, with two death specifications, and sentenced to death; the death sentence was vacated on direct appeal and remanded for resentencing; on remand, the trial court again sentenced Roberts to death and this Court again vacated.
Fingerhut owned two life-insurance policies naming Roberts as sole beneficiary totaling $550,000; Roberts stood to gain from Fingerhut’s death.
Roberts had an affair with Nathaniel Jackson, who was imprisoned during part of the affair; they exchanged letters and there were 18 recorded prison conversations showing a plot to kill Fingerhut.
Jackson was released December 9, 2001; Fingerhut was murdered December 11, 2001.
Roberts attempted to present mitigating evidence on remand but the trial court denied a full mitigation hearing; Roberts proffered prison records, SSA disability file, a psychologist’s affidavit, and a letter from her son.
Roberts gave an allocution on remand (October 22, 2007) prior to resentencing; the court imposed death on October 29, 2007 without addressing the allocution in the sentencing opinion, leading to appellate findings of error and remand for a new sentencing opportunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by excluding mitigating evidence on remand	Roberts contends Eighth Amendment requires consideration of all relevant mitigation	Davis II/Chinn control; no obligation to reopen mitigation when errors occurred post-mitigation	Yes; remand required considering proffered mitigation on entire record
Whether the trial court failed to consider Roberts’s allocution	Allocution information was relevant mitigation and required consideration	Allocution is not evidence; prior waiver of mitigation limits impact	Yes; allocution must be considered; remand for independent weighing required
Whether the sentencing opinion inadequately documents mitigation weighing	Failing to discuss allocution and mitigation compromises independent review	Independent review can cure weighing omissions under Maurer/Lott	Remanded for a new sentencing opinion reflecting proper weighing
Whether nonstatutory aggravating factors were improperly considered	Trial court relied on nonstatutory aggravators	Issue rendered moot due to remand requirement for new opinion	Moot; remand requires reweighing with proper guidance
Whether trial judge’s recusal issue is moot	Judge should have recused; new sentencing proceeding	Judge died; moot	Moot

Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978) (mitigation must be considered in weighing death sentences)
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) (cannot preclude mitigating evidence in weighing decision)
Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986) (right to present mitigating evidence on remand or at sentencing)
Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393 (1987) (prohibition on excluding relevant mitigation evidence)
State v. Davis, 63 Ohio St.3d 44 (1992) (remand for resentencing after post-mitigation errors; limits on reopening mitigation)
State v. Chinn, 85 Ohio St.3d 548 (1999) (remand from post-mitigation errors; proceed from point of error on remand)
State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239 (1984) (independent review to cure sentencing omissions)
State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404 (2008) (independent reweighing may cure weighing errors in sentencing)