State v. Short
129 Ohio St. 3d 360
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Duane Short was convicted by a jury of aggravated murder for killing Rhonda Short and Donnie Sweeney, and was sentenced to death on two counts; a prior plan and preparation to kill followed Rhonda’s departure from their home; he conducted extensive planning on July 22, 2004, including obtaining a gun and disguising his approach; Rhonda moved out with their children, and Rhonda and Sweeney were killed in Short’s home and yard; evidence showed explicit threats by Short to kill Rhonda if she left or cheated; Short’s misconduct included breaking into 5035 Pepper Drive, using a sawed-off shotgun, and attempting to flee after the shootings.
- The defense presented emotional-distress mitigation from the guilt phase, and the defense argued Short was not a predatory killer, but the court weighed aggravating factors heavily against mitigating evidence.
- During the penalty phase, Short waived presentation of mitigating evidence; the trial court conducted an Ashworth-type inquiry and found the waiver knowing and voluntary; the court later recognized that a lack of mitigation would make death more likely.
- Post-trial, Short challenged the waiver as not knowing/voluntary, and argued the Ashworth colloquy was insufficient; he also challenged the propriety of not allowing mitigation to be presented to the judge after the jury recommended death.
- Short raised claims of ineffective assistance and issues about defense access to witnesses, but the court rejected these claims and affirmed the death judgments.
- Independent-review analysis concluded aggravating factors of multiple murder and felony murder outweighed weak mitigation, and the sentence was proportionate to similar cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of mitigation must be knowing and voluntary | Short argues waiver was not knowing/voluntary | Court followed Barton: mitigation was presented in guilt phase; Ashworth not triggered | Waiver deemed valid; Ashworth not required because mitigation evidence occurred earlier |
| Ashworth inquiry applicability in capital cases | Ashworth required because waiver of all mitigation | Ashworth not required since mitigation was presented during guilt phase and not waived entirely | Ashworth inquiry not required; presence of mitigation in guilt phase suffices |
| Right to present mitigation to judge post-penalty phase | Short entitled to judge-alone mitigation under Roe/Crim.R. 32 | No right to a second evidentiary hearing; Roe not overruled; allocution rights limited to mitigation in sentencing | No additional evidentiary hearing before judge; Roe reaffirmed; allocution suffices |
| Effectiveness of defense counsel regarding mitigation | Counsel failed to investigate/interrogate witnesses | Record shows reasonable strategic choices and mitigation evidence in guilt phase; speculative prejudice | Ineffective-assistance claims rejected on the record; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ashworth, 85 Ohio St.3d 56 (Ohio 1999) (Ashworth rule requires on-record inquiry when waiving all mitigation)
- State v. Barton, 108 Ohio St.3d 402 (2006) (mitigation presence in guilt phase can negate Ashworth requirement)
- State v. Roe, 41 Ohio St.3d 18 (Ohio 1989) (no automatic right to judge-only mitigation hearing post-jury)
- State v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d 164 (Ohio 1984) (death-penalty, arbitrariness; constitutional considerations)
- State v. Mink, 101 Ohio St.3d 350 (Ohio 2004) (racial/nonracial disparity in death-penalty application rejected)
- State v. Steffen, 31 Ohio St.3d 111 (Ohio 1990) (constitutional challenges to death-penalty scheme rejected)
- State v. Henderson, 39 Ohio St.3d 24 (Ohio 1988) (capital-sentencing issues rejected)