2022 Ohio 2569
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background:
- In June 2012, Domino’s delivery driver A.B. disappeared after a pizza order placed by a female; her vehicle and body were later found bound and murdered in a cornfield.
- Evidence at a residence linked to Chad Cobb and Erica Stefanko (including zip ties, duct tape, a conductive energy weapon, camouflage items); Cobb later pleaded guilty to A.B.’s murder and related offenses.
- In 2019 Stefanko was indicted for murder and related offenses; trial began in November 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
- On the eve of and during trial the court allowed three witnesses (including Cobb) to testify via two-way videoconference and required masks for in-court witnesses; Stefanko objected and sought a continuance.
- Cobb testified remotely from prison identifying Stefanko as the driver and participant; jury convicted Stefanko of aggravated murder and murder; she was sentenced to life with parole eligibility after 30 years.
- The Ninth District reversed, holding the trial court violated Stefanko’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights by allowing remote testimony without individualized findings and that the error was not harmless.
Issues:
| Issue | Stefanko's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permitting witnesses (including Cobb) to testify by two-way videoconference violated the Confrontation Clause | Remote testimony denied face-to-face confrontation and prevented full testing of witness credibility | COVID-19 public-health concerns and logistical barriers justified remote testimony or a continuance | Reversed: remote testimony impermissible without individualized, case-specific findings; Confrontation Clause violated |
| Whether remote testimony error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Error was prejudicial because Cobb’s remote testimony corroborated others and linked Stefanko to the murder | Any error was harmless given the overall evidence | Error was not harmless; reasonable possibility testimony contributed to conviction |
| Whether remaining trial errors require review after Confrontation finding | Argues other trial errors (e.g., hearsay, voir dire limits, ineffective assistance, manifest weight) | State did not defend on merits given Confrontation ruling | Court deemed remaining assignments moot and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (Confrontation Clause protects face-to-face confrontation; individualized findings required for protective measures)
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (one-way closed-circuit testimony permissible only with case-specific necessity and reliability safeguards)
- United States v. Gigante, 166 F.3d 75 (two-way video testimony may be allowed under exceptional-circumstances standard with court discretion)
- State v. Howard, 42 Ohio St.3d 18 (procedure for court instruction when jury has difficulty reaching verdict)
- State v. Ricks, 136 Ohio St.3d 356 (standard for harmlessness of constitutional error)