Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Ohio Revised Code 2929.06(B) permits a new jury and a new penalty hearing when an aggravated-murder conviction and death specification have been affirmed but the death sentence was set aside because of legal error affecting the sentencing phase. The court further held that the General Assembly intended the statute to apply retroactively and that its retroactive application does not violate the Ohio Constitution’s Retroactivity Clause. The court affirmed the judgment of the Fifth District Court of Appeals.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether R.C. 2929.06(B) applies when a capital conviction and death specification are affirmed but the death sentence is vacated because of a legal error during voir dire that affected the sentencing proceeding.
- Whether the General Assembly intended R.C. 2929.06(B), through R.C. 2929.06(E), to apply retroactively.
- Whether retroactive application of R.C. 2929.06(B) violates the Retroactivity Clause of Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution.
- Whether retroactive application of R.C. 2929.06(B) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.
- Whether allowing a new jury to consider death on resentencing violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Holdings
- R.C. 2929.06(B) applies when an aggravated-murder conviction with a death specification has been affirmed but the death sentence has been set aside for legal error that infects and invalidates the sentencing phase, even if the error occurred during voir dire rather than during the formal sentencing phase. The statute permits empanelment of a new jury for resentencing.
- The General Assembly clearly intended R.C. 2929.06(B) to apply retroactively.
- R.C. 2929.06(B) is remedial rather than substantive, so its retroactive application does not violate Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution when the aggravated murder occurred before enactment but the death sentence was vacated after enactment.
- Applying R.C. 2929.06(B) to White does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because the statute does not increase the punishment for aggravated murder, withdraw an already-attached complete defense, criminalize previously innocent conduct, or alter evidentiary rules to facilitate conviction or punishment.
- Retroactive application of R.C. 2929.06(B) does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because White was not acquitted of the death penalty; his original jury recommended death and the trial court imposed it, and the sentence was vacated for procedural error rather than an on-the-merits failure of proof.
Key quotations
“R.C. 2929.06(B) applies where an aggravated-murder conviction with a death specification has been affirmed, but the death sentence has been set aside for legal error, when the error infects and thus invalidates the sentencing phase of the trial.” (¶ 25)
“We therefore hold that R.C. 2929.06(B) is remedial, not substantive.” (¶ 48)
“We hold that R.C. 2929.06(B) does not fall within any of the four categories of ex post facto laws identified in Calder.” (¶ 64)
Factual background
White murdered State Trooper James Gross on January 19, 1996. A jury convicted White of aggravated murder with capital specifications and recommended death, which the trial court imposed. The Sixth Circuit later determined that a prospective juror who was biased in favor of the death penalty should have been excused and vacated White's death sentence while leaving the conviction intact.
Procedural history
White was convicted of aggravated murder with capital specifications and sentenced to death, and the Supreme Court of Ohio initially affirmed the conviction and sentence. The Sixth Circuit later vacated the death sentence because the trial court improperly overruled a challenge for cause to a death-penalty-biased juror and ordered a new penalty proceeding or vacatur of the sentence. On remand, the trial court held that retroactive application of R.C. 2929.06(B) violated the Ohio Constitution and did not address White's other statutory argument; the court of appeals reversed and remanded. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed.
Remand instructions
The judgment of the court of appeals was affirmed. The case remains subject to resentencing under R.C. 2929.06(B), including empanelment of a new jury and a fresh penalty hearing at which death may be considered.