State of Ohio v. Mark Crisp
Case No. 10CA3404
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY
RELEASED 04/03/12
[Cite as State v. Crisp, 2012-Ohio-1730.]
APPEARANCES:
Timothy Young, Ohio State Public Defender, and Jeremy J. Masters, Ohio State Assistant Public Defender, Columbus, Ohio, for appellant.
Mark Kuhn, Scioto County Prosecutor, Portsmouth, Ohio, for appellee.
Per Curiam
{¶1} Amber Howard, a 21-year-old pregnant mother, disappeared in 2007 and months later her skeletal remains were discovered in a state park. After authorities found Howard‘s blood and DNA in Mark Crisp‘s former rental home, he was convicted of: (1) the murder by termination of Howard‘s pregnancy and the felonious assault of her unborn fetus; (2) the murder of Howard and the murder by termination of her pregnancy; (3) tampering with evidence by concealing Howard‘s body and gross abuse of a corpse by burying her body in a shallow grave.
{¶2} Crisp contends that he committed these respective crimes with the same conduct and thus, the trial court was required to merge them at sentencing under Ohio‘s multiple-count statute. The state candidly concedes that the murder by termination of Howard‘s pregnancy and the felonious assault to her unborn fetus required merger as
{¶3} But Howard‘s murder and murder by the unlawful termination of her pregnancy do not require merger even though the same conduct arguably led to the completion of both crimes. Bеcause Crisp knew that if he killed Howard he would also terminate the pregnancy, we conclude the two crimes were each committed with a separate animus.
{¶4} We also conclude that the trial court was required to merge Crisp‘s conviction for tampering with evidence and gross abuse of a corpse in light of the State‘s concession that it relied on the same acts in support of both charges and its failure to identify a separate animus for each crime.
{¶5} Accordingly, we remand this case for resentencing on the murder by termination of pregnancy and the felonious assault of Howard‘s unborn fetus and on the tampering with evidence and gross abuse of a corpse.
I. Summary of the Evidence
{¶6} Two days prior to her disappearance on August 10, 2007, Amber Howard visited a clinic and tested positive for pregnancy. At the trial her mother, grandmother, and a pregnancy clinic worker testified that she was “showing.” However, both also indicated Howard was slight in build and only had what one of them described as a “pop belly“, i.e., she was in the early stages of pregnancy.
{¶7} The night she disappeared Amber Howard, Mary Howard (her mother) and Mark Crisp, “partied” and smoked crack together at Mary Howard‘s residence in Portsmouth, Ohio. Around midnight, Amber Howard left the residence in a vehicle
{¶8} A week later, law enforcement authorities in Scioto County opened a missing person investigation, which made little progress for many months. Then in the spring of 2008, a mushroom hunter located a human skull in Shawnee State Park. Law enforcement recovered the skull and other skeletal remains, which were scattered over a large area, apparently due to animal activity. Investigators sent the remains to Ohio‘s Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) for analysis, where employees matched DNA found on the remains to Howard‘s known DNA profile.
{¶9} Months later, Detective Triggs of the Scioto County Sheriff‘s Department, received a tip that a Jennifer Lindsey (a former girlfriend and acquaintance of Mark Crisp) had information about Howard‘s disappearance. When detectives interviewed Lindsey, she told them of a possible crime scene in a rental home that Crisp occupied at the time of Howard‘s disappearance.
{¶10} Detectives searched the vacant rental home and located a small rectangular area in Crisp‘s former bedroom corner where the carpeting and floorboards had been removed, revealing the baseboards. Some of the carpet around this area had apparent bleach stains. The drywall in the same corner was cracked and impacted, as if a large object collided with it. A test conducted by a BCI agent detected blood in carpet fibers, baseboards, and on the impacted drywall. The agent removed these materials and sent them to BCI for further analysis. Forensic analysts at BCI matched
{¶11} Detectives also obtained a search warrant for a Geo Tracker automobile that Crisp allegedly drove at the time Howard went missing. The BCI agent located blood in the rear cargo carpeted area of the car. BCI forensic analysts later positively matched this blood with Howard‘s DNA.
{¶12} Detective Triggs then interviewed Crisp, who admitted “partying” and smoking crack with Amber Howard on the night of August 10, 2007 at Mary Howard‘s residence. But he denied leaving with Amber Howard and also claimed that she had never been in the home he rented in 2007. Crisp admitted driving a Geo Tracker in 2007. When asked why floorboards and carpeting were missing from the bedroom, Crisp admitted removing these items as the result of a fallen candle, which caused a fire.
{¶13} Detective Triggs then told Crisp that law enforcement found Amber Howard‘s blood and DNA in his home. Crisp could not explain the presence of Howard‘s blood or DNA and repeatedly denied knowing anything about her disappearance and murder.
{¶14} The state indicted Crisp and charged him in Count One of murder with the underlying crime being felonious assault, which was separately charged in Count Three of the indictment. In Count Two, the state charged Crisp with murder by unlawful termination of pregnancy. Count Four charged Crisp with another felonious assault relating to Howard‘s unborn fetus. The remaining counts relevant to this appeal are:
{¶15} After the jury found Crisp guilty of these charges, the trial court merged Count Three, the felonious assault of Howard, with Count One, her murder, but refused to merge any of the remaining convictions. After the court sentenced him to a long prison term, Crisp filed this appeal.
II. Assignment of Error
{¶16} Crisp assigns one error:
{¶17} The trial court erred when it imposed separate sentences for offenses that arose from the same conduct, were not committed separately or with a separate animus, and should have been merged for sentencing purposes under
III. Merger
{¶18} Crisp arguеs that the trial court erred by failing to merge the following convictions at sentencing: (1) Count Two and Count Four, murder by termination of pregnancy and felonious assault to Howard‘s unborn; (2) Count One and Count Two, murder of Howard and murder by termination of pregnancy; and (3) Count Six and Count Eight, tampering with evidence and gross abuse of a corpse.
A. Evolution of the Merger Test
{¶19} The Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense. United States v. Halper (1989), 490 U.S. 435, 440, 109 S.Ct. 1892, citing North Carolina v. Pearce (1969), 395 U.S. 711, 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072. To this end, the Ohio General Assembly enacted Ohio‘s multiple-count statute in
(A) Where the same conduct by defendant can bе construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, but the defendant may be convicted of only one.
(B) Where the defendant‘s conduct constitutes two or more offenses of dissimilar import, or where his conduct results in two or more offenses of the same or similar kind committed separately or with a separate animus as to each, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, and the defendant may be convicted of all of them.
{¶20} The Committee notes explain:
This section provides that when an accused‘s conduct can be construed to amount to two оr more offenses of similar import, he may be charged with all such offenses but may be convicted of only one. If his conduct constitutes two or more dissimilar offenses, or two or more offenses of the same or similar kind but committed at different times or with a separate “ill will” as to each, then he may be charged with and convicted of all such offenses.
The basic thrust of the section is to prevent “shotgun” convictions. For example, a thief theoretically is guilty not only of theft but of receiving stolen goods, insofar as he receives, retains, or disposes of the property he steals. Under this section, he may be
{¶21} Through a series of opinions the Supreme Court of Ohio has advised (and re-advised) lower courts on the difficult task of applying Ohio‘s multiple-count statute to determine which criminal convictions require merger. Generally, the court prescribed a two-part test, although the specifics of the test have changed over time. The first step calls for a comparison of the elеments of the crimes at issue and the second step analyzes the defendant‘s conduct to determine whether the state used the same conduct to support both crimes. See State v. Blankenship (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 116, 117, 526 N.E.2d 816. Recently, State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314, 942 N.E.2d 1061, the court expressly overruled its then current test for merger, which the Court issued more than a decade earlier in State v. Rance, 85 Ohio St.3d 632, 1999-Ohio-291, 710 N.E.2d 699.
{¶22} In Rance, the Court advised lower courts to apply
{¶23} Under the Johnson analysis the trial court must first determine prior to sentencing whether the offenses can be committed by the same conduct. This inquiry does not involve an abstract comparison of the elements of the offenses. It is sufficient to determine whether it is possible to commit one offense and also commit the other offense with the same conduct. Under Johnson the test becomes one of the possibility of simultaneous occurrеnce rather than the impossibility of dual culpability. If the offenses are so alike that the same conduct can subject the accused to potential culpability for both, they are “of similar import“.
{¶24} Having determined that it is possible to commit multiple offenses by the same conduct, the court must then determine whether in fact they actually were committed by the same conduct, i.e. committed as a single act with a single animus. If
{¶25} With this new test in mind, we analyze Crisp‘s arguments for merger under a de novo standard of review. See, State v. Robinson (Apr. 1, 1997), Meigs App. No. 96CA16, 1997 WL 158272, at *2.
B. Murder and Felonious Assault
{¶26} First Crisp argues that the court erred by failing to merge Count Two, murder by unlawful termination of pregnancy, and Count Four, the felonious assault of Amber Howard‘s unborn fetus. Crisp argues that the evidence introduced at trial failed to establish that he committed these crimes separately or with more than a single animus. The state argued in its brief the evidence at trial demonstrated a significant physical confrontation occurred between Crisp and Howard at his residence, which allowed the inference that the Howard received multiple blows, some of which separately caused the unlawful termination of her pregnancy and some of which caused the felonious assault of the fetus. However, the State candidly conceded at oral argument that the crimes are allied offenses subject to merger. We agree.
{¶27} Applying the first prong of the Johnson analysis, we conclude that it is possible to commit the offense of murder by unlawful termination of pregnancy and the offense of felonious assault with the same conduct. Simply put, one could commit a felonious assault under
{¶28} Next, we must consider whether Crisp committed these offenses with the same conduct, i.e., a single act committed with a single state of mind. The evidence presented at trial suggested an act of violence occurring in one corner of Crisp‘s bedroom. As we noted in the factual summary, police located blood on baseboards in the section of the bedroom where Crisp removed the carpet and floorboards. Police also identified blood on a section of wall that aрpeared to have been damaged by a large impact, presumably Howard‘s body.
{¶29} We conclude that the evidence in this circumstantial case supports the conclusion that Crisp attacked Howard in his bedroom and that she lost a considerable amount of blood during the attack. The evidence indicated that Howard would have had to lose a considerable amount of blood for it to seep through both carpet and floorboards and come to rest in between the cracks of the baseboards. Thus, the reasonable inference from this evidence is that Howard‘s unborn child suffered serious physical harm and her pregnancy terminated during or as a direct result of this one attack in the bedroom.
{¶30} There is no evidence, circumstantial or direct, to support an inference that a separate assault, whether in terms of time or location, took place and independently caused serious physical harm to the unborn or caused the pregnancy to terminate. Thus, the only reasonable inference is that the termination of Howard‘s pregnancy and the felonious assault to the fetus occurred in the same attack, which ultimately also
{¶31} We also conclude that the record lacks any evidence to establish more than a single animus for the attack in Crisp‘s bedroom. There is nothing in the record from which we could infer that Crisp possessed more than one purpose in causing serious physical harm to Howard‘s unborn and unlawfully terminating her pregnancy.
{¶32} Consequently, we conclude that Crisp committed the offenses of murder by unlawful termination of pregnancy and felonious assault with the same conduct and animus. Accordingly, the trial court erred by failing to merge these offenses.
C. Murder and Murder by Unlawful Termination of Pregnancy
{¶33} Next Crisp argues that the court erred by failing tо merge his convictions for Count one, the murder of Amber Howard, and Count Two, murder by unlawful termination of her pregnancy. Crisp contends that the evidence shows that he unlawfully terminated Howard‘s pregnancy and murdered her with the same conduct.
{¶34} Applying the first prong of the Johnson test, we conclude that it is possible to commit murder and murder by unlawful termination of pregnancy with the same conduct. Murder, as defined in
{¶35} Next, we consider whether the offenses at issue here actually were committed by the same conduct under
{¶36} However, we agree with the state‘s contention that because Howard was pregnant and “showing,” we can infer that Crisp possessed a separate animus for
D. Tampering with Evidence and Gross Abuse of a Corpse
{¶37} Finally, Crisp argues that the court erred by failing to merge Count Six of the indictment, tampering with evidence, and Count Eight of the indictment, gross abuse of a corpse.1 Crisp argues that his conduct of disposing Howard‘s body in Shawnee State Park constituted both offenses. In its brief the state admits that “Appellant is correct that the conduct of Appellant in removing the body of Amber Howard from his residencе and concealing [it] in the state forest are acts of the Appellant that the state relied upon and argued in support of both charges.” In other words, the state concedes it is possible to commit both crimes with the same conduct.
{¶38} We agree that it is possible to commit the offense of gross abuse of a corpse, a violation of
{¶39} Next, we consider whether Crisp committed each crime separately or with a separate animus. The state tries to distinguish the appellant‘s conduct by characterizing it as “incidental” in relationship to the tampering charge but “critical” to the gross abuse offense. We are not aware of any such mechanism of distinction in Johnson. In the absence of any evidence that the two crimes were committed separately or with a separate animus, we conclude that merger is appropriate. Therefore, we sustain this assignment of error.
V. Conclusion
{¶40} We find merit in Crisp‘s argument that Count Two and Count Four of the indictment, felonious assault of Amber Howard‘s fetus and murder by unlawful termination of pregnancy are subject to merger. Likewise, the court erred by failing to merge Counts Six and Eight of the indictment. However, the trial court did not err by failing to merge Counts One and Two of the indictment as separate societal interests clearly indicate that the legislature intended multiple punishments for the same conduct constituting both offenses. Accordingly, we remand this case for resentencing on Counts Two and Four.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.
{¶41} I concur in judgment and opinion. However, I write separately to address the following issues raised by the partially concurring and dissenting opinion (hereinafter the “Other Opinion“): (1) State v. Brown, 119 Ohio St.3d 447, 2008-Ohio-4569, 895 N.E.2d 149, and (2) the notion that I have relied on an inference upon an inference.
{¶42} First, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that, “[w]hen determining whether two offenses are allied offenses of similar import subject to merger under
{¶43} Furthermore, in finding that murder and murder by unlawful termination of pregnancy should not merge, I disрute the notion that I am relying on an inference upon an inference. Here, the jury found Crisp guilty of unlawful termination of pregnancy in violation of
{¶44} The Other Opinion, however, claims that an inference upon an inference is necessary to find that Crisp specifically intended to terminate Howard‘s pregnancy. Therefore, the Other Opinion essentially concludes (1) that the jury made an impermissible finding and (2) that insufficient evidence supports Crisp‘s conviction under
{¶45} Thus, I concur in judgment and opinion.
{¶46} I cannot join in the conclusion that Crisp had a separate animus for murdering Howard and terminating the pregnancy. To draw this conclusion would constitute an inference upon inference, i.e., Crisp was aware of Amber Howard‘s pregnancy, which would be a logical deduction; and he possessed the separate intention to purposely terminate it based upon the deduction she was pregnant, which would not be a logical deduction. Therefore, the jury could not indulge in such reasoning. See State v. Cowans, 87 Ohio St. 3d 68, 78-80. However, I still conclude merger does not apply.
{¶47} I agree applying the test in Johnson would seem to require merger of these offenses. However, in my view Crisp has committed two distinct and cognizable wrongs, each of which the General Assembly intended to punish separately. As noted in Section III.A., the overriding purpose of
{¶48} In State v. Brown, 119 Ohio St.3d 447, 2008-Ohio-4569 the Supreme Court discussed the importance of legislative intent in applying merger. There the court observed that its various merger tests, including the formulation set forth in Rance, were rules of statutory construction designed to determine legislative intent for the merger of offenses at sentencing. Id. at ¶ 35. And the court observed that the “societal interests” reflected by the prohibitions contained in the criminal offenses at issue could help
{¶49} Johnson is problematic in many regards, not the least of which is specific references to Brown without any explicit indication that it survives or has gasped its last breath. It is hard to believe Johnson would cite both Brown and Rance, expressly overrule Rance in the syllabus and text, but leave Brown to die the ignamimous death of being over-ruled sub silentio.
{¶50} Johnson resolved the following certified question: “Are the elements of child endangering [set forth in
{¶51} Thus, I conclude that Brown remains viable after Johnson because the Supreme Court of Ohio had the opportunity to expressly overrule or limit Brown but did not do so. Brown indicates that legislative intent, and not a prescribed “merger test,” is the ultimate inquiry in analyzing a merger issue. Id at. ¶ 20, 35. The new focus on conduct has not replaced legislative intent as the “lodestar” of this analysis. See Johnson at ¶ 25. Moreover, the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s creation of yet another “rule of statutory construction” to aid in the merger analysis does not affect Brown‘s holding that “societal interests” may help identify legislative intent.
{¶52} Johnson‘s certified question does not address whether the Brown separate societal interest test is better suited then
{¶53} Here, I conclude that we need not resort to the merger test in Johnson in order to determine whether the legislature intended to permit multiple punishments for the offenses at issue. Instead, I simply conclude it is clear from both statutes that the General Assembly intended to protect different societal interests in each crime. First, murder as defined in
{¶54} Crisp also argues that merger was required because only one “statutory victim” was present in this case. He contends that the Revised Code defines a “victim” in
{¶55} Here, the same conduct arguably supports both convictions for murder. However, the General Assembly indicated in
{¶56} Likewise, in deciding whether to merge the counts for gross abuse of corpse and tampering with evidence, I would apply Brown and conclude merger does not apply. Tampering with evidence is designed to protect the state‘s effort to conduct criminal investigations. Just as clearly, the prohibition against gross abuse of a corpse is designed to protect the sanctity of the deceased‘s last remains. The two interests are clearly separate, each deserving separate protection. In light of the legislature‘s clear intent to protect them, I also conclude the legislature intended separate punishment for each even when they result from the same conduct. Thus, I dissent from the majority‘s decision to merge these two counts.
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART and that the CAUSE IS REMANDED. Appellant and Appellee shall split the costs.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Scioto County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
IF A STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND RELEASE UPON BAIL HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT OR THIS COURT, it is temporarily continued for a period not to exceed sixty days upon the bail previously posted. The purpose of a continued stay is to allow Appellant to file with the Supreme Cоurt of Ohio an application for a stay during the pendency of proceedings in that court. If a stay is continued by this entry, it will terminate at the earlier of the expiration of the sixty day period, or the failure of the Appellant to file a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio in the forty-five day appeal period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Additionally, if the Supreme Court of Ohio dismisses the appeal prior to expiration of sixty days, the stay will terminate as of the date of such dismissal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions.
Kline, J.: Concurs in Judgment and Opinion with Opinion.
McFarland, J.: Concurs in Judgment Only.
Harsha, J.: Concurs in part and Dissents in part with Opinion.
For the Court
BY: Roger L. Kline, Judge
BY: Matthew W. McFarland, Judge
BY: William H. Harsha, Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.