THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT, V. BIROS, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE.
No. 96-423
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
May 14, 1997
78 Ohio St.3d 426 | 1997-Ohio-204
Criminal law—Aggravated murder—Death penalty upheld, when.
(No. 96-423—Submitted January 22, 1997—Decided May 14, 1997.)
APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL1 from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County, No. 91-T-4632.
{¶ 1} On Thursday, February 7, 1991, at approximately 5:30 p.m., Tami Engstrom dropped off her one-year-old son, Casey, at her friend Sharon King‘s house before reporting to work at the Clover Bar in Hubbard, Ohio. Tami‘s mother, Mary Jane Heist, worked with Tami at the Clover Bar. Tami arrived at work at 6:30 p.m. Later, at approximately 9:30 p.m., Tami had to leave work due to illness. Heist relieved Tami so that she could go home early. However, instead of going directly home, Tami drove to the Nickelodeon Lounge in Masury, Ohio, to visit her uncle, Daniel Hivner, who was a regular patron at that tavern. Tami arrived at the Nickelodeon at approximately 10:00 p.m. She was wearing a black leather coat, a sweater, black pants, black shoes, black stockings or socks, and a $1,200 diamond cluster ring she had purchased from King a few weeks earlier. She was also carrying a small gray purse which, according to one witness, contained a significant amount of money.
{¶ 2} At the Nickelodeon, Tami had several drinks and spoke with Hivner and others. Kenneth Biros, appellant, arrived at the Nickelodeon at approximately 11:00 p.m., having earlier participated in a drinking event sponsored by the
{¶ 3} Meanwhile, on February 7, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Andy Engstrom, Tami‘s husband, went to the Clover Bar to deliver a gift he had bought for Tami. However, Heist informed Andy that Tami had left work and had gone home sick. Andy drove home and discovered that Tami was not there. Andy then asked King to continue watching Casey while he went out to search for Tami. At approximately 1:00 a.m., Andy spoke with Tami‘s sister, Debra Barr, who suggested that Tami might have gone to the Nickelodeon. At 1:10 a.m., Andy called the Nickelodeon and was told that Tami and Hivner had already left the bar. Andy then went to sleep, assuming that Tami would soon return home. When he awoke later that morning, he discovered that Tami was still missing.
{¶ 4} On Friday, February 8, 1991, at or about noon, Andy and King went to the Nickelodeon to pick up Tami‘s car, which had been left there overnight. At some point, Andy learned that appellant had been the last person seen with Tami. Therefore, Andy drove to appellant‘s home and confronted appellant concerning Tami‘s whereabouts. Appellant told Andy that after he and Tami had left the Nickelodeon to get coffee, he tapped her on the shoulder and she “freaked out, *
{¶ 5} Throughout the day on Friday, February 8, appellant told a number of witnesses similar stories concerning Tami‘s disappearance. Specifically, he told Tami‘s mother, Tami‘s brother, Tami‘s uncles, her friends, acquaintances, and others, that after he had left the Nickelodeon with Tami, she woke up, became frightened, jumped from his vehicle and ran between houses near Carpenter‘s Towing or Carpenter‘s Garage on Davis Street in Sharon, Pennsylvania. Appellant also indicated that he had initially chased after Tami but that he had been unable to catch her. Appellant told a number of these witnesses that he had abandoned the chase to avoid being caught while driving under the influence of alcohol. Several of the witnesses noticed fresh cuts or scratches on appellant‘s hands and a fresh wound over his right eye that had not been present the night before. Appellant explained that he had cut his hands because he had been locked out of his house and had to break a window, and that he had obtained the cut above his eye while chopping wood. Tami‘s brother threatened to kill appellant if Tami had been hurt in any way. One of Tami‘s uncles told appellant that if Tami had been hurt, he would “rip [appellant‘s] heart out.” Tami‘s mother told appellant, “if you put one scratch on my daughter, I will * * * kill you.” Appellant tried to comfort Heist by telling her, “Don‘t worry. Your daughter is going to be just fine. You wait and see.” On Friday evening, appellant helped Tami‘s relatives search the area in Sharon, Pennsylvania, where he claimed to have last seen Tami.
{¶ 7} On Friday night, Cury Biros was at home watching television while appellant was outside in a pasture behind the house. Cury went outside and called to appellant to see what he was doing. Appellant responded that he was “watching stars.” Cury then returned to the house and retired for the evening.
{¶ 8} On Saturday, February 9, Tami‘s family and friends spent hours searching for Tami in Sharon, Pennsylvania. They also searched a wooded area along the railroad tracks near appellant‘s home on King Graves Road. However, the search party was unable to uncover any clues concerning Tami‘s disappearance.
{¶ 9} On Saturday afternoon, police called appellant‘s home and left a message requesting that he come to the police station for questioning. After receiving the message, appellant drove to the police station to discuss Tami‘s disappearance with Brookfield Township and Sharon, Pennsylvania police officers. Police informed appellant that he was not under arrest and that he was free to leave at any time. During questioning, appellant reiterated the same basic story that he had previously told Tami‘s friends and relatives. Specifically, appellant told police that he had left the Nickelodeon with Tami in the early morning hours of February 8 to get coffee or food at some location in Sharon, Pennsylvania. Appellant claimed
{¶ 10} At some point during the interview, Captain John Klaric of the Sharon Police Department began questioning appellant‘s version of the story. Klaric suggested to appellant that perhaps he (appellant) had made some sexual advance toward Tami which, in turn, may have caused her to jump from the vehicle. Appellant denied making any sexual advances. Klaric also suggested that perhaps appellant had made some sexual advance and that Tami had jumped from the car and struck her head. Appellant denied this as well. Upon further questioning, Klaric suggested that maybe an accident had occurred in which Tami had fallen out of the car and struck her head. At that point, appellant responded “yes,” and admitted that he had done something “very bad.” Klaric offered to speak with appellant alone. Appellant agreed, and indicated that he wanted to speak with Klaric outside the presence of other police officers. According to Klaric, after the other officers had left the room, appellant stated, “It‘s like you said, we were in the car together. We were out along the railroad tracks. I touched her on the hand. Then I went further. I either touched or felt her leg. She pushed my hand away. The car wasn‘t quite stopped. She opened the door and fell and struck her head on the tracks.” Appellant told Klaric that Tami was dead and that the incident had occurred along the railroad tracks near King Graves Road in Brookfield Township. At that time, police informed appellant of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.
{¶ 12} In the early morning hours of Sunday, February 10, 1991, Pennsylvania and Ohio authorities discovered several of Tami‘s severed body parts in a desolate wooded area of Butler County, Pennsylvania. Police found other portions of Tami‘s body in a desolate wooded area of Venango County, Pennsylvania, approximately thirty miles north of the Butler site. Tami‘s head and right breast had been severed from her torso. Her right leg had been amputated just above the knee. The body was completely naked except for what appeared to be remnants of black leg stockings that had been purposely rolled down to the victim‘s feet or ankles. The torso had been cut open and the abdominal cavity was partially eviscerated. The anus, rectum, and all but a small portion of her sexual organs had been removed from the body and were never recovered by police.
{¶ 13} Forensic technicians, police and homicide investigators searched the area of the railroad tracks near King Graves Road where appellant had indicated that the incident with Tami occurred. There, investigators discovered a large area of bloodstained gravel near the railroad tracks. Investigators also found blood spatters on the side of one of the steel tracks. A number of other bloodstains were found in the same general area. Bloodstains and swabbings of blood collected at the scene were later tested and were found to be consistent with Tami‘s blood.
{¶ 14} Police also recovered a number of items during searches of appellant‘s residence. Investigators found a bloodstained pocket knife hidden in appellant‘s basement. A much larger knife was recovered from appellant‘s bathroom. Investigators also recovered a bloodstained coat from appellant‘s bedroom, which was later identified as the coat appellant had worn to the Nickelodeon. Forensic experts found numerous bloodstains on the front of the coat, and blood spatters inside the left sleeve. Bloodstains from appellant‘s pocket knife and coat were later tested and were found to be consistent with the blood of the victim. Additionally, authorities removed a pair of size eleven tennis shoes from a bedroom in appellant‘s home. Rodney M. Cole, a forensic scientist in the trace evidence section of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, found a single hair embedded in a seam near the tread of one shoe. Cole compared the hair to known samples of hair from the victim‘s head. According to Cole, the hair from the tennis shoe was microscopically consistent with the known samples of hair from the victim‘s head.
{¶ 15} The automobile appellant had driven to the Brookfield Township Police Department was also searched. Forensic technicians found numerous
{¶ 16} Dr. William A. Cox, the Summit County Coroner, performed the autopsy of Tami‘s body. Cox testified that he was board certified in anatomic pathology, clinical pathology, forensic pathology, and neuropathology. Cox determined that the victim had suffered ninety-one premortem injuries which were indicative of a “severe beating” and “an attempt at sexual mutilation.” He also found five stab wounds that had been inflicted immediately after the victim‘s death. Among the premortem wounds were at least five blunt force injuries on the top of the victim‘s head which, according to Cox, had been caused by an object such as fists or the handle of a knife. Other premortem wounds were found on the victim‘s breasts and in the area of her groin. Two premortem knife wounds were discovered near the nipple of the right breast. There were fine linear scratches and a premortem knife laceration or incised wound along the victim‘s face and, according to Cox, “[t]he way that is done is the blade of the knife runs down across the mouth [and] finally gets into the skin, into the soft tissues, then breaks the skin as it continues in the downward direction.” Cox also found numerous wounds on the victim‘s hands which appeared to be “defensive” injuries.
{¶ 17} In addition to the ninety-one premortem wounds and the five postmortem stab wounds, Tami‘s head, right breast and right lower extremity had been severed from her body at some point after death. Her anus, rectum, urinary bladder, and virtually all of her sexual organs had been cut out and were never found. The gallbladder, the right lobe of the liver, and portions of the bowels had been extracted from her body. According to Cox, a pocket knife like the one removed from appellant‘s basement could have been used to inflict some of the wounds found on Tami‘s body. However, Cox found that a much larger or heavier knife had been used to amputate Tami‘s head and right lower extremity. Cox
{¶ 18} With respect to Tami‘s cause of death, Cox concluded that the victim had died of asphyxia due to strangulation. According to Cox, the victim had been strangled to death over a period of four to five minutes. The mucosal lining of the esophagus was torn, indicating that there was a degree of retching and vomiting during this period. Cox testified that, in his opinion, the victim had not been asphyxiated by a hand placed over the nose and mouth. Examination of the victim‘s oral cavity revealed no signs of injury to the tongue or the delicate tissue inside the mouth. Absent such injuries, Cox found no evidence to support the theory that the victim had been forcibly suffocated as opposed to being strangled to death. Further, the hyoid bone had been fractured and there was injury to adjacent tissue, which supported the finding that the victim had been strangled. According to Cox, Tami was severely beaten, strangled to death, and then stabbed five times. The five postmortem stab wounds had occurred within minutes after death. Later, but still within minutes, the decedent‘s body was dismembered.
{¶ 19} Dr. Theodore W. Soboslay, the Trumbull County Coroner, was present during Tami‘s autopsy. Soboslay concurred with Cox‘s findings and officially ruled that the decedent had expired “due to asphyxiation, secondary to strangulation.”
{¶ 21} At trial, appellant testified in his own defense. Appellant claimed that when the Nickelodeon Lounge was closing at 1:00 a.m., February 8, Hivner asked appellant to take Tami for coffee or breakfast to help sober her up. Appellant agreed and left the Nickelodeon with Tami. He then drove into nearby Sharon, Pennsylvania, to withdraw cash from an automated teller machine. At some point, appellant reached over and shook Tami, since she had fallen asleep. Tami awoke and said that she wanted to go home. She told appellant that her home was in Hubbard, Ohio, but would not say exactly where she lived. Therefore, appellant decided to take Tami to his home to let her “sleep it off.”
{¶ 22} Appellant testified that he decided on his way home to drive along the gravel railroad bed which would have taken him to within a few hundred feet of his residence on King Graves Road. While driving on the railroad bed, he
{¶ 23} Appellant testified that after he had killed and stabbed Tami, he “panicked,” drove home, tended to his wounds, and washed his clothes. Appellant testified that he returned to the body fifteen to twenty minutes later and became very angry, believing that Tami had “just destroyed my life.” At that point, appellant took his pocket knife and began cutting Tami‘s body. Appellant claimed that he removed Tami‘s clothes because they were “in the way.” Next, according to appellant, he dragged the body some distance into the woods, and felt Tami‘s ring cutting into his left hand. Thus, he removed the ring and placed it in his pocket. Appellant testified that he attempted to bury Tami‘s body in a shallow hole in the ground, but that the body would not fit into the hole. Therefore, he amputated the
{¶ 24} Appellant testified that later on Friday morning, February 8, 1991, he found Tami‘s purse in his car and burned the purse in the fireplace. He then washed his car. On Friday night, appellant decided to move the body, since he had been confronted and threatened by Tami‘s relatives. Late that night, while his brother (Cury Biros) was watching television, appellant retrieved Tami‘s body parts, loaded them into the car, and drove to Pennsylvania and disposed of the body.
{¶ 25} Appellant lied to police, to Tami‘s relatives, and to his own mother. At trial, appellant denied telling police at the Brookfield Township Police Department that while appellant and Tami were seated in the car, appellant had placed his hand on Tami‘s hand and then “went further” and touched or felt her leg. Appellant denied having had any sexual intentions toward Tami, but admitted cutting out her vagina and rectum thirty to forty-five minutes after he killed her. Appellant was able to recall some of the most minute details of the night in question, but was unable to remember where he had disposed of Tami‘s anus, rectum, and sexual organs. He also denied having had any intention of stealing Tami‘s property, but he admitted burying her clothes, taking her ring, and burning her purse. Additionally, appellant admitted lying to his mother about Tami‘s ring and later hiding that ring in the ceiling of his house. Appellant testified that he had no intention to kill or harm Tami on the night in question. He testified further that he never struck Tami with his fists or with the blunt end of a knife.
{¶ 26} Dr. Karle Williams, a forensic pathologist, testified for the defense. Williams was not present during Tami‘s autopsy and never personally examined the body. Williams based his opinions upon a review of, among other things, Dr. Cox‘s autopsy report and a review of numerous photographs of the victim and the crime scene. Williams disagreed, at least in part, with Cox‘s conclusion that Tami
{¶ 27} The jury found appellant guilty of all charges and specifications alleged in the indictment, with the exception of the offense charged in Count Three of the indictment which had previously been dismissed by the prosecution. Following a mitigation hearing, the jury recommended that appellant be sentenced to death for the aggravated murder of Tami. The trial court accepted the jury‘s recommendation and sentenced appellant to death. For the remaining offenses, appellant was sentenced in accordance with law.
{¶ 28} On appeal, the court of appeals found that “[t]he record is completely devoid of evidence which would support a finding that appellant formed the intent to rob the victim prior to or during the acts which resulted in her death.” On this basis, the court of appeals, relying on State v. Williams (Mar. 24, 1995), Trumbull App. No. 89-T-4210, unreported, 1995 WL 237092, affirmed in part and reversed in part (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 569, 660 N.E.2d 724, held that the evidence was insufficient to prove aggravated robbery as one of the underlying felonies for the felony-murder charge in Count One of the indictment. Further, the court of appeals found that the trial court had erred in submitting to the jury, in the penalty phase, the
{¶ 29} The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right and the state‘s cross-appeal.
Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecuting Attorney, Patrick F. McCarthy and Deborah L. Smith, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee and cross-appellant.
David L. Doughten and Robert A. Dixon, for appellant and cross-appellee.
DOUGLAS, J.
{¶ 30} Appellant presents twelve propositions of law for our consideration. Additionally, the state of Ohio has filed a cross-appeal challenging the court of appeals’ findings of insufficiency of proof that the murder was committed while appellant was committing or while fleeing immediately after committing aggravated robbery. We have considered all of the propositions of law raised by the parties and have independently reviewed appellant‘s death sentence for appropriateness and proportionality. Upon review, and for the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals on the matters raised in the state‘s cross-appeal, affirm the judgment of the court of appeals in all other respects, and uphold the sentence of death.
I
{¶ 31} In his first proposition of law, appellant contends that he is not statutorily eligible for the death penalty because the specifications of aggravating circumstances alleged in the indictment omitted the language from
{¶ 32} Initially, we note that appellant never objected at any time before or during his trial that the
{¶ 33} Turning to the merits, we find that our recent decision in Joseph, 73 Ohio St.3d 450, 653 N.E.2d 285, is dispositive of appellant‘s contentions. In Joseph, Richard E. Joseph and Jose Bulerin were jointly indicted for the aggravated (felony) murder of Ryan Young. The indictment contained an
“The penalty for aggravated murder is life imprisonment or death.
R.C. 2929.02 . If the state desires to seek the death penalty for a defendant who commits aggravated murder, the indictment charging the offense must contain at least one of eight specifications enumerated inR.C. 2929.04(A)(1) through (8).R.C. 2929.04(A) provides: ‘Imposition of the death penalty is precluded, unless one or more of the following is specified in the indictment or the count of the indictment pursuant to section 2941.14 of the Revised Code and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.’ That section then sets out eight different aggravating circumstances.“The form of the specification is governed by
R.C. 2941.14(C) , which requires that the aggravating circumstance ‘may be stated in the words of the subdivision in which it appears, or in words sufficient to give the accused notice of the same.’ Thus, the language of the statute clearly provides that the specification is sufficient if the accused knows which subsection, or which aggravating circumstance of the eight listed inR.C. 2929.04(A) has been alleged.“While the specification in the present case contained a technical error, we cannot find that this error rendered the indictment invalid, as the correct language of the specification was clearly ascertainable to appellant. The indictment‘s aggravated-felony-murder count and specification recited an obvious and undeniable reference to
R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) (the felony murder specification) as the capital specification * * *. The indictment informed appellant of all elements comprising the capital offense of aggravated murder underR.C. 2901.03(B) [sic,2903.01(B) ], as the exact language of that section containing all the elements for that offense was correctly recited in the single count of the indictment. Followingthe count set forth in the indictment and pursuant to R.C. 2941.14 , a capital specification was included, which stated verbatim the relevant language ofR.C. 2929.04(A)(7) , except for the substitutional error in the last word of the specification. However, appellant certainly had sufficient notice from the wording of the specification that the aggravating circumstance set forth inR.C. 2929.04(A)(7) was being alleged. In fact, appellant, his attorneys, the prosecutor, and the trial judge treated the indictment as valid at all stages of the proceedings, never noticing any flaw in the indictment. Thus, the record demonstrates that the wording of the specification was sufficient to give appellant notice that the state was required to prove that he was a principal offender in the commission of the aggravated murder of Ryan Young pursuant to the specification contained inR.C. 2929.04(A)(7) .“Furthermore, appellant has not shown that he was prejudiced in the defense of his case from this substitutional error or that he would have proceeded differently had this error been corrected. Indeed, had the error been discovered, it was properly subject to amendment.
Crim.R. 7(D) .” Joseph, 73 Ohio St.3d at 456-457, 653 N.E.2d at 291-292.
{¶ 34} In the case at bar, Count One of the indictment charged appellant with the aggravated (felony) murder of Tami Engstrom. The single count of aggravated murder carried two
{¶ 35} In this proposition, appellant also contends that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that appellant must be found to be the principal offender of the aggravated murder offense to be found guilty of the
{¶ 36} Additionally, with respect to the charges in connection with Count One of the indictment, appellant argues that “[b]ecause the verdict forms failed to state the ‘degree’ (capital offense) of the charge or the additional elements, ‘principal’ or ‘prior calculation or design,’ the verdict constituted a finding of the ‘least degree’ of the offense charged, i.e. aggravated murder without specifications.” Here, the jury returned a guilty verdict on Count One of the indictment, and the verdict clearly reflects that the charge upon which the verdict was returned was “aggravated murder.” As the court of appeals recognized, “aggravated murder” is the degree of the offense with which appellant was charged in Count One of the indictment. See
{¶ 37} Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, appellant‘s first proposition of law is not well taken.
II
{¶ 38} Prior to trial, appellant filed a motion to suppress the incriminating statements he had made to police during his February 9, 1991 interview at the Brookfield Township Police Department. The trial court denied appellant‘s motion to suppress. In his second proposition of law, appellant contends that the trial court committed reversible error in denying the motion since, according to appellant, his statements to police were obtained in violation of Miranda, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16. L.Ed.2d 694. Specifically, appellant asserts that he was subjected to “custodial interrogation” before police advised him of his Miranda rights. We disagree.
“[T]he prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned.” (Emphasis added and footnote omitted.) Id. at 444-445, 86 S.Ct. at 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d at 706-707.
{¶ 40} Police are not required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question. Oregon v. Mathiason (1977), 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 714, 50 L.Ed.2d 714, 719. “Nor is the requirement of warnings to be imposed simply because the questioning takes place in the station house, or because the questioned person is one whom the police suspect.” Id. Only custodial
{¶ 41} The following matters were elicited at the hearing on appellant‘s motion to suppress. On Saturday, February 9, 1991, Lieutenant Frank Murphy of the Brookfield Township Police Department left a message on appellant‘s answering machine asking appellant to come to the police station to discuss the disappearance of Tami Engstrom. Police wanted to speak with appellant because he had been the last person to have seen Tami before her disappearance. Subsequently, Murphy asked Officer Marchio of the Brookfield Township Police Department to drive to appellant‘s residence to see whether appellant was home and to ask appellant to come to the police station. While en route to appellant‘s residence, Officer Marchio passed appellant on King Graves Road. Appellant informed Marchio that he was on his way to the police station. Appellant then continued on his way to the station, apparently unaccompanied by Marchio. After arriving at the station, appellant was taken to a small room for questioning. Appellant was informed that he was not under arrest and that he could leave at any time. During questioning, appellant eventually revealed to Captain John Klaric of the Sharon Police Department that something bad had happened and that Tami had died. Klaric then notified Detective Rocky Fonce of the Brookfield Township Police Department and Fonce advised appellant of his Miranda rights. At that time,
{¶ 42} Appellant argues that he was subjected to custodial interrogation from the beginning of his interview with police since, according to appellant, a reasonable person in his situation would have considered himself to be “in custody.” To support this argument, appellant protests that “[o]fficers did not wait for [appellant] to voluntarily respond to their invitation [to come to the police station] but rather sent a car to look for him.” Appellant also asserts that a custodial interrogation occurred because (1) “he was crowded into a small interrogation room with three officers,” (2) he was asked to explain inconsistencies in his statements, (3) Klaric questioned appellant using interview techniques whereby he suggested certain scenarios that might have occurred between appellant and Tami Engstrom, (4) appellant was asked to take a polygraph test, and (5) police told appellant that he would feel better if he “got it out.”
{¶ 43} The trial court denied appellant‘s motion to suppress on the basis that the interview conducted by the police did not constitute a custodial interrogation. The trial court found that appellant “came to the [station] voluntarily in his own vehicle. The evidence revealed he was not placed under arrest, booked, photographed, or fingerprinted.” Further, the trial court found that appellant “was taken to an interview room and interviewed * * *. [Police] not only advised Defendant that he was not under arrest, but also that he could get up and leave at any time. This Court finds that the interview of Defendant did not constitute a custodial interrogation as outlined in Oregon v. Mathiason (1977), 429 U.S. 492.”
{¶ 45} Appellant also contends that he was pressured by police to reveal the location of the body after he had requested to speak with an attorney. We disagree. When police asked appellant for the precise location of Tami‘s body, appellant requested to speak with an attorney. At that point, Detective Fonce terminated his interview with appellant. Appellant was also told by Captain Klaric that he would not be asked any further questions. Klaric then commented that appellant had “done the right thing” and that Tami‘s family deserved to know the location of the body. However, appellant was asked no further questions and Klaric‘s comment elicited no response from appellant. After consulting with counsel, appellant voluntarily revealed the exact location of Tami‘s body.
{¶ 46} We find no violation of Miranda on the facts of this case. Appellant was not in custody at the time he admitted his involvement in Tami‘s death. When appellant finally admitted involvement, he was properly advised of his Miranda
{¶ 47} Accordingly, appellant‘s second proposition of law is not well taken.
III
{¶ 48} In his third proposition of law, appellant argues that certain statements made by the trial court and by counsel during voir dire violated
{¶ 49} In any event, we find no reversible error. Here, appellant points to several instances during voir dire in which prospective jurors were informed of the possibility of a mitigation hearing in the event appellant was found guilty of aggravated murder and at least one of the specifications of aggravating circumstances. Appellant claims that discussing such matters with prospective jurors violates
{¶ 50} Appellant has failed to demonstrate the existence of any error rising to the level of plain error, and, accordingly, we reject appellant‘s third proposition of law.
IV
{¶ 51} In his fourth proposition of law, appellant argues that the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to peremptorily challenge two prospective jurors who expressed or indicated some aversion to the death penalty. However, we have held that “apart from excluding jurors based on race or gender, ‘prosecutors can exercise a peremptory challenge for any reason, without inquiry, and without a court‘s control.‘” State v. Ballew (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 253, 667 N.E.2d 369, 379. Therefore, appellant‘s fourth proposition of law is not well taken.
V
{¶ 52} In his fifth proposition of law, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence nineteen gruesome photographic projection slides and five enlarged (approximately twelve by eighteen inches) gruesome photographs. Appellant contends that the photographs and slides were repetitive and cumulative in number, and that the prejudicial impact of the evidence far exceeded its probative value. Additionally, appellant contends that the photographs had been enlarged solely to inflame the passions of the jury. We find no merit to appellant‘s contentions.
{¶ 53} Under
{¶ 54} In the case at bar, the jury viewed nineteen autopsy slides which were projected on a screen during the testimony of Dr. William Cox, the Summit County Coroner. Virtually all of the slides showed the victim‘s body and body parts and were, in fact, gruesome. The slides were used to illustrate Dr. Cox‘s testimony and corroborated his conclusions that, among other things, the victim had been severely beaten and that there had been an attempt at sexual mutilation.
{¶ 55} Nevertheless, appellant would have us believe that there were no contested issues concerning the cause and manner of the victim‘s death and that the photographs and slides had absolutely no relevance to any factual matters at issue. However, the record belies appellant‘s assertions in this regard.
{¶ 56} At trial, appellant admitted causing the victim‘s death, but claimed that he had simply placed his hand over the victim‘s mouth and had accidentally killed her. The testimony of Dr. Karle Williams, the defense pathologist,
{¶ 57} Upon review of the photographic evidence and the events at trial, we find that the wounds depicted in the slides and photographs were probative of contested issues of intent, purpose, motive, and the cause, manner and circumstances of the victim‘s death. Although gruesome, the photographic evidence of the victim‘s body and body parts was highly probative, and the value of that evidence clearly outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice.
{¶ 59} In addition, we find nothing in the record to support appellant‘s contentions that the photographic evidence at issue had been enlarged to inflame the passions of the jury. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the prosecution intended to inflame the jury or that the passions of the jury became inflamed as a result of the evidence. Indeed, the record is clear that the prosecution exercised extreme care with respect to the exhibits offered into evidence and that the trial court exercised sound discretion in deciding which exhibits to admit.
{¶ 60} For the foregoing reasons, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the slides and photographs into evidence. Accordingly, we reject appellant‘s fifth proposition of law.
VI
{¶ 62} Appellant relies on State v. Heinish (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 231, 553 N.E.2d 1026, to support his claim that the evidence in the present case is legally insufficient to sustain a finding of attempted rape. In Heinish, a majority of this court reversed an aggravated murder conviction on the basis that the state had failed to adduce sufficient proof of attempted rape, which was the only felony underlying the aggravated murder charge considered in that case. Id. at 238-239 and 241, 553 N.E.2d at 1034-1035 and 1037. In Heinish, the victim was found with her jeans partially unzipped and pulled partially down from her waist. Her blouse was partially up from the waist. She was wearing no underwear and no shoes. A saliva stain which could have come from the defendant was found on the outside of the victim‘s jeans. The majority in Heinish concluded that these facts were legally insufficient to sustain Heinish‘s attempted rape conviction. Id. at 238-239, 553 N.E.2d at 1034-1035. Appellant suggests that the evidence of attempted rape in Heinish was even more compelling than the evidence of the attempted rape in the case at bar.
{¶ 63} Conversely, the state contends, and we agree, that the evidence of attempted rape in the case at bar (1) far exceeds the evidence of attempted rape in Heinish, (2) is even more compelling than the facts and circumstances found sufficient to support a rape and aggravated murder conviction in State v. Durr
{¶ 64} In Durr, 58 Ohio St.3d at 93, 568 N.E.2d at 682, a majority of this court upheld Durr‘s rape conviction and rejected a claim of insufficiency of proof, stating:
“In this case, the prosecution presented highly probative circumstantial evidence. Except for a pair of tennis shoes, the victim‘s body was found nude from the waist down. In addition, Deborah Mullins testified that when she saw Angel [the victim] tied up in the back of appellant‘s car, appellant informed Deborah that he was going to kill Angel because she would tell. Based upon these facts, we believe that there was sufficient probative evidence from which a rational trier of fact could have found the appellant guilty of rape beyond a reasonable doubt.”
{¶ 65} It is important to note that Durr was decided after Heinish had been decided. Additionally, both Heinish and Durr were decided under the former rule that convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence may be sustained only where the evidence excluded all reasonable hypotheses of innocence. In State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492, we abandoned that former rule and held that “[c]ircumstantial evidence and direct evidence inherently possess the same probative value and therefore should be subjected to the same standard of proof.” Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus.
{¶ 66} More recently, we unanimously held, in Scudder, 71 Ohio St.3d at 274-275, 643 N.E.2d at 533, that the following facts and circumstances were “clearly sufficient” to support a finding of attempted rape:
“[A]ppellant [Scudder] suggests that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of attempted rape. We disagree. Appellant‘s sexual interest in Tina [the victim] was apparent. The evidence indicated that appellant desperately wanted to be alone with Tina. Tina was found with her pants at her ankles and her
panties at midthigh. The evidence indicated that Tina had been forcibly undressed. The killer had apparently raked his fingers over Tina‘s stomach and downward toward the pubic region. Bloody hand marks were found on Tina‘s thighs, indicating that the killer had tried to force Tina‘s legs apart. Appellant‘s blood was found on Tina‘s body and clothing. A drop of appellant‘s blood had apparently dripped onto Tina‘s face while she was still alive, and while appellant was standing directly above her. This evidence was clearly sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that appellant attempted to rape Tina.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 67} The evidence of attempted rape in the case at bar is at least as compelling as the evidence of the attempted rape in Scudder. Here, there was an abundance of highly probative evidence which, if believed, was sufficient for any rational trier of fact to have found that appellant attempted to rape Tami beyond a reasonable doubt.
{¶ 68} By his own admission, appellant drove Tami to a secluded area near his home while she was sleeping and without her consent. There was evidence that appellant told Captain John Klaric that while he and Tami were seated in the car, appellant reached over and touched Tami‘s hand and then “went further” and either touched or felt her leg. Appellant told Detective Rocky Fonce that he had reached over and grabbed Tami in the car. Appellant testified that he did not make any sexual advances toward Tami and that he never told police he had attempted to go “further” with her. However, the credibility of the witnesses was a matter for the jury to determine. This jury apparently disbelieved much of appellant‘s testimony concerning the events leading up to and culminating in the victim‘s death.
{¶ 69} Tami was found completely unclothed except for remnants of black leg stockings which appeared to have been forcibly rolled down to her feet or ankles. When police recovered Tami‘s leather coat, there were two discernible cut marks on or near the collar. No other cut marks were noted anywhere else on the garment. The medical evidence established that Tami had been stabbed five times
{¶ 70} Viewing the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be derived therefrom in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that the evidence of record was clearly sufficient for a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant purposefully killed Tami during the commission of an attempted rape. Accordingly, we reject appellant‘s sixth proposition of law.
VII
{¶ 72} The state agrees with the court of appeals’ determination that there was sufficient evidence to sustain appellant‘s conviction for aggravated robbery, but vehemently disagrees with the court of appeals’ remaining conclusions outlined above. The state‘s sole proposition of law on cross-appeal reads:
“Under both
R.C. §2903.01(B) andR.C. §2929.04(A)(7) , the evidence need not establish that an offender formed an intent to commit an aggravated robbery at or prior to the time he committed an aggravated murder in order to support a conviction so long as the aggravated robbery was committed ‘while’ the offender was committing aggravated murder.”
{¶ 73} The court of appeals’ findings of insufficiency of proof that the murder was committed while appellant was committing or fleeing immediately after committing aggravated robbery were based upon that court‘s reliance upon its
“This court has had occasion to explain the meaning of the word ‘while’ with respect to
R.C. 2903.01(B) , stating:“’ “The term ‘while’ does not indicate * * * that the killing must occur at the same instant as the [underlying felony], or that the killing must have been caused by [it], but, rather, indicates that the killing must be directly associated with the [underlying felony] as part of one continuous occurrence * * *.” * * *’ State v. Cooey (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 20, 23, 544 N.E.2d 895, 903, quoting State v. Cooper (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 163, 179-180, 6 O.O.3d 377, 386, 370 N.E.2d 725, 736.” Williams, 74 Ohio St.3d at 577, 660 N.E.2d at 733.
{¶ 74} Here, appellant testified that fifteen to twenty minutes after he killed Tami, he began cutting her body and removing her clothes. The medical evidence confirmed that Tami had been eviscerated minutes after death. After cutting the body, appellant dragged the corpse into the woods. According to appellant, as he was dragging the body from the scene, he took Tami‘s ring from her finger and placed the ring in his pocket. Appellant claimed that he did not intend to steal the ring. However, the fact that appellant took the ring gives rise to the inference that he intended to keep it, and the fact that he intended to keep the ring is supported by other inferences arising from his later activities with regard to that property. After
{¶ 75} Viewing the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be derived therefrom in a light most favorable to the prosecution, it is clear that any rational finder of fact could conclude that appellant committed an aggravated robbery2 beyond a reasonable doubt. Even appellant‘s own testimony was sufficient to show the commission of an aggravated robbery offense. Specifically, appellant knowingly obtained or exerted control over Tami‘s ring without her consent and, at least inferentially, with the purpose to deprive her of that property. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to show that appellant committed a “theft offense” as that term is defined in former
{¶ 76} Moreover, the evidence was indeed sufficient to support a finding that the killing was “associated with” the aggravated robbery and the attempted rape “as part of one continuous occurrence.” Williams, 74 Ohio St.3d at 577, 660 N.E.2d at 733. Evidence was presented which, if accepted, clearly shows that appellant beat Tami, attempted to rape her, and strangled her to death. Appellant‘s testimony was that he began cutting Tami‘s body after he killed her, took her ring as he was dragging the body away, severed the head and leg, and then buried Tami‘s
{¶ 77} Accordingly, we reject appellant‘s seventh proposition of law and, in accordance with our decision in Williams, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals with respect to the issues raised in the state‘s cross-appeal.
VIII
{¶ 78} Dale Laux, a forensic scientist with the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, found blood spatters on the side of a steel railroad track at the crime scene, blood spatters inside the left sleeve of appellant‘s coat, and two cut marks or defects on or near the collar of Tami‘s black leather coat. At trial, Laux was permitted to testify as an expert concerning these and other matters. Laux testified that the blood spatters on the rail of the track and the spatters inside the left sleeve of appellant‘s coat were “typical of” and “consistent with” a beating. He also testified that blood spatters of the type found inside the left sleeve of appellant‘s coat are typically generated in a situation where the person wearing the coat holds down a victim using the left hand while beating the victim with the right hand. Laux testified further that Tami‘s black leather coat had two cut marks (as opposed to tears) on or near the collar. However, Laux was not permitted to render an expert opinion as to how the cuts had occurred.
{¶ 79} In his eighth proposition of law, appellant claims that although Laux is an undisputed expert in the field of blood typing, he lacked proper qualifications
{¶ 80} In any event, “‘[u]nder
{¶ 81} We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the expert testimony in light of Laux‘s extensive knowledge, experience, training, and education as a forensic scientist. We also note, in passing, that the fact that appellant severely beat Tami before he killed her was demonstrated by overwhelming evidence at trial, with or without Laux‘s expert testimony on the subject of blood-spatter interpretation. Thus, it is clear that appellant cannot demonstrate plain error with respect to Laux‘s expert testimony that the blood spatters found on the railroad track and the spatters of blood inside appellant‘s coat were consistent with a beating. Accordingly, we find no error, plain or otherwise, and we reject appellant‘s eighth proposition of law.
IX
{¶ 83} During the state‘s opening argument in the guilt phase, the prosecutor commented that the victim‘s body had not been disturbed by animals prior to being recovered by police. In the guilt phase, the prosecutor elicited testimony from Pennsylvania State Trooper Daniel Keith Johnson that there were no signs of animal bites on any of the body parts recovered from Pennsylvania. The prosecutor also questioned Dr. Cox on this issue, and Cox noted that there was no evidence that animals had tampered with the body.
{¶ 84} Appellant argues that the prosecutor‘s remark during opening arguments was improper and inflammatory, and that Johnson‘s testimony regarding animal bites was “completely irrelevant.” We reject appellant‘s arguments in this regard. The prosecutor‘s remark was not improper and was later substantiated by testimony in the guilt phase. If the prosecutor had not negated the possibility of damage by animals, appellant may have attempted to argue that tampering by animals contributed to the condition of Tami‘s body. The testimony of Trooper Johnson and Dr. Cox was relevant to negate mutilation by wildlife as a possible alternative source of damage to the body. Thus, we find no prosecutorial misconduct with respect to the prosecutor‘s remark and the above testimony.
{¶ 85} In this proposition of law, appellant also complains of four additional instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct that occurred during the guilt phase. According to appellant, the following four instances of alleged misconduct involved the improper introduction of victim-impact evidence in the guilt phase and/or gave rise to matters that were “entirely irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of [the] defendant.”
{¶ 87} The second instance of alleged misconduct also occurred during the cross-examination of appellant. Specifically, the prosecutor asked appellant if Tami had cried on the night in question and whether she had asked appellant to “please stop.” Appellant failed to object to these questions and, thus, his arguments have been waived. Further, we find that the prosecutor‘s questions were not improper. Appellant testified on direct examination that Tami had hit him, yelled at him, and had thrown rocks at him. Appellant portrayed Tami as the initial aggressor. Appellant claimed that he had acted merely to defend himself from Tami, and that he had attempted to calm Tami down. However, given Tami‘s defensive injuries, the fact of her resistance was clear. The prosecutor‘s questions whether Tami had cried and had asked appellant to “please stop” were relevant to the circumstances surrounding her death.
{¶ 88} The third instance of alleged misconduct occurred when the prosecutor asked appellant during cross-examination whether appellant had given any thought to Tami, her family, or her friends while burying the body at the crime scene. We find that the prosecutor‘s question was improper and that it was completely irrelevant to the issue of appellant‘s guilt or innocence. However, defense counsel immediately objected to the inquiry, and the jury was promptly instructed to disregard the question. We presume that the jury followed the trial
{¶ 89} The fourth instance of alleged misconduct occurred when the prosecutor commented during final closing arguments in the guilt phase that, unlike appellant, Tami did not have the opportunity to testify. The trial court sustained an objection to the prosecutor‘s comment. Although the prosecutor‘s comment was improper, it tended to state a rather obvious fact of which everyone was already aware. No prejudicial error resulted from this remark by the prosecutor.
{¶ 90} We find that the foregoing instances of alleged misconduct, taken singly or together, did not substantially prejudice appellant or deny him a fair trial. Indeed, we are in total agreement with the court of appeals that “[g]iven the insubstantial nature of the errors, the corrective actions of the court, and the weight of the evidence against appellant, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecutor‘s behavior did not have an effect on the outcome of the trial.” Accordingly, appellant‘s ninth proposition of law is not persuasive.
X
{¶ 91} In his eleventh proposition of law, appellant claims that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the jury‘s sentencing decision in the penalty phase was a “recommendation.” Appellant also argues that certain remarks by the prosecutor concerning the jury‘s role in the sentencing process constitute reversible error. However, the argument appellant now raises has been considered and rejected by this court under analogous circumstances on a number of previous occasions. See, e.g., State v. Woodard (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 70, 77, 623 N.E.2d 75, 80-81, and State v. Phillips (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 72, 101, 656 N.E.2d 643, 669. As appellant presents no compelling argument why we should now change our position on this issue, we reject appellant‘s eleventh proposition of law.
XI
XII
{¶ 93} In his twelfth proposition of law, appellant argues that Ohio‘s death penalty scheme is unconstitutional. We have held, time and again, that Ohio‘s death penalty scheme is constitutional. As appellant presents us with no compelling argument why we should now find Ohio‘s death penalty statute to be unconstitutional, we reject appellant‘s twelfth proposition of law.
XIII
{¶ 94} Having considered the propositions of law, we must now independently review the death penalty for appropriateness and proportionality. Again, we find that the two specifications of aggravating circumstances appellant was found guilty of committing were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
{¶ 95} In mitigation, appellant presented the testimony of his mother, grandmother, and two sisters. These witnesses testified concerning the difficult circumstances surrounding appellant‘s childhood. Testimony established that throughout appellant‘s childhood, Pete Biros, appellant‘s father, was a domineering and tyrannical man who treated his family as property. Pete Biros belittled and berated his wife and children, showed them little or no affection, and isolated them from family and friends. He was an extremely jealous man who frequently accused Jo Anne Biros, appellant‘s mother, of infidelity, and oftentimes threatened to kill
{¶ 96} Dr. James Eisenberg, a psychologist, testified in mitigation. Eisenberg first interviewed appellant in March 1991. Between that time and the time of the mitigation hearing, Eisenberg interviewed appellant on several occasions, performed psychological testing, reviewed appellant‘s records, and interviewed members of appellant‘s family. Eisenberg noted that appellant had come from an “extremely dysfunctional family,” and believed that appellant‘s relationship with his father had significantly affected his life and personality. Eisenberg testified that while appellant was gutting and dismembering Tami‘s body, appellant was mentally reenacting scenes from when he hunted deer with his father and would have to slaughter the kill while being told that he was worthless and incompetent. Eisenberg diagnosed appellant as suffering from a “schizoid personality disorder,” and from lifelong alcohol dependence and neurotic depression. Eisenberg also testified that appellant had graduated from college after having worked toward obtaining a degree for thirteen years. According to Eisenberg, this indicates that appellant has been able to persevere despite the trying circumstances of his youth. Further, Eisenberg noted that appellant had been employed throughout most of his adult life, that appellant had no significant history of prior criminal convictions, and that between February 1991 and the time of trial, appellant had no reported problems in the Trumbull County Jail. Prior to the offenses in the case at bar, appellant‘s only known criminal history consisted of one arrest for theft in 1977 and a 1986 conviction for either driving under the influence of alcohol or for reckless operation of a motor vehicle. Eisenberg testified that appellant was not insane at the time of trial or at the time of the killing.
{¶ 98} Finally, appellant gave an unsworn statement in which he admitted responsibility for the death of Tami Engstrom “and what happened afterwards.” Appellant apologized to the victim‘s family and to his own family for what he had done.
{¶ 99} Upon a review of the evidence presented in mitigation, it is clear to us that appellant had a troubled childhood. We find that appellant‘s troubled childhood, history, and family background are entitled to some, but very little, weight in mitigation.
{¶ 100} The nature and circumstances of the offense reveal nothing of any mitigating value. The
{¶ 101} The
{¶ 103} The record is clear that appellant lacks a significant history of prior criminal convictions and delinquency adjudications. We find that this
{¶ 104} We have also considered whether this appellant might be capable of long-term rehabilitation and ultimate reintegration into society after lengthy incarceration, given his favorable work record, his college degree, and his lack of a significant prior criminal history. However, the acts of sheer inhumanity demonstrated by this appellant in the nature and circumstances of the offense convince us that he is incapable of any meaningful rehabilitation. Additionally, we have considered Eisenberg‘s testimony that appellant did well in a controlled institutionalized setting between the time of his arrest and the time of trial. We assign this evidence little or no weight in mitigation.
{¶ 105} Weighing the evidence presented in mitigation against the two
{¶ 106} Finally, we have undertaken a comparison of the sentence imposed in this case to those in which we have previously affirmed the death penalty. We have previously upheld the death sentence in cases involving murder during the course of an aggravated robbery (see, e.g., State v. Berry [1995], 72 Ohio St.3d 354, 650 N.E.2d 433; Woodard, 68 Ohio St.3d 70, 623 N.E.2d 75; State v. Hawkins [1993], 66 Ohio St.3d 339, 612 N.E.2d 1227; and State v. Montgomery [1991], 61 Ohio St.3d 410, 575 N.E.2d 167), in cases involving murder during the commission of an attempted rape (see, e.g., Scudder, 71 Ohio St.3d 263, 643 N.E.2d 524), and in cases involving murder during the commission of an aggravated robbery and rape (see, e.g., Smith, 61 Ohio St.3d 284, 574 N.E.2d 510). Appellant‘s death sentence is neither excessive nor disproportionate in comparison.
{¶ 107} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals in part and reverse it in part. Specifically, we affirm appellant‘s convictions and sentences, including the death sentence, but reverse the judgment of the court of appeals on the issues raised in the cross-appeal.
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
Notes
“(A) No person, in attempting or committing a theft offense, as defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, or in fleeing immediately after such attempt or offense, shall do either of the following:
“(1) Have a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance, as defined in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code, on or about his person or under his control;
“(2) Inflict, or attempt to inflict serious physical harm on another.
“(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of aggravated robbery, an aggravated felony of the first degree.” (Emphasis added.) 140 Ohio Laws, Part I, 583, 590.