State v. Kirkland

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the death sentences imposed on Anthony Kirkland after a resentencing hearing for the aggravated murders of two teenage girls. The opinion addressed challenges concerning capital-case voir dire, excusal of prospective jurors based on their views about the death penalty, and the jury questionnaire cover page.

Holdings

1. A capital defendant is not entitled to individual, sequestered voir dire; whether to conduct voir dire in sequestration is within the trial judge's discretion.
2. A prospective juror may be excused for cause when the juror's views would prevent or substantially impair performance of the juror's duties in accordance with the court's instructions and oath.
3. A forfeited claim that a biased juror was seated does not warrant plain-error relief absent an obvious error affecting substantial rights; contradictory voir-dire responses may support the trial court's conclusion that the juror was not actually biased.
4. A capital defendant claiming ineffective assistance must show objectively deficient performance and a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result would have been different.
5. The Newton and Rolison murders were not 'other crimes, wrongs, or acts' under Evid.R. 404(B) in this resentencing proceeding because they were part of the course-of-conduct aggravating circumstance that the jury was required to consider.
6. In a capital case, properly authenticated photographs are admissible when relevant and probative, when their probative value outweighs the danger of prejudice under the applicable balancing standard, and when they are not repetitious or cumulative; admission is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
7. Improper prosecutorial comments warrant relief only when, viewed in the context of the entire proceeding, they prejudicially affect substantial rights or infect the proceeding with unfairness.
8. The trial court was not required to give Kirkland's proposed parole-eligibility or 'moral culpability' language, and accurately describing a death verdict as a recommendation did not violate Caldwell.
9. The due-process restriction on physical restraints addressed in Deck v. Missouri applies to restraints visible to the jury; Kirkland failed to establish plain error because the stun cuff was ordered concealed and the record did not show that it or the remote control was visible.
10. The court must independently determine whether the evidence supports the aggravating circumstances, whether those circumstances outweigh mitigation beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the death sentences are proportionate and appropriate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying individual, sequestered death-qualification voir dire.
2. Whether prospective jurors were properly excused for cause based on views that would prevent or substantially impair their ability to follow the law in a capital case.
3. Whether the jury-questionnaire cover page improperly chilled candid responses.
4. Whether failure to remove a prospective juror who had expressed support for automatic death sentences constituted plain error or ineffective assistance.
5. Whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to question or challenge a juror, cross-examine certain witnesses, or present additional mitigation witnesses.
6. Whether evidence concerning the Newton and Rolison murders and the 1987 homicide was improperly admitted under Evid.R. 404(B) or Evid.R. 403.
7. Whether gruesome autopsy and crime-scene photographs were improperly admitted.
8. Whether prosecutorial comments during closing argument denied Kirkland a fair proceeding.
9. Whether the trial court properly instructed the jury concerning parole eligibility, mitigation, and the advisory nature of a death recommendation.
10. Whether requiring Kirkland to wear a concealed stun cuff violated due process.
11. Whether cumulative error required relief.
12. Whether independent review showed that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt and that the death sentences were proportionate and appropriate.

Disposition

affirmed