Gumm v. Mitchell
Decision Date | 22 December 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 11–3363.,11–3363. |
Parties | Darryl GUMM, Petitioner–Appellee, v. Betty MITCHELL, Warden, Respondent–Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
ARGUED:Seth P. Kestner, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, OH, for Appellant. Kathleen McGarry, McGarry Law Office, Glorieta, NM, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Seth P. Kestner, Charles L. Wille, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, OH, for Appellant. Kathleen McGarry, McGarry Law Office, Glorieta, NM, Lawrence J. Greger, Dayton, OH, for Appellee.
Before: DAUGHTREY, MOORE and CLAY, Circuit Judges.
CLAY, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which DAUGHTREY, J. joined, and MOORE, J. joined in all but Part II.B.4.c. of the majority's opinion and in the judgment. MOORE, J. (pp. 385-86), delivered a separate concurring opinion.
Petitioner Darryl Gumm is mentally retarded and has an IQ of approximately 70. He was convicted by an Ohio jury for the kidnapping, attempted rape, and murder of ten-year-old Aaron Raines. For these crimes, Petitioner was sentenced to death. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal, and his state post-conviction petition was found to lack merit by the Ohio state courts. After he filed a petition for federal habeas corpus, the United States Supreme Court decided in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002) that persons who are mentally retarded cannot be executed. In Petitioner's post-Atkins petition for state post-conviction review, the Ohio courts adjudicated Petitioner mentally retarded and reduced his sentence to thirty years to life in prison. In that second petition, the Ohio courts rejected Petitioner's non-Atkins claims.
On federal habeas review, the district court granted Petitioner a conditional writ of habeas corpus on the four claims we have before us on appeal. These claims include (1) that the government failed to disclose exculpatory evidence as required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) ; (2) that Petitioner received an unfair trial due to the improper admission of incendiary prior bad acts evidence; (3) that admission of a psychiatric report violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause; and (4) that the prosecutor's elicitation of inflammatory testimony and admission of psychiatric reports constituted prosecutorial misconduct, causing a denial of due process. Respondent Warden has appealed. For the following reasons, this Court AFFIRMS the district court's grant of the conditional writ of habeas corpus based on Petitioner's Brady and prosecutorial misconduct claims.1
The facts of the crimes in this case are not disputed and have been summarized by the Ohio Supreme Court during its review of his convictions and sentences on direct appeal as follows:
out of them many times at night. Betty called the local “crime Stoppers” number to report her information.
from the buildings. According to Gumm, after the three entered the first building and crossed over a walkway into the second building, Bies asked Aaron to perform oral sex for money. When Aaron refused, Gumm claimed that Bies punched Aaron several times, picked him up and carried him downstairs to the basement. According to Gumm, Bies there hit Aaron several additional times, once on the head with a “two by four.” After that, Gumm stated that he and Bies fled the scene. Gumm claims that he himself did not hit Aaron at all, but conceded that he might have stepped on his body as he was attempting to flee from the basement.
, chipped teeth and cut lips, a deep laceration and bone chip on the underside of his jaw, compression wounds and hemorrhages in the eyes probably caused by compression of twine wrapped around his neck, and pattern bruises typical of injuries caused by being struck with a stick or rod.
Dr. Martin found no evidence of any defensive wounds
on Aaron's body, and opined that the absence of defensive wounds was consistent with Aaron having been held or restrained while his injuries were being inflicted. Dr. Martin determined that the cause of death was a combination of blunt impacts to the head, chest and abdomen, as well as blunt injury to the neck.
State v. Gumm, 73 Ohio St.3d 413, 653 N.E.2d 253, 257–58 (1995) ; see also State v. Bies, 74 Ohio St.3d 320, 658 N.E.2d 754, 756–57 (1996) ( ).
Petitioner was indicted on the following counts: (1) aggravated murder with death penalty specifications, in violation of Ohio Revised Code § 2929.04(A)(3) ( ) and Ohio Revised Code § 2929.04(A)(7) ( ); (2) attempted rape, in violation of Ohio Revised Code § 2923.02 ; and (3) kidnapping, in violation of Ohio Revised Code § 2905.01. A jury convicted Petitioner on all counts.
Petitioner did not testify during the mitigation phase of his trial and called only one witness—his sister, Karen Ridenour. The jury recommended imposition of the death penalty after concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating factors. The trial court imposed the death sentence for the aggravated murder count and imposed consecutive terms of imprisonment for Petitioner's attempted rape and kidnapping convictions. State v. Gumm, 73 Ohio St.3d 413, 653 N.E.2d 253, 258 (1995).
Petitioner's convictions and sentence were affirmed by the Ohio Court of Appeals, see State v. Gumm, Nos. C–920907, B–925608, 1994 WL 44411 (Ohio Ct.App. Feb. 16, 1994), and by the Ohio Supreme Court, see Gumm, 653 N.E.2d 253, cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1177, 116 S.Ct. 1275, 134 L.Ed.2d 221 (1996).
A number of issues on appeal concern evidence adduced during Petitioner's trial. Specifically, Petitioner raises claims relating to the testimony of Phyllis Thacker and Charlotte Jean Baker, as well as psychiatric reports admitted during the testimony of Petitioner's expert, Dr. Henry Leland.
Following opening statements by each side, the prosecutor put on Thacker, whom Petitioner had lived with on and off for a number of years. After establishing how Petitioner came to live with Thacker, the prosecutor began questioning Thacker about Petitioner's “problem with alcohol.” (J.A. at 247.) This line of questioning drew an objection from Petitioner's counsel,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Allen v. Parris, Case No. 18-5471
...are reviewed for clear error, and its legal conclusions on mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed de novo. See Gumm v. Mitchell, 775 F.3d 345, 359-60 (6th Cir. 2014). "[T]he habeas petitioner has the burden of rebutting, by clear and convincing evidence, the presumption that the state......
-
Trials
...475, 514-15 (4th Cir. 2013) (prosecutor urging jury to “do your duty” and “send a message to the community” improper); Gumm v. Mitchell, 775 F.3d 345, 379 (6th Cir. 2014) (prosecutor’s comments “paint [ing] defendant as sexual deviant and animal killer” improper because meant to “inflame t......
-
Review Proceedings
...(appellate court “not required” to raise claim sua sponte when government did not raise claim of procedural defect); Gumm v. Mitchell, 775 F.3d 345, 376-77 (6th Cir. 2014) (appellate court “not required” to raise procedural default sua sponte when government did not raise claim of procedura......