State v. Wogenstahl (Slip Opinion)
150 Ohio St. 3d 571
| Ohio | 2017Background
- In November 1991 ten-year-old Amber Garrett disappeared from Harrison, Ohio; her body was found days later in Bright, Indiana; cause of death: multiple stab wounds and blunt trauma.
- Witnesses placed Amber alive in a car driven by Jeffrey Wogenstahl passing the United Dairy Farmers (UDF) on State Street at about 3:15 a.m.; multiple witnesses saw Wogenstahl’s car stopped on Jamison Road in Indiana around 3:40 a.m. near where the body was found.
- Trial evidence included small, inconclusive bloodstains in Wogenstahl’s apartment and a tiny, inconclusive blood spot in his car; a jailhouse informant gave inconsistent statements about where the killing occurred.
- Wogenstahl was tried and convicted in Ohio of aggravated murder (death sentence), kidnapping, and aggravated burglary; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Wogenstahl later argued Ohio lacked subject-matter jurisdiction for the murder charge because the killing occurred in Indiana; the Ohio Supreme Court reopened the direct appeal to decide jurisdictional question under R.C. 2901.11(D).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wogenstahl) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio had jurisdiction over the aggravated-murder charge | Jurisdiction proper in Ohio because kidnapping occurred in Ohio and, alternatively, the location of the murder is indeterminate so R.C. 2901.11(D) conclusively presumes it occurred in Ohio | Murder occurred in Indiana; state failed to prove jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt | Court held Ohio had jurisdiction under R.C. 2901.11(D): evidence does not establish in which state the killing occurred, so it is conclusively presumed to have occurred in Ohio |
| Whether blood and other physical evidence tied the killing to Wogenstahl’s Ohio apartment | Blood stains, gum wrappers, and other apartment evidence support killing in Ohio | Blood evidence was minimal, inconclusive, and Amber was excluded as source of at least one stain; wrappers don’t link timing or location of fatal injuries | Court found blood and apartment evidence insufficient to prove killing occurred in Ohio |
| Whether eyewitness timeline proves killing occurred in Indiana | N/A (state primarily argued indeterminate or Ohio) | UDF employee saw Amber alive in Indiana at 3:15 a.m.; subsequent sightings place car and likely assault in Indiana around 3:40 a.m. | Court concluded timeline did not prove murder occurred in Indiana beyond a reasonable doubt and left open possibility fatal act occurred earlier in Ohio |
| Constitutional challenge to R.C. 2901.11(D) mandatory presumption | N/A at trial; state did not litigate statute’s constitutionality here | Statute may unconstitutionally create a conclusive presumption that shifts burden on an element of offense | Concurring justice raised the issue and urged briefing; majority assumed statute constitutional and applied it to find jurisdiction in Ohio |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Yarbrough, 817 N.E.2d 845 (Ohio 2004) (interpreting R.C. 2901.11 and reversing Ohio murder convictions where fatal act occurred in another state)
- State v. Mbodji, 951 N.E.2d 1025 (Ohio 2011) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any time)
- State v. Hampton, 983 N.E.2d 324 (Ohio 2012) (venue is an element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1985) (mandatory presumptions that relieve the State of its burden of proof violate due process)
- Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1979) (mandatory jury instructions shifting burden of proof violate due process)
- State v. Noling, 992 N.E.2d 1095 (Ohio 2013) (court may raise subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
- State v. Maurer, 473 N.E.2d 768 (Ohio 1984) (closing argument is not evidence)