THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. FAUTENBERRY, APPELLANT.
No. 94-722
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
July 5, 1995
72 Ohio St.3d 435 | 1995-Ohio-209
Criminal law—Aggravated murder—Death penalty upheld, when. Submitted March 22, 1995. APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-920734.
{¶ 2} On July 23, 1992, a three-judge panel accepted appellant‘s pleas of no contest to each of the five charges. The panel then considered the admitted facts and evidence, and found appellant guilty as to all counts. The evidence, including the transcripts of several confessions appellant made to the police, established the following.
{¶ 3} During 1990, appellant worked as a cross-country truck driver for a company based in Portland, Oregon. In the early part of November 1990, appellant informed one of his supervisors that he was quitting his job because of the long
{¶ 4} In early February 1991, appellant was traveling from Rhode Island to Ohio when he arrived at the Pilot Truck Plaza in Hunterdon County, New Jersey. Appellant, out of money and in need of gasoline in order to continue his trip, met Gary Farmer, who allegedly offered to provide appellant with food and money in exchange for sex. Upon entering Farmer‘s truck, appellant fatally shot Farmer once in the head with a .22 caliber handgun. Appellant left the body in the truck, stole the victim‘s wallet, and completed his trip to Cincinnati, Ohio.
{¶ 5} After spending some time in Cincinnati, appellant left his sister‘s home on February 17, 1991, with no money, no transportation, and, it appears, a desire to travel to Oregon. Appellant began hitchhiking on Interstate 275 when Joseph William Daron, a father of two young children, stopped his vehicle and offered appellant a ride. Appellant explained that he was trying to reach Columbus. Daron offered to drive appellant approximately twenty miles out of his way to a restaurant near the junction of Interstate 71, where appellant believed he might better be able to find a ride to Columbus. Upon reaching the restaurant, appellant exited Daron‘s vehicle, reached back into the car and shot Daron twice in the right side of his chest with the same .22 caliber handgun that he had used to kill Farmer. After the shooting, appellant drove to a wooded area on the north bank of the Ohio
{¶ 6} Appellant arrived in Portland, Oregon, on February 24, 1991, and went to a local bar to meet a friend, Wes Halbrook. Several people, including Christine Guthrie, were invited to join the two men at Halbrook‘s apartment for a private party. The following day, appellant and Guthrie traveled to Rockaway, Oregon where they spent a few days at the Silver Sands Motel. On the return trip to Portland, appellant drove Guthrie to a wooded area, where appellant claimed they would find something of interest. The two walked into the woods on foot and appellant fired three shots from his Jennings J 22 pistol into the back of Christine Guthrie‘s head. Appellant then took the victim‘s bank credit card and address book containing the personal identification number for the credit card, left the body in the woods, and returned to Portland, where he used the credit card to make cash withdrawals. Guthrie‘s body was not discovered until April 1991.
{¶ 7} In early March 1991, appellant traveled to Juneau, Alaska. While there he spent his time working on a fishing boat and consuming large quantities of alcohol. Appellant met Jefferson Diffee at some point during this period. On March 13, 1991, appellant accompanied Diffee to the latter‘s apartment, where appellant beat, handcuffed and fatally stabbed Diffee seventeen times. Shortly thereafter, appellant was arrested by the Alaska police. He ultimately pled guilty to the charge of first-degree murder in connection with Diffee‘s death, and received the maximum sentence available under Alaska state law: ninety-nine years’ confinement without parole eligibility.
{¶ 8} Shortly after his arrest by the Alaska police, appellant made four separate statements to various law enforcement officers concerning his involvement with the five murders. Appellant spoke to the police in detail concerning the sites of the murders, the manner in which he had carried out the killings, and the locations where the police could find the victims’ bodies.
{¶ 10} This cause is before the court upon an appeal as of right.
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Christian J. Schaefer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
H. Fred Hoefle and Peter Pandilidis, for appellant.
ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, J.
{¶ 11} In accordance with
I
{¶ 12} Appellant alleges in his first proposition of law that the three-judge panel committed reversible error by considering victim-impact statements during the penalty phase of the proceedings. The statements included expressions from the victim‘s family, the victim‘s employer and the arresting officer concerning the impact of Daron‘s death on his survivors and the appropriate sentence that should be imposed. Specifically, the victim-impact evidence indicated that each individual who was interviewed wanted appellant to receive “the maximum sentence” available under the law. Appellant argues that these statements make the sentence of death “the product, not of law and reason, but of passion and bias,” as prohibited by State v. Huertas (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 22, 553 N.E.2d 1058.
{¶ 13} In Huertas, this court concluded that “[e]xpressions of opinion by a witness as to the appropriateness of a particular sentence in a capital case violate the defendant‘s constitutional right to have the sentencing decision made by the jury and judge.” Id. at syllabus. The conclusion in Huertas hinged upon the holdings of two United States Supreme Court decisions which prohibited the introduction of victim-impact evidence not directly related to the circumstances of the crime. Booth v. Maryland (1987), 482 U.S. 496, 107 S.Ct. 2529, 96 L.Ed.2d 440, and South Carolina v. Gathers (1989), 490 U.S. 805, 109 S.Ct. 2207, 104 L.Ed.2d 876. Booth and Gathers were eventually overruled in Payne v. Tennessee (1991), 501 U.S. 808, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed. 2d 720, where the Supreme Court determined, “if a State chooses to permit the admission of victim impact evidence and prosecutorial argument on that subject, the Eighth Amendment erects no per se bar. A State may legitimately conclude that evidence about the victim and about the impact of the murder on the victim‘s family is relevant to the jury‘s decision as to whether or not the death penalty should be imposed.” Id. at 827, 115 L.Ed.2d at 736, 111 S.Ct. at 2609.
{¶ 15} A review of the three-judge panel‘s decision in the instant action fails to demonstrate that the judges contemplated or relied upon the victim-impact evidence which was available to them. “Absent an indication that the panel was influenced by or considered victim impact evidence in arriving at its sentencing decision,” the admission of such is not reversible error. State v. Post (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 380, 384, 513 N.E.2d 754, 759; see also, State v. Cooey (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 20, 33, 544 N.E.2d 895, 912. Furthermore, because we presume that “‘*** in a bench trial in a criminal case the court considered only the relevant, material, and competent evidence in arriving at its judgment unless it affirmatively appears to the contrary[,]‘” we reject appellant‘s first proposition of law. Post, 32 Ohio St.3d at 384, 513 N.E.2d at 759, quoting State v. White (1968), 15 Ohio St.2d 146, 151, 44 O.O.2d 132, 136, 239 N.E.2d 65, 70.
{¶ 16} At this juncture, we note that our decision in State v. Loza (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 61, 641 N.E.2d 1082, included a limited discussion of victim-impact evidence which, upon further reflection and review, requires some clarification. The appellant‘s twenty-fifth proposition of law in Loza in part challenged statements made by the prosecutor concerning the fact that one of the four murdered victims was a pregnant woman, and that the killing of the four people represented
{¶ 17} While the prosecutor‘s comments in Loza fit within the fairly broad definition of victim-impact evidence contemplated by Payne, supra, they also represent a recitation of the facts and circumstances surrounding the offense that were introduced during the guilt phase of the trial. True victim-impact evidence, pursuant to the terms of
II
{¶ 18} In his second proposition of law, appellant asserts that the trial court relied upon nonstatutory aggravating circumstances to justify the death sentence. Appellant focuses upon the portion of the panel‘s opinion titled “WEIGHING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE [sic] AGAINST MITIGATING FACTORS,” where the panel, following a discussion of the mitigating factors, stated:
“However, these mitigating factors pale before the simple fact that defendant‘s actions were plotted, vicious, persistent and utterly callous. Joseph Daron was shot not once, but twice. His belongings including money[,] credit
cards, [B]ible and even his vehicle were stolen by the defendant. Then his body was thrown into a wooded area near the Ohio River. “The actions of the defendant were contemplated and calculating as he asked Joseph Daron to drive twenty miles out of his way, all the time knowing he would kill Daron and steal his belongings. John Fautenberry‘s calculation[s] continued after the shooting as he drove to the Ohio River looking for a place to hide Joseph Daron‘s body.”
{¶ 19} Appellant contends that this portion of the trial court‘s sentencing opinion represents an impermissible conversion of the nature of the crime into nonstatutory aggravating circumstances. We disagree. In its opinion, the panel specifically set forth the statutory aggravating circumstances that had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt: first, that the murder of Joseph Daron was part of a course of conduct involving the purposeful killing of two or more people (
{¶ 20} It is well settled that, “[u]nder
{¶ 21} Upon thorough review and consideration of the trial court‘s opinion, we find that the nature and circumstances of the offense were simply utilized to support the trial court‘s finding that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating factors. Appellant‘s second proposition is accordingly overruled.
III
{¶ 22} Appellant alleges in his third proposition of law that the three-judge panel failed to consider several offered mitigating factors.
{¶ 23} Appellant focuses his challenge in part on the claimed difference between the trial court giving little or no weight to a mitigation factor and the trial court finding that a mitigating factor does not exist. In the case at bar, the three-judge panel determined that neither youth nor lack of a prior criminal record existed as a mitigating factor, since appellant was twenty-seven-years old at the time of the murder and had one prior felony conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, in addition to at least one misdemeanor conviction. The trial court‘s conclusions are consistent with previous decisions of this court. See, e.g., State v. Campbell (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 38, 54, 630 N.E.2d 339, 353 (youth mitigation factor does not apply where defendant is twenty-seven years of age at time of offense); State v. Brewer (1990), 48 Ohio St.3d 50, 64, 549 N.E.2d 491, 505 (youth mitigation factor not
{¶ 24} Appellant further claims that the trial court did not properly consider his cooperation with police or his history, character and background. This argument is also without merit. The sentencing opinion specifically mentions the fact that appellant confessed to each of the murders and cooperated with the law enforcement officers. “While
{¶ 25} In his fourth proposition of law, appellant argues prejudicial error because the sentencing opinion written by the trial court listed all statutory mitigating factors, including those not raised by defense counsel.
{¶ 26} In State v. DePew (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 275, 289, 528 N.E.2d 542, 557-558, this court determined that if a defendant chooses to refrain from raising some or all of the mitigating factors available to him under
V
{¶ 27} In his fifth proposition of law, appellant asserts that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating factors. As we discussed in State v. Sowell (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 322, 334, 530 N.E.2d 1294, 1307, “[t]he ‘weighing’ procedure *** is not a mere counting process of the number of aggravating circumstances and the number of mitigating factors. It is a reasoned judgment as to which situations require the death sentence and which situations require life imprisonment, based upon the totality of the evidence presented by both parties.”
{¶ 28} A review of the instant record reveals that the evidence presented was sufficient for the three-judge panel to determine that the aggravating
VI
{¶ 29} In his sixth proposition of law, appellant challenges the constitutionality of Ohio‘s death-penalty statute on several grounds. These arguments have all been previously addressed and rejected by this court. State v. Poindexter (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 1, 520 N.E.2d 568; State v. Henderson (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 24, 528 N.E.2d 1237; State v. Zuern (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 56, 512 N.E.2d 585; State v. Jenkins (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 164, 15 OBR 311, 473 N.E.2d 264. Appellant‘s proposition of law is therefore overruled.
VII
{¶ 30} In his final proposition of law, appellant argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him to death because his death sentence is disproportionately severe because no fewer than ten other defendants in the same county were convicted of aggravated murder during the commission of aggravated robbery, but were not capitally prosecuted. This argument has been repeatedly rejected by this court. State v. Sowell, supra, at 335, 530 N.E.2d at 1308; State v. Jenkins, supra, at 209, 15 OBR at 350, 473 N.E.2d at 304; State v. Steffen, supra, at 123-124, 31 OBR at 283-284, 509 N.E.2d at 394-395. For the reasons set forth in those decisions, we adhere to that position today.
B
{¶ 31} Having completed our examination of the issues raised upon appeal, we must now turn to an independent review of the record as required by
{¶ 33} With respect to the nature and circumstances of the crime, the facts demonstrate that during the five-month period between November 1990 and March 1991, appellant committed five brutal, calculated murders in four different states. Appellant perpetrated each murder simply as a means to facilitate his trip across the country. Daron, a devoted father and religious man, lost his life because he stopped to offer appellant some assistance. After being driven to his chosen destination more than twenty miles out of Daron‘s way, appellant fired two shots into Daron‘s chest, stole his wallet and personal belongings, and ultimately disposed of the body in a secluded area near the Ohio River. Appellant thereafter used the stolen money, credit cards and vehicle to make his way to Oregon, where he continued his killing spree.
{¶ 34} The defense presented the videotaped testimony of three witnesses during the mitigation hearing concerning appellant‘s history, character, and background. Louise M. Corcoran, a long-time family friend, testified to the difficult childhood appellant experienced as a result of the repeated abuse and rejection inflicted on him by his father and later by two stepfathers. Olivia Priest, who was once appellant‘s stepmother and later his girlfriend, testified that she knew appellant as a kind, caring and sometimes overly protective individual. She also acknowledged alcohol and drug abuse by appellant on numerous occasions. Finally, Margaret Berck of the Juneau office of the Alaska Public Defender Agency testified that an Alaska judge had sentenced appellant to ninety-nine years’ confinement for the murder of Jefferson Diffee. She further stated that appellant
{¶ 35} Mary Slayback, appellant‘s maternal aunt, testified during the mitigation hearing concerning the abusive environment in which appellant was raised. She also reported that appellant had lived with her in her home for a period of time during his early twenties. Slayback described appellant as cooperative, thoughtful and kind.
{¶ 36} The defense psychologist, Dr. Nancy Schmidtgoessling, testified that appellant‘s performance on a number of psychological tests indicated an average range of intelligence with no signs of organic impairment. She confirmed that appellant spent his childhood in an environment of dysfunctional, abusive relationships where he was frequently abused, humiliated, rejected and ultimately abandoned by his father and stepfathers. As a result of his background, appellant carries extreme feelings of worthlessness, distrust and suppressed rage. Dr. Schmidtgoessling further determined that while appellant exhibits a mixed personality disorder with narcissistic and antisocial tendencies, he does not suffer from a “mental disease or defect,” as that phrase is used in
{¶ 37} Appellant chose to make an unsworn statement to the court during the mitigation hearing in which he described various childhood memories, both positive and negative. He recounted instances of physical and emotional abuse that he and his mother suffered because of his father and stepfathers. He spoke of his abuse of alcohol and drugs, which began in high school, led to his discharge from the military, and contributed to everything “falling apart” in November 1990 just before he killed Donald Nutley. Appellant concluded his statement with
{¶ 38} The prosecution presented six witnesses during the mitigation phase, each a law enforcement officer. Five of the six were police officers from the states in which appellant had committed the murders. Those officers identified the victims that had been found in their respective jurisdictions and related details of the subsequent investigations which led them to appellant. The sixth witness was Larry Ott, a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Agent Ott and two of the state police officers, Detective Thomas Nelson and Investigator Walter Bowman, testified that appellant cooperated with the police by confessing to the murders and providing information as to where the bodies and various evidentiary items could be located.
{¶ 39} Upon review of all the evidence offered as mitigation, we find that little or no weight should be given to any of the statutory mitigating factors. The facts in this case fail to demonstrate that Daron in any way “induced or facilitated” the offense within the meaning of
C
{¶ 40} Finally, we are required, pursuant to
{¶ 41} Accordingly, we affirm appellant‘s convictions and death sentence. The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur.
WRIGHT, J., concurs in judgment only.