State v. McKelton (Slip Opinion)
2016 Ohio 5735, 148 Ohio St.3d 261, 70 N.E.3d 508 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to the Confrontation Clause permits the admission of an unavailable victim's hearsay statements if the defendant's purpose to prevent testimony can be inferred from surrounding circumstances, such as a pattern of domestic violence intended to isolate the victim and prevent them from seeking outside help.
Facts:
- Calvin McKelton was in a romantic relationship with his former attorney, Margaret 'Missy' Allen, and lived in her home.
- During the relationship, McKelton physically abused Allen, including choking her and causing an ankle injury in May 2008 that required surgery.
- Allen documented McKelton's abuse on her computer and in a notebook. On one occasion, McKelton physically prevented Allen's niece from calling 9-1-1 during an assault.
- On July 27, 2008, Allen was found dead in a wooded area, having been strangled.
- McKelton's friend, Germaine 'Mick' Evans, later told another friend that he was present when McKelton killed Allen and that he helped McKelton dispose of the body.
- On February 24, 2009, police contacted Evans's sister, Crystal Evans (who was dating McKelton), to inform her they wanted to speak with Evans about Allen's murder. McKelton was present and could have overheard this.
- On March 1, 2009, Evans's body was found; he had been killed by a single gunshot to the back of the head.
- Multiple informants and acquaintances later testified that McKelton admitted to killing Allen during an argument and stated he had to kill Evans because Evans was the only person who could link him to Allen's murder.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Ohio charged Calvin McKelton in a state trial court with the murder of Margaret Allen and the aggravated murder of Germaine Evans.
- The aggravated murder charge for Evans included a death penalty specification for killing a witness to prevent testimony in a criminal proceeding.
- The trial court upheld the state's request for non-disclosure of eight witness names until the night before trial, denying a defense motion.
- During the trial, the court admitted numerous out-of-court statements made by the deceased victim, Margaret Allen, under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine, over the defense's continuing objection.
- A jury convicted McKelton on all counts except for one count of witness intimidation.
- Following a mitigation phase, the jury recommended a sentence of death for the aggravated murder of Evans, which the trial court imposed.
- McKelton filed a direct appeal of his convictions and death sentence to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of a murder victim's prior statements under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine violate the Confrontation Clause where the defendant's purpose to prevent the victim from testifying is inferred from a history of domestic violence, rather than from the immediate circumstances of the murder?
Opinions:
Majority - Lanzinger, J.
No. The admission of the victim's statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the defendant's purpose to prevent testimony can be inferred from his history of domestic violence against the victim. The forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine applies not only when a defendant kills a witness with the express purpose of preventing testimony in a specific proceeding, but also when that purpose can be inferred from a broader pattern of conduct. The court cited the U.S. Supreme Court case Giles v. California, which stated that acts of domestic violence are 'highly relevant' to the purpose inquiry because they are often intended to dissuade a victim from seeking outside help. Here, the evidence showed McKelton engaged in a pattern of abuse designed to isolate Allen and prevent her from contacting authorities, such as taking the phone away when her niece tried to call for help. This pattern supports a finding that one of McKelton's purposes in his wrongdoing, which culminated in murder, was to render Allen unavailable to testify against him.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Pfeifer, J.
This opinion concurs with the majority's decision to affirm McKelton's conviction of guilt. However, it joins Justice O’Neill’s dissent regarding the inadequacy of the legal representation McKelton received during the sentencing phase of the trial.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - O’Neill, J.
This opinion concurs with affirming McKelton's conviction but dissents from affirming the death sentence, arguing that McKelton received ineffective assistance of counsel during the mitigation phase. The dissent contends that defense counsel failed to adequately investigate McKelton's background and did not hire a mitigation specialist or mental-health professionals, despite evidence of a traumatic and abusive childhood. This failure meant the jury did not hear crucial expert testimony that could have explained the psychological and social effects of his background, rendering the sentencing phase unreliable and unjust.
Analysis:
This decision provides significant clarification on the application of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Giles v. California within the context of domestic violence homicides. The court establishes that the 'purpose to prevent testimony' required for the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine does not need to be proven by direct evidence related to the killing itself. Instead, courts may infer this purpose from a broader pattern of abusive conduct aimed at silencing and controlling a victim. This precedent gives prosecutors a stronger basis for introducing a victim's prior statements in domestic violence cases, which can be critical for securing a conviction when the primary witness is deceased.
Unlock the full brief for State v. McKelton (Slip Opinion)