State v. Warfel
2017 Ohio 5766
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In July 2015 a cable installer discovered the badly decomposed body of 20-month-old E.W. in appellant Eric Warfel’s Medina apartment; the apartment was cluttered and the crib contained flies and larvae.
- Police found cocaine and paraphernalia in the apartment and later in a motel room where Warfel and his other daughter were located; Warfel was arrested after a traffic stop.
- Warfel told investigators he last saw E.W. alive June 18, 2015, administered rescue breaths the next morning, then left the body in the crib, blocked the bedroom door with boxes, lied to friends/family about E.W.’s whereabouts, and did not report the death.
- Coroner and autopsy reports could not determine cause, time, age, sex, or race because of advanced decomposition; decomposition impaired a meaningful autopsy.
- Grand jury indicted Warfel on gross abuse of a corpse (R.C. 2927.01(B)), tampering with evidence (R.C. 2921.12(A)(1)), child endangerment counts, and possession of cocaine; bench trial resulted in convictions on all counts.
- On appeal Warfel challenged sufficiency of evidence for the corpse-abuse and tampering counts, argued he should have been charged under the more specific failure-to-report statute (R.C. 2921.22(C)), and alleged ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to move to dismiss on that ground.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to convict of gross abuse of a corpse (R.C. 2927.01(B)) | State: evidence that Warfel left the body to decompose, concealed the room, and prevented discovery was sufficient to show treatment outraging community sensibilities and recklessness | Warfel: statute requires an affirmative act; mere omission (failure to report) insufficient | Court: Affirmed — omission plus conduct (blocking door, lying, permitting advanced decomposition) sufficed under broad statutory language and recklessness mens rea |
| Sufficiency to convict of tampering with evidence (R.C. 2921.12(A)(1)) | State: Warfel knowingly concealed the body and took steps to impair an investigation/autopsy (blocking room, lies, not reporting) | Warfel: did not "conceal" — merely left the body in crib; no affirmative tampering | Court: Affirmed — circumstantial evidence (awareness of prior similar death, Google search, steps to hide room, lies) supported knowing purpose to impair evidence availability |
| Whether charges should have been dismissed because State used general statutes instead of specific failure-to-report statute (R.C. 2921.22(C)) | Warfel: R.C. 2921.22(C) is the specific statute and should prevail over general tampering/abuse statutes under rules of statutory construction | State: the general statutes address conduct beyond failure to report; offenses are distinct | Court: Overruled — offenses are not irreconcilable; failure-to-report is a different crime and does not preclude prosecution under general tampering and abuse statutes |
| Ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to move to dismiss on specific-vs-general grounds | Warfel: counsel’s omission was deficient and prejudicial | State: no prejudice because the specific statute does not displace the general statutes here | Court: Overruled — no Strickland prejudice; counsel’s failure did not change outcome because statutes address separate conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Jenks v. Ohio, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (Jackson/Jenks standard for reasonable-doubt sufficiency review)
- Lott v. Ohio, 51 Ohio St.3d 160 (1990) (circumstantial evidence may prove intent)
- Chippendale v. State, 52 Ohio St.3d 118 (1990) (analysis when specific and general statutes interact; R.C. 1.51 framework)
- Volpe v. State, 38 Ohio St.3d 191 (1988) (principle that specific statutes prevail over general when irreconcilable)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Bradley v. Ohio, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (prejudice standard under Strickland in Ohio)
- Gondor v. State, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (2006) (presumption that licensed counsel is competent; defendant bears burden to prove ineffectiveness)