State v. Tench (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 5205

Background

Defendant James D. Tench was convicted by a jury of aggravated murder for the bludgeoning death of his mother, Mary Tench, found in the rear compartment of her SUV; jury recommended death and trial court sentenced him to death. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed in large part but reversed aggravated-robbery convictions/specifications.
Forensic evidence tied the crime scene to Tench: his boots contained the victim’s blood (spatter), footprints led from the SUV toward his neighborhood, a wet tarpaulin and duct-tape packaging matching tape around the victim’s neck were found at his home, and a Google-Maps search of the field where the body was found was accessed from the victim’s bedroom computer shortly before the disappearance.
Tench lied to investigators about his movements; phone records and witness testimony contradicted his accounts. A prior Google search (“kill someone without getting caught”) on a computer he used was introduced. A note in the victim’s handwriting referring to “Leave / Tell police” supported a motive that the victim might report his thefts.
The prosecution introduced various "other-acts" evidence (Old Carolina Barbecue armed robbery, deleted texts/Facebook items, suspected drug evidence, prior hostile statements to the victim). The trial court admitted much of this evidence; the Ohio Supreme Court found significant portions inadmissible but ultimately harmless because of overwhelming properly admitted evidence.
Procedural posture: Tench raised 18 propositions of law on direct appeal (suppression, confrontation, admissibility of other-acts, jury voir dire, ineffective assistance, prosecutorial misconduct, penalty-phase issues). The court reviewed guilt and penalty phases, independently reviewed the death sentence under R.C. 2929.05, reversed the aggravated-robbery conviction/specifications, and otherwise affirmed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Tench's Argument	Held
1) Whether custodial statements should be suppressed under Miranda/Edwards	Statements were voluntary; Tench either did not unambiguously invoke counsel or initiated further communication, so waiver was valid	He invoked right to counsel and all subsequent questioning/answers should be suppressed	Court held Tench invoked counsel at points but repeatedly reinitiated discussion; waivers were knowing/valid and statements admissible (Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims rejected)
2) Admissibility of "other-acts" evidence (esp. Old Carolina Barbecue robbery)	Evidence showed motive, planning, and explained police focus on Tench; relevant under Evid.R.404(B)	Robbery and many other-acts had no legitimate relevance to murder/motive and were propensity evidence barred by Evid.R.404	Court found admission of the robbery and several other-acts was abuse of discretion but errors were harmless given overwhelming properly admitted evidence; reversed aggravated-robbery conviction/specs as unsupported
3) Confrontation Clause challenge to testimony relaying a non‑testifying lab analyst’s work	Laboratory findings were non-testimonial or routine and admission via testifying analyst did not violate confrontation rights	Out-of-court statements of the non-testifying examiner were testimonial and their substance was improperly admitted	Court concluded the non-testifying examiner’s findings were testimonial but error was not plain because the lab testimony (no identifiable prints) was not prejudicial
4) Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated-robbery and other sentencing specifications	Purse disposal and related acts supported robbery and allowed R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) aggravator; kidnapping/witness-murder also supported	Throwing the purse into the pond did not establish the statutory "deprive" element for theft/aggravated robbery; but kidnapping and witness-murder specs were unsupported or supported respectively	Court held evidence insufficient to support aggravated-robbery specification (reversed/dismissed); kidnapping and witness-murder specifications were supported and remain valid

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation warnings and right to counsel rule)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (once counsel requested, police must cease interrogation unless defendant initiates further discussion)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (invocation of right to counsel must be unambiguous)
Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983) (distinguishing routine custodial requests from initiation of interrogation)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (waiver of Miranda rights may be inferred from voluntary statements and conduct)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay by non-testifying witnesses implicates Confrontation Clause)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (lab reports and confrontation rights; surrogate testimony limited)
Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (2012) (Confrontation Clause plurality discussion on lab evidence; not controlling on targeted-individual test)
Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013) (DNA buccal swab is a search and admissibility/constitutional analysis)
State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521 (2012) (Ohio three-step test for admission of other-acts evidence under Evid.R.404(B))
State v. Mason, 153 Ohio St.3d 476 (2018) (rejection of Hurst-based challenge to Ohio capital-sentencing scheme)