State v. Hunter

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed Lamont Hunter’s convictions for aggravated murder, rape, and child endangerment, as well as his death sentence. The court rejected claims of ineffective assistance of counsel concerning counsel’s pending criminal charges, jury waiver, continuances, investigation, and use of expert witnesses.

Holdings

1. Hunter failed to establish either deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland. His claims concerning counsel's unrelated criminal charges, jury waiver advice, continuances, failure to use additional counsel or experts, mitigation preparation, other-acts objections, unrecorded sidebars, witness credentials, and plea negotiations did not warrant reversal.
2. Because Hunter retained private counsel, the capital-counsel appointment and certification requirements of Sup.R. 20 did not apply, and the absence of a second attorney, investigator, or additional expert did not establish ineffective assistance.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of Trustin's prior injuries under Evid.R. 404(B), because the evidence was relevant to rebut Hunter's claim that the fatal injuries resulted from an accidental fall and to show absence of mistake or accident and purposefulness.
4. The evidence was sufficient to support all convictions and specifications, and the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
5. The trial court properly denied suppression because Hunter was advised of his Miranda rights and voluntarily waived them before questioning.
6. The consecutive sentences for rape and child endangerment were constitutional and within the trial court's authority; Hunter forfeited the issue by failing to object and could not demonstrate plain error.
7. The aggravating circumstances under R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) and (A)(9) outweighed the mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt, and the death sentence was appropriate and proportionate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hunter received ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt and penalty phases.
2. Whether retained counsel was required to possess capital-case certification or to use additional counsel, investigators, or experts.
3. Whether admission of evidence concerning Hunter's prior injuries to Trustin violated Evid.R. 404(B).
4. Whether the evidence was legally insufficient or against the manifest weight of the evidence.
5. Whether the trial court improperly denied defense motions concerning rebuttal witnesses, the prosecutor's file, victim-impact evidence, grand-jury materials, penalty-phase argument, suppression of Hunter's statement, and other objections.
6. Whether consecutive sentences for the noncapital offenses violated constitutional protections.
7. Whether Ohio's death-penalty statutes violated the federal or Ohio Constitutions or international law.
8. Whether cumulative error required reversal.
9. Whether the death sentence was appropriate and proportionate under Ohio law.

Disposition

affirmed