State v. Schaeffer
41 N.E.3d 813
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- On May 26, 2014, Shey Weiker set fire to Daniel Marker’s house with a road flare; two people died (Marker and Tara Vance) and one survived with serious injuries (Dana Weatherall).
- Weiker later pled guilty to arson- and homicide-related charges and testified that Schaeffer gave her a flare, showed her how to use it, and told her to “go do it.”
- Schaeffer was indicted for complicity to aggravated arson, complicity to aggravated murder, complicity to murder, and complicity to attempted murder (later counted as attempted felony murder).
- After a jury trial Schaeffer was convicted on all counts; court sentenced him to concurrent terms producing parole eligibility after 25 years.
- On appeal the State conceded Nolan requires reversal of the attempted-felony-murder conviction; the court found sufficient evidence to support complicity convictions for arson and felony murder but reversed and remanded the aggravated-murder conviction due to a defective jury instruction omitting the accomplice’s required mental state; restitution issues were rendered moot by remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of attempted felony murder conviction | State relied on indictment for attempted felony murder | Schaeffer: attempted felony murder is not a cognizable offense in Ohio | Reversed — following State v. Nolan, attempted felony murder (and complicity thereto) is not a cognizable crime |
| Sufficiency of evidence for complicity to arson and felony murder | Evidence (Weiker’s testimony, physical evidence, cap matching flares, witness timeline) proves Schaeffer aided and abetted | Schaeffer: temporal gap and lack of direct contemporaneous conduct sever causation/intent; challenged demonstration timing | Affirmed as to complicity to aggravated arson and complicity to (felony) murder — evidence sufficient when viewed for prosecution |
| Manifest weight for complicity to aggravated murder | State: circumstantial evidence and conduct permit inference Schaeffer shared Weiker’s purpose to kill | Schaeffer: no clear evidence he shared the specific intent to kill; jury confusion indicated by questions | Reversed and remanded for new trial on complicity to aggravated murder due to plain error in jury instruction omitting accomplice’s required mental state |
| Restitution/ability-to-pay hearing | State ordered restitution at sentencing | Schaeffer: court erred by ordering restitution without an ability-to-pay hearing | Moot on appeal because convictions/sentencing require remand; restitution to be reconsidered at new sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nolan, 141 Ohio St.3d 454 (Ohio 2014) (held attempted felony murder is not a cognizable offense in Ohio)
- State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240 (Ohio 2001) (complicity by aiding and abetting requires defendant shared the principal’s criminal intent)
- State v. Herring, 94 Ohio St.3d 246 (Ohio 2002) (purpose is essential element of aggravated murder)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest weight review)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest-weight review)
- State v. Miller, 96 Ohio St.3d 384 (Ohio 2002) (felony-murder mens rea analysis)
- State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2010) (felony-murder lacks an intent-to-kill mens rea)