D. Proposition of Law No. VIII: Jury Selection

E. Proposition of Law No. IX: Challenges for Cause

1. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Overruling Knuff's For-Cause Challenges

2. The Trial Court Did Not Improperly Grant the State's For-Cause Challenges

F. Proposition of Law No. X: Religious Freedom

G. Proposition of Law No. II: Improper Character Evidence

1. Knuff's Prior Imprisonment and Release on Parole

2. Knuff's Relationship with His Son

3. Knuff's Relationship with His Sister

4. Knuff's Use of the Word "Racist"

5. Knuff's Drug Use

6. Knuff's "Mental Issues"

7. Witness Who Feared “Payback”

8. References to the Television Show "Dexter"

H. Proposition of Law No. III: Reference to Polygraph Examination

I. Proposition of Law No. IV: Improper Opinion Testimony

1. Alicia Stoner

2. Parma Heights Police Captain Steve Scharschmidt

3. Parma Heights Police Detective Luke Wittasek

J. Proposition of Law No. V: Gruesome Autopsy Photos

K. Proposition of Law No. XVII: Jury Instructions

1. Denial of Knuff's Request for a Voluntary-Manslaughter Instruction

2. Consciousness-of-Guilt Jury Instruction

3. Duty-to-Retreat Jury Instruction

a. The trial court's duty-to-retreat jury instruction was in error

b. The trial court's error in giving a duty-to-retreat jury instruction was harmless

L. Proposition of Law No. XVIII: Sufficiency and Weight of the Evidence

1. Sufficiency of the Evidence

2. Manifest Weight of the Evidence

M. Proposition of Law No. XII: Merger

1. The Course-of-Conduct Specification Does Not Merge

2. The Aggravated-Burglary and Kidnapping Specifications Merge

N. Proposition of Law No. XVI: Sentencing Issues

O. Proposition of Law No. XI: Prosecutorial Misconduct

1. Guilt Phase

2. Penalty Phase

P. Proposition of Law No. XIV: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

1. Guilt Phase

2. Penalty Phase

Q. Proposition of Law No. XX: Cumulative Error

R. Proposition of Law No. XIII: Sentencing Opinion

1. Incorrectly Weighing Mitigation Evidence

2. "Unreasonably Discounting" Mitigation Evidence

3. Impermissible "Nexus" Requirement

4. Admitting Irrelevant Evidence

S. Proposition of Law Nos. XV, XXI, XXIII, and XXIV: Settled Issues

1. Penalty-Phase Jury Instructions

2. Trial Court’s Proportionality Review

3. Constitutionality of the Death Penalty

4. Lethal Injection

T. Proposition of Law No. XIX: Court Costs

U. Proposition of Law No. XXII: Independent Sentence Review

1. Aggravating Circumstances

2. Mitigating Factors

3. Sentence Evaluation

4. Proportionality

III. CONCLUSION

Notes

State v. Knuff

Ohio Supreme Court

Mar 14, 2024

2019-1323

Versions:

Notes

The language of Evid.R. 404(B) was revised in 2022. Effective July 1, 2022, the rule reads: (B) Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts. (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong or act is not admissible to prove a person‘s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

4. In his merit brief, Knuff misquotes the detective as saying, “[T]his machine says you killed John.”

5. Effective April 6, 2021, R.C. 2901.09 provides that a person does not have a duty to retreat before using force in self-defense if the person using force “is in a place in which the person lawfully has a right to be,” 2020 Am.S.B. No. 175—expanding the provision from a “castle doctrine” provision to a “stand your ground” provision. This expansion took effect after Knuff‘s trial, and, in any event, it would not affect our analysis in the instant case.

6. Ohio has three different protocols available for lethal injection, but Knuff’s argument is directed at only the three-drug-execution protocol.

7. Knuff was charged with aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(1), which provides:

(A) No person, by force, stealth, or deception, shall trespass in an occupied structure * * * when another person other than an accomplice of the offender is present, with purpose to commit in the structure * * * any criminal offense, if any of the following apply:

(1) The offender inflicts, or attempts or threatens to inflict physical harm on another.

8. Knuff was charged with kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(3), which prohibits moving a person or restraining the person’s liberty “by force, threat, or deception,” with the purpose “[t]o terrorize, or to inflict serious physical harm on the victim or another.”

9. To satisfy the trespass element, Knuff had to “[k]nowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another,” “without privilege to do so.” R.C. 2911.21(A)(1).

Read the detailed case summary