State v. Zan
2013 Ohio 1064
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Pandora Zan was convicted by a jury of multiple counts related to the murder of her husband Charles Zan and subsequent cover-up, including aggravated murder and robbery offenses, with co-conspirator Cody Henderson involved.
- Zan moved to suppress statements made to police on April 27, 2010 and April 19, 2010, alleging Miranda and involuntariness.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion after a hearing and admitted statements with accompanying video/audio recordings.
- Evidence included co-conspirator statements under Evid.R. 801(D)(2)(e) from Henderson to third parties about the plan and conduct of the murder.
- Zan was sentenced to life without parole for conspiracy to commit aggravated murder and additional consecutive terms for related offenses; sentences merged where appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Zan’s April 27, 2010 interview was custodial and required Miranda warnings | State/Ninth? Zan sought suppression of April 27 statements | Zan asserts custodial custody existed at apartment interview and Miranda warnings were required | Not custodian; warnings not required for apartment interview |
| Whether the April 27 custodial interview and April 19 statements were involuntary | Statements were voluntary under totality of circumstances | Interrogation tactic or coercion rendered statements involuntary | No coercion; statements voluntary under totality of circumstances |
| Whether Henderson’s statements to Taylor and Howard were admissible under Evid.R. 801(D)(2)(e) | Statements were admissible as co-conspirator statements | Statements not made during conspiracy or not in furtherance | Admissible for certain statements; others harmless error; overall admissibility sustained |
| Whether Zan’s sentence was an abuse of discretion | Aggregated sentence within statutory range; no abuse shown | Sentence excessive given lack of sole responsibility | Sentence not an abuse of discretion; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (mandatory warnings apply to custodial interrogation; voluntary waiver required)
- State v. Biros, 78 Ohio St.3d 426 (Ohio 1997) (Miranda warnings not required for all police questioning; custodial context matters)
- State v. Edwards, 49 Ohio St.2d 31 (Ohio 1976) (waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent)
- State v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1985) (post-warning confession admissible if first statement voluntary)
- State v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (midstream warnings may render subsequent statements inadmissible)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (scope of judicial discretion in sentencing; mandatory findings relaxed)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (two-step Kalish framework for appellate review of sentences)
- State v. Were, 118 Ohio St.3d 448 (Ohio 2008) (Evid.R. 801(D)(2)(e) conspiracy statements require independent evidence of conspiracy)