State v. Roberts, 110 Ohio St. 3d 71, 2006-Ohio-3662

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed Donna M. Roberts’s aggravated-murder convictions and other sentences arising from the killing of Robert Fingerhut. It rejected her challenges to the conviction, including a challenge to the scope of her consent to a warrantless search. The court vacated the death sentence and remanded for resentencing because the trial judge improperly relied on the prosecutor in preparing the sentencing opinion.

Holdings

1. Roberts's open-ended consent to search the premises extended to the attached garage and the vehicle located inside it; the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress.
2. The evidence was sufficient to establish the theft element of aggravated robbery and the related aggravated-robbery capital specification because Jackson asserted control over and deprived Fingerhut of his automobile.
3. A capital defendant may choose to present no mitigating evidence or only an unsworn statement, and the specific inquiry required when a defendant presents no mitigating evidence whatsoever does not apply where the defendant presents an unsworn statement.
4. A trial judge may not delegate any degree of responsibility for preparing the statutory death-sentence opinion to the prosecutor, particularly through ex parte communications; such participation is a grievous violation requiring vacation of the death sentence and resentencing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Roberts's consent to search her residence extended to the attached garage and a vehicle located inside it.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying challenges for cause to prospective jurors and by denying a motion for change of venue.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the theft element of aggravated robbery and the corresponding capital specification.
4. Whether the trial court committed plain error in instructing the jury on reasonable doubt.
5. Whether Roberts validly waived the presentation of mitigating evidence while making an unsworn statement.
6. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance regarding Roberts's mitigation decision.
7. Whether the trial court's use of the prosecutor in preparing its death-sentence opinion violated Ohio law and constitutional principles.
8. Whether the trial court's failure to afford Roberts allocution required reversal.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded