|
|
2005-1678. State v. Hale, Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-3426.
Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-04-454857-A. Judgment affirmed. See opinion.
Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
It appearing to the court that the date fixed for the execution of judgment and sentence of the Court of Common Pleas has passed.
It is ordered by the court that the sentence be carried into execution by the Warden of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility or, in his absence, by the Deputy Warden on Thursday, November 6, 2008, in accordance with the statutes so provided.
It is further ordered that a certified copy of this entry and a warrant under the seal of this court be certified to the Warden of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, and that the Warden shall make due return to the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County.
It is further ordered by the court that a mandate be sent to the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County to carry this judgment into execution, and that a copy of this entry be certified to the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County for entry.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-Ohio-3426.pdf
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/ROD/newpdf/. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."
(July 15, 2008) The Supreme Court of Ohio today unanimously upheld the conviction and death sentence imposed on Delano Hale of Cleveland for the aggravated murder of Douglas Green in June 2004.
In an opinion written by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, the Court considered and rejected 22 allegations of legal and procedural error by the trial court that Hale’s attorneys argued were grounds for the Supreme Court to vacate Hale’s convictions or reduce his sentence to a term of life imprisonment.
Green was shot in the head four times after coming to Hale’s room in a residential motel. Hale subsequently wrapped Green’s body in plastic bags and moved it to a storage room at the motel, then disposed of Green’s clothes and the gun and checked out of the motel, taking Green’s credit card and Ford Explorer SUV. Several days later, after the body was discovered, police reviewed Green’s phone records and found that several calls had been made to his cell phone from Hale’s motel room. Officers were sent to Hale’s place of employment, where they found Green’s car in a parking lot with Hale inside the vehicle.
After being arrested, Hale made a statement to police admitting that he shot Green but claiming that he had acted in self defense after Green, who was much taller and heavier than Hale, had made unwanted sexual advances and physically assaulted him. Hale was charged with aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, tampering with evidence, having a firearm while on parole and escape. Following a jury trial, he was convicted on all counts and sentenced to death.
Among the allegations of error that the Court rejected in today’s opinion, Hale had asserted that police had not read him his rights before they began the questioning that culminated in his confession. Police asked Hale personal history questions for the purpose of filling out a jail intake form before reading his Miranda rights.
“We disagree,” Chief Justice Moyer wrote. “[Police were] not required to preface the personal-history questions with Miranda warnings. The personal-history questions were routine booking questions, and the requirement that police administer Miranda warnings before questioning a suspect in custody does not apply to routine booking questions.”
Hale also argued that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss several prospective jurors who should have been excluded for cause because they were biased in favor of the death penalty.
“According to Hale, the judge death-qualified each prospective juror without any request by the prosecution, but he did not similarly ‘life-qualify’ each prospective juror – i.e., he did not ask those jurors questions to determine whether they would automatically vote for the death penalty,” Chief Justice Moyer wrote.
The Court rejected this claim first on the basis that Hale failed to raise the concern about the judge’s conduct during jury selection in an affidavit of disqualification filed with the Supreme Court during the trial.
“Moreover, the claimed error does not reach the level of plain error. In the first place, the record shows that the trial judge asked numerous prospective jurors whether they could consider mitigating factors or whether they would automatically vote for a death sentence. In many cases, the judge asked both questions,” Chief Justice Moyer wrote.
“Secondly, the trial court had no obligation to personally life-qualify the jurors. … The fact that the judge did ask death-qualifying questions did not create any such obligation. The fact remains that the trial judge did not prevent defense counsel from asking such questions, and counsel in fact did ask such questions without hindrance. Hale provides no support for his assertions that the trial judge’s method of proceeding caused the seating of a ‘death-prone jury.’”
Among other allegations of error rejected by the Court: that the trial court improperly allowed prosecutors to introduce evidence and testimony that were irrelevant, misleading and prejudicial while improperly limiting evidence Hale’s attorneys sought to introduce about the victim’s criminal history.
In conducting the Court’s own independent weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors in the case, the Court considered Hale’s history, character and background; his claim that the victim induced or facilitated the offense; his claim that duress, coercion or strong provocation contributed to the offense; Hale’s expression of remorse for his actions; the love and support of his family; and the likelihood that Hale could successfully adapt to prison.
“Hale’s mitigation adds up to little,” Chief Justice Moyer wrote. “We find that the robbery-murder aggravating circumstance outweighs the mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt. The death sentence is also proportionate to death sentences we have approved in robbery-murder cases.”
Chief Justice Moyer’s opinion was joined by Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Maureen O’Connor, Terrence O’Donnell, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Robert R. Cupp.Contacts
John W. Oebker, 216.443.8146, for the State of Ohio and Cuyahoga County prosecutor’s office.
Kelly L. Culshaw, 614.466.5394, for Delano Hale.