State v. Broom
| Decision Date | 16 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 2012–0852.,2012–0852. |
| Citation | 146 Ohio St.3d 60,51 N.E.3d 620 |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. BROOM, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
146 Ohio St.3d 60
51 N.E.3d 620
The STATE of Ohio, Appellee
v.
BROOM, Appellant.
No. 2012–0852.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Submitted June 9, 2015.
Decided March 16, 2016.
Timothy J. McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Katherine Mullin and T. Allan Regas, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.
S. Adele Shank, Columbus, and Timothy F. Sweeney, Cleveland, for appellant.
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Rachel Troutman, Assistant Public Defender, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Public Defender.
LANZINGER, J.
{¶ 1} In this case, we are asked to determine whether the state is barred by the Cruel and Unusual Punishments and Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions from carrying out the death penalty against Romell Broom when attempts to insert an IV catheter were unsuccessful in an earlier scheduled execution. We hold that the state is not barred from carrying out his execution and therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Case Background
{¶ 2} On October 3, 1985, a jury convicted appellant, Romell Broom, of aggravated murder with two felony-murder specifications (kidnapping and rape) in connection with the death of 14–year–old Tryna Middleton. Broom received a sentence of death, which was affirmed on appeal. 40 Ohio St.3d 277, 533 N.E.2d 682 (1988). After Broom exhausted his postconviction and federal remedies, this court ordered the execution to proceed on September 15, 2009. 123 Ohio St.3d 114, 2009-Ohio-4778, 914 N.E.2d 392, ¶ 21 and fn. 2.
Facts of September 15, 2009
{¶ 3} Broom was transported to the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (“Lucasville”) on September 14, 2009, in anticipation of his execution scheduled for the next day. Upon his arrival at Lucasville, a nurse and a phlebotomist conducted a vein assessment and found that Broom's right-arm vein appeared accessible, but his left-arm vein seemed less so. Prison officials communicated this information to Edwin C. Voorhies Jr., the regional director for the Office of Prisons of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”), and the medical team assured him that this would not present a problem.
{¶ 4} At 1:59 p.m. on September 15, the warden finished reading the death warrant to Broom. One minute later, Team Members 9 (a female) and 21 (a male) entered the holding cell to prepare the catheter sites.
{¶ 5} Team Member 9 made three attempts to insert a catheter into Broom's left arm but was unable to access a vein. At the same time, Team Member 21
made three unsuccessful stabs into Broom's right arm. After a short break, Member 9 made two more insertions, the second of which caused Broom to scream aloud from the pain.
{¶ 6} Member 21 managed to insert the IV catheter into a vein, but then he lost the vein and blood began running down Broom's arm. When that occurred, Member 9 rushed out of the room, saying “no” when a security officer asked if she was okay.
{¶ 7} Director Voorhies testified that he could tell there was a problem in the first 10 to 15 minutes. Warden Phillip Kerns saw the team make six or seven attempts on Broom's veins during the same 10–to–
15–minute period. According to Kerns, the team members did hit veins, but as soon as they started the saline drip, the vein would bulge, making it unusable.
{¶ 8} About 15 minutes into the process, Kerns and Voorhies saw Member 9 leave the holding cell. Voorhies described her as sweating “profusely” and heard her say that she and Member 21 had both accessed veins, but the veins “blew.” Member 17 then entered the holding cell and made “several attempts” to access a vein in Broom's left arm. Simultaneously, Member 21 continued his attempts on Broom's right arm.
{¶ 9} Terry Collins, who was then the director of the ODRC, called a break about 45 minutes into the process to consult with the medical team. The break lasted 20 to 25 minutes. The medical team reported that they were gaining IV access but could not sustain it when they tried to run saline through the line. They expressed “clear concern” about whether they would get usable veins. But because they said that there was a reasonable chance of establishing venous access, the decision was made to continue.
{¶ 10} By this time, Broom was in a great deal of pain from the puncture wounds, which made it difficult for him to move or stretch his arms. The second session commenced with three medical team members—9, 17, and 21—examining Broom's arms and hands for possible injection sites. For the first time, they also began examining areas around and above his elbow as well as his legs. They also reused previous insertion sites, and as they continued inserting catheter needles into already swollen and bruised sites, Broom covered his eyes and began to cry from the pain. Director Voorhies remarked that he had never before seen an inmate cry during the process of venous access.
{¶ 11} After another ten minutes or so, Warden Kerns asked a nurse to contact the Lucasville physician to see if she would assess Broom's veins and offer advice about finding a suitable vein. Broom later stated that he saw “an Asian woman,” whom he erroneously identified as “the head nurse,” enter the chamber. Someone handed her a needle, and when she inserted it, she struck bone, and Broom
screamed from the pain. At the same time, another team member was attempting to access a vein in Broom's right ankle.
{¶ 12} The Lucasville physician confirmed that she came to Broom's cell, examined his foot, and made one unsuccessful attempt to insert a needle but quickly concluded that the effort would not work. By doing so, she disobeyed the warden's express instructions to observe only and not get involved. The physician examined Broom's foot but could see no other vein.
{¶ 13} After the physician departed, the medical team continued trying to establish an IV line for another five to ten minutes. In all, the second session lasted approximately 35 to 40 minutes.
{¶ 14} During the second break, the medical team advised that even if they successfully accessed a vein, they were not confident that the site would remain viable throughout the execution process. The governor's office had signaled its willingness to grant a reprieve, and so the decision was made to halt the execution for the day.
{¶ 15} Dr. Jonathan Groner examined and photographed Broom three or four days afterward. The photographs show 18 injection sites: one on each bicep, four on his left antecupital (forearm), three on his right antecupital, three on his left wrist, one on the back of his left hand, three on the back of his right hand, and one on each ankle. Prison officials later confirmed that he was stuck at least 18 times.
{¶ 16} Dr. Mark Heath met with Broom one week after the event. Dr. Heath observed “considerable bruising” and a lot of “deep and superficial” tissue damage consistent with multiple probing. Dr. Heath also posited that the actual number of catheter insertions was much higher than the number of needle marks, because according to what Broom told him, the medical team would withdraw the catheter partway and then reinsert it at a different angle, a procedure known as “fishing.”
Subsequent Litigation
{¶ 17} Broom has pursued multiple avenues challenging any further attempt by the state to execute him. He filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (“Section 1983 ”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on September 18, 2009. He argued that a second attempt to execute him would violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments and the Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy. The federal court dismissed these claims without prejudice as procedurally improper. Broom v. Strickland, S.D.Ohio No. 2:09–cv–823, 2010 WL 3447741 (Aug. 27, 2010). On the same day that he filed his Section 1983 complaint, Broom filed an original action for a writ of habeas corpus in this court (case No. 2009–1686), which he
later voluntarily dismissed. In re Broom, 123 Ohio St.3d 1485, 2009-Ohio-5883, 916 N.E.2d 482. On September 14, 2010, Broom filed a federal habeas action, which is stayed pending exhaustion of his Eighth Amendment claim in state court, Broom v. Bobby, N.D.Ohio No. 1:10 CV 2058, 2010 WL 4806820 (Nov. 18, 2010), and a second state-court habeas action (case No. 2010–1609 ), which this court dismissed, In re Broom, 127 Ohio St.3d 1450, 2010–Ohio–5836, 937 N.E.2d 1039.
{¶ 18} On September 15, 2010, Broom filed a successive petition for postconviction relief in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, asserting that any future attempt to execute him would be unconstitutional. On April 7, 2011, the trial court denied Broom's petition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Noling
...proceeding is not an appeal of a criminal conviction but rather, is a collateral, civil attack on a criminal judgment." State v. Broom, 146 Ohio St.3d 60, 2016-Ohio-1028, 51 N.E.3d 620, ¶ 28, citing State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399, 410, 639 N.E.2d 67 (1994). And "[t]he right to file a p......
-
In re A.G.
...not raise this question on our own initiative.{¶ 38} But in any case, as Justice Lanzinger recently wrote for the court in State v. Broom, 146 Ohio St.3d 60, 2016-Ohio-1028, 51 N.E.3d 620, ¶ 21, "Ohio's constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy, Article I, Section 10, is coextensive wit......
-
Broom v. Jenkins, Case No. 1:10 CV 2058
...team would withdraw the catheter partway and then reinsert it at a different angle, a procedure known as "fishing."State v. Broom, 146 Ohio St. 3d 60, 61-63 (Ohio 2016). C. Broom's Initial State and Federal Litigation Challenging Any Further Execution Attempt On September 18, 2009, three da......
-
State v. Bush
...to halt the process and later make another attempt (often, multiple attempts) to execute a defendant. See, e.g. , State v. Broom , 146 Ohio St.3d 60, 51 N.E.3d 620, 623 (2016) (concluding that a state does not violate the Constitution by attempting to execute a defendant after a failed exec......