State v. Spaulding
119 N.E.3d 859
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In December 2011 Dawud Spaulding was tried, convicted of two aggravated murders, attempted murder, and related offenses; a jury recommended death and the trial court imposed death plus additional prison terms. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Spaulding filed a post-conviction petition raising 35 grounds (ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, cumulative error) and separately moved for DNA testing and related discovery; the trial court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing and denied the testing/discovery motion.
- The trial court made detailed findings applying Strickland analysis to numerous allegations (failure to investigate/call witnesses; failure to hire experts; mitigation-phase deficiencies; alleged conflicts; prosecutorial statements and evidence challenges) and often concluded tactics/cross-examination decisions were reasonable trial strategy.
- The trial court and this Court treated many claims as barred by res judicata because they could have been raised on direct appeal or were part of the trial record; where dehors-the-record evidence existed the court generally found it either cumulative or not sufficiently cogent to require a hearing.
- Spaulding also sought post-conviction DNA testing; the appeals court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review denial of DNA testing where the offender is sentenced to death (statutory scheme grants exclusive review to Ohio Supreme Court).
- The Ninth District affirmed the trial court in all respects, overruling Spaulding’s four assignments of error and finding no abuse of discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing or testing/discovery relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of res judicata to many post-conviction claims | Spaulding: his petition included credible evidence dehors the record that defeats res judicata preclusion | State: many claims either were record-based or could have been raised on direct appeal and thus barred | Court: declined to reach one assignment for briefing failure; otherwise many claims were barred, though on some items the court found dehors-the-record evidence cogent but still denied relief on other grounds (trial strategy/no prejudice) |
| Whether petition presented sufficient operative facts to require an evidentiary hearing (ineffective assistance / prosecutorial misconduct / cumulative error) | Spaulding: affidavits and expert reports showed counsel were deficient and prosecutor misconduct prejudiced the trial; cumulative errors deprived a fair trial | State: affidavits/reports were often speculative or cumulative; most challenged actions were trial tactics or addressed by cross-examination; no prejudice shown | Court: no abuse of discretion in denying hearing; Strickland standard not met; many failures were tactical and not deficient; prosecutorial remarks corrected by jury instructions; cumulative-error claim failed because no individual meritorious error established |
| Denial of motion for DNA testing and related discovery | Spaulding: R.C. 2953.84 offers alternative routes and trial court erred in denying testing for failure to use R.C. 2953.72 form; also requested related testing/discovery | State: procedural defect in application; statutory scheme vests exclusive appellate review of DNA denials in Ohio Supreme Court for death cases | Court: Appeals court lacks jurisdiction over denial of DNA testing for death-sentenced offender; declined to reach merits; related-discovery claim forfeited by inadequate briefing |
| Procedural due process in post-conviction process (no hearing, no discovery, page limits) | Spaulding: denial of hearing, inability to obtain discovery, and Crim.R. 35 page limits denied due process | State: petitioner did not raise these claims below; post-conviction statutes do not guarantee discovery or an automatic hearing; page limits were permissible (and recent statutory changes were not retroactive) | Court: forfeited for appeal (not raised below); substantive claim rejected where raised — no constitutional violation shown; three-page rule reasonable and changes not retroactive to his petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective assistance standard)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (post-conviction procedure and affidavits: credibility and gatekeeping)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (scope of mitigation investigation in capital cases)
- State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (trial court gatekeeping in post-conviction proceedings)
- State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67 (relying on cross-examination rather than calling expert is not necessarily ineffective assistance)
- State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (claims that could have been determined on direct appeal are barred in post-conviction)