State v. Wogenstahl (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 6873

Background

In November 1991, ten-year-old Amber Garrett disappeared from Harrison, Ohio; her body was later found in Bright, Indiana, with multiple stab wounds and blunt‑force trauma.
Witnesses placed Amber alive in Wogenstahl’s car driving south on State Street (the Ohio‑Indiana border) at about 3:15 a.m.; other witnesses saw Wogenstahl’s car stopped on Jamison Road in Indiana about 3:40 a.m., near where the body was found.
Physical evidence: small, inconclusive bloodstains in Wogenstahl’s apartment and car; gum wrappers in the apartment; an automobile jack missing a handle found in the trunk; a jailhouse informant gave ambiguous statements about the events.
Wogenstahl was tried in Ohio, convicted of aggravated murder, kidnapping, and aggravated burglary, and sentenced to death; convictions affirmed on direct appeal but jurisdictional challenge remained possible.
The Ohio Supreme Court reopened the direct appeal to decide whether Ohio courts had subject‑matter jurisdiction over the aggravated‑murder charge given the cross‑border facts.
The court concluded the record does not establish in which state the killing occurred and held R.C. 2901.11(D) permits Ohio to presume jurisdiction when it cannot reasonably be determined which jurisdiction applies.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Wogenstahl)	Held
Whether Ohio had subject‑matter jurisdiction over the aggravated‑murder charge	Ohio argued jurisdiction is proper because either the fatal act could have occurred in Ohio or, under R.C. 2901.11(D), when it cannot be reasonably determined, the offense is conclusively presumed to have occurred in Ohio	Wogenstahl argued the evidence shows the murder occurred in Indiana and Ohio therefore lacked jurisdiction under Yarbrough and R.C. 2901.11	Held: Ohio had jurisdiction because the evidence does not permit a reasonable determination of which state the murder occurred in, triggering R.C. 2901.11(D) presumption
Whether the state proved location of fatal act beyond a reasonable doubt	State contended evidence and circumstantial indicators (blood, gum, informant) supported a possible Ohio location	Defendant maintained the timeline and eyewitness testimony (sighting in Indiana at 3:15 a.m. and later events on Jamison Road) show the killing occurred in Indiana	Held: State failed to prove the killing took place in Ohio, but equally failed to prove it occurred in Indiana; ambiguity favored applying the statutory presumption
Whether the trial court’s failure to litigate jurisdiction deprived defendant of due process or effective assistance of counsel	State did not dispute that jurisdictional challenge may be raised at any time but relied on statute to justify jurisdiction	Wogenstahl argued lack of jurisdiction renders conviction void and counsel ineffective for not raising it	Held: Because jurisdiction exists under R.C. 2901.11(D), the collateral claims of ineffective assistance and due process based on lack of jurisdiction were rendered moot
Whether the conclusive presumption in R.C. 2901.11(D) raises constitutional concerns	State applied the statute as written; did not brief constitutional challenge	Wogenstahl (and concurring justice) suggested the statute’s mandatory presumption could implicate due‑process problems by shifting the burden to the defendant	Held: Court did not decide the constitutionality of the statute (not properly briefed); concurrence noted the issue merited briefing but affirmed judgment assuming statute’s validity

Key Cases Cited

State v. Yarbrough, 104 Ohio St.3d 1 (2004) (holding Ohio lacked jurisdiction where fatal acts and death occurred in another state)
State v. Hampton, 134 Ohio St.3d 447 (2012) (venue is an element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt)
Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (1985) (mandatory presumptions that relieve the State of burden of persuasion can violate due process)
Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979) (mandatory jury instructions/presumptions shifting burden violate due process)
State v. Mbodji, 129 Ohio St.3d 325 (2011) (subject‑matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any time)
State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239 (1984) (closing arguments are not evidence)