State v. Ruble
2017 Ohio 7259
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In 1981 Lieutenant Ray Clark was shot and killed outside his home; a blue Ford Pinto and a No. 4 buckshot shell were tied to the scene. Decades later (2014) Mitchell R. Ruble was indicted for aggravated murder; a 2016 jury convicted him and sentenced him to life.
- Ruble had been investigated and later terminated from the sheriff’s office in 1981 after Lieutenant Clark’s inquiry into Ruble’s alleged excessive force against arrestee Gary Beagle; that investigation provided the State’s asserted motive.
- Key witnesses: Penny Howard (testified Ruble threatened to "blow [Clark] apart" and had been drinking), Robert Smithberger (initially corroborated Ruble’s alibi but later—after immunity and proffer—testified that Ruble solicited him to drive the Pinto and threatened him), and Beagle and Deputy John Dake (testified about the Beagle arrest and Ruble’s forceful conduct).
- The State introduced (1) detailed testimony about Ruble’s mistreatment of Beagle as "other acts" to prove motive, (2) Ruble’s custodial post-indictment recorded statement, and (3) evidence tying a Pinto, military-style boots, and No. 4 buckshot to Ruble’s conduct.
- Ruble raised multiple appellate claims: improper admission of other-acts (Evid.R. 404(B)/403) testimony about Beagle; exclusion of extrinsic impeachment evidence under Evid.R. 608(B); ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to move to suppress/redact, failure to object to certain testimony, and failure to preserve issues); erroneous aiding-and-abetting jury instruction; and cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ruble) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of detailed other-acts evidence about Ruble’s assault on Beagle | Evidence was relevant to motive (Clark’s investigation led to Ruble’s firing) | Admission of graphic, inflammatory details was unfairly prejudicial under Evid.R. 403 and should be excluded | Court: Trial court abused discretion under Evid.R. 403, but error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming remaining evidence (including similar details in Ruble’s own exhibit) |
| Preclusion of extrinsic evidence that Smithberger had been arrested for impersonating an officer (Evid.R. 608(B)) | Rule properly excludes extrinsic proof of specific instances; cross-examination allowed | Exclusion violated Ruble’s confrontation, due process, and compulsory process rights because he couldn’t prove impeachment facts to jury | Court: Evid.R. 608(B) validly applied; cross-examination was permitted; constitutional rights not violated; no plain error |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to suppress or redact custodial statement; other omissions | Statement should have been suppressed/redacted (no valid Miranda waiver; prejudicial officer commentary); counsel failed to object to certain testimony | Counsel’s failures prejudiced Ruble and fell below objective standard | Court: Waiver was shown by totality (including Ruble’s nod and law-enforcement experience); suppression/redaction motions lacked merit; officer comments were interrogation, not admissible sworn opinion, and were subject to cross-examination. Ineffective-assistance claims rejected |
| Jury instruction on aiding-and-abetting | Instruction was improper because indictment and State’s theory focused on principal offense only; Ruble lacked notice | Jury could reasonably find Ruble guilty as aider/abettor; indictment in principal terms not exclusive of complicity theory | Court: Instruction was proper; defendant had notice; evidence could support aiding-and-abetting; no error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521 (discussing admissibility framework for other-acts evidence and balancing under Evid.R. 404(B) and 403)
- State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 (trial-court discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 (Confrontation Clause guarantees opportunity for effective cross-examination; scope of impeachment and cross-examination)
- Nevada v. Jackson, 133 S.Ct. 1990 (Supreme Court: comparable rules excluding extrinsic impeachment evidence are constitutionally permissible)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standards for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda rights and waiver analysis)