State v. Weaver
2017 Ohio 4374
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In April 2015 Emile Weaver, a pregnant Muskingum University student, delivered a newborn (Addison) in a sorority house bathroom, placed the baby and placenta in a pail, then later put them in a garbage bag and left the bag outside. Sorority members found the bag; first responders determined the infant had been born alive and died of asphyxiation.
- Weaver initially denied motherhood, was interviewed (unrecorded) overnight by a detective and gave a recorded statement the next day.
- A Muskingum County grand jury indicted Weaver on aggravated murder, gross abuse of a corpse, and two counts of tampering with evidence. Trial began May 2016; the jury convicted on all counts. The court merged the tampering counts and imposed consecutive terms culminating in life without parole for aggravated murder.
- Weaver appealed, raising four assignments of error: (1) trial court erred by imposing life without parole; (2) life sentence is disproportionate; (3) consecutive sentences improper; (4) insufficient evidence for gross abuse of a corpse.
- The appellate court affirmed: it held it lacked jurisdiction to review the murder sentence and disproportionality claims under R.C. 2953.08(D)(3), upheld consecutive sentences (finding the record supports the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings), and found sufficient evidence to support gross abuse of a corpse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Weaver) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Validity of life-without-parole sentence | Sentence appropriate given offense severity and sentencing factors | Trial court erred in imposing life without parole | Court: No appellate jurisdiction to review aggravated-murder sentence under R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) — assignment denied |
| 2. Disproportionality of life sentence | Sentence commensurate with conduct | Life without parole is disproportionate to Weaver's conduct | Court: Disproportionality challenge to murder sentence not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) — assignment denied |
| 3. Consecutive sentences | Consecutive terms necessary to punish/protect public; findings supported | Consecutive terms improper; argues low recidivism for neonaticide and not a public danger | Court: Record supports R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; no clear and convincing evidence they are unsupported — assignment overruled |
| 4. Sufficiency of evidence for gross abuse of a corpse | Weaver placed live infant into circumstances causing asphyxiation and thereafter handled the body in an outrageous way | Argues State failed to prove illegal treatment of a corpse (contends death may have preceded handling) | Court: Viewing evidence most favorably to prosecution, jurors could find Weaver foreseeably created conditions causing death and subsequent treatment outrageous to community sensibilities — conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St.3d 5, 829 N.E.2d 690 (Ohio 2005) (R.C. 2953.08(D) bars appellate review of sentences for murder/aggravated murder)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make and incorporate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences but need not state reasons)
- State v. Hollingsworth, 143 Ohio App.3d 562, 758 N.E.2d 713 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001) (discussing legislative treatment of aggravated murder sentencing review)