State v. Claytor

Decision Date31 July 1991
Docket NumberNo. 89-499,89-499
Citation61 Ohio St.3d 234,574 N.E.2d 472
PartiesThe STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. CLAYTOR, Appellant.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Gary Powell was headed towards his East Cleveland home on Friday afternoon, January 31, 1986, when he spotted his friend and roommate Justin Claytor walking along Euclid Avenue. Powell offered Claytor a ride and warned his friend after he got in the car that the police were looking for him. Claytor responded that he did not care. He then asked Powell to drive him to the Richfield Coliseum. They stopped once for gas and a second time for a bottle of 42-proof vodka. The two men drank about a third of the bottle, spilling the rest as they headed for the Coliseum. After parking outside the Coliseum for a few minutes, they headed back towards Cleveland on Brecksville Road at about 5:00 p.m.

As the car approached the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Brecksville, Claytor mentioned that he had spent time there and suggested going in. Powell drove around the snow-covered grounds until he reached a rear parking lot near Building 24, where he stopped. Before leaving the car, Powell told Claytor that he would not go in if Claytor was armed. (Four weeks earlier, Powell had been with Claytor when Claytor bought a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol at a suburban Cleveland sporting goods store. Powell then bought bullets at another store while Claytor read the instructions on how to use the weapon.) Claytor did not acknowledge having a weapon, but walked to the back of the car after Powell told him to leave any weapons there. Powell had opened the trunk lid with a release inside the car. While Powell was locking the car, Claytor closed the trunk. In response to Powell's question, Claytor said he had put something in the trunk.

The two of them entered Building 24. Powell and Claytor walked through the halls, stopping occasionally to buy food from vending machines. At one point, Powell picked up a pen and wrote on his hand: "The man with me is trouble, help me." As the two men were walking past the security office, Powell got the attention of a guard supervisor, who read the message. After Powell and Claytor walked away, they encountered security guard Mark Decker in another part of the building. At that point, Claytor left Powell alone and Powell took the opportunity to tell Decker that he was afraid of Claytor and that there was a Cleveland warrant outstanding for him. Decker passed that information along to the guard supervisor. Decker later encountered the two men in the building and told them they were trespassing and would have to leave. Powell and Claytor continued their wandering, eventually going outside and walking towards the parking lot where Powell had left his car.

Meanwhile, Decker, who had been on inside patrol, conferred with his supervisor, who told him to take his turn on outside patrol, a duty then being performed by guard Leonard Wilcox. While the two guards were riding together in the hospital's security vehicle, they passed Claytor and Powell walking towards Powell's car and stopped, getting out of their cruiser. Decker radioed the supervisor that he had spotted the two men. Neither security guard was armed. The security officers approached the two men and asked for identification. Powell gave Decker a driver's license and Claytor handed Wilcox a bank book and a Social Security card. When Decker pressed for identification containing a picture, Claytor fumbled through his clothes, then said: "I will show you something that you don't want to see." With that, he drew the .45 and pointed it at Decker. As Decker backed away, saying "no, no," Claytor shot him in the forehead and again in the chin. Powell started running after Claytor fired the first shot. Though he heard Wilcox screaming and then heard more shots, he did not see Wilcox killed. However, others inside the hospital watched as Wilcox, wounded, tried to run away. They saw Claytor hesitate (it was discovered later that he was clearing his gun, which had jammed), then pursue Wilcox out of their sight. They reported hearing several "popping" sounds moments later. Wilcox was found shortly afterward, dead with three gunshot wounds.

After killing the two guards, Claytor ran back into the hospital, threatening those he encountered. He accosted two nursing assistants, hitting one--Joyce Taggart--in the temple with the gun and knocking her down. When Brecksville police arrived, they saw Claytor holding patient Edward Gotovac as a hostage. The police persuaded Claytor to release the man, but Claytor fled before they could arrest him. Police eventually found him hiding above a false ceiling in the basement.

Claytor was tried before a jury in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas on the following charges:

(1) Aggravated murder of Mark Decker in violation of R.C. 2903.01(B), the murder being committed while the defendant was attempting to escape in violation of R.C. 2921.34. This count included a specification of the aggravating circumstance of mass murder, purposely killing two people in violation of R.C. 2929.04(A)(5). A firearm specification was also included in this count ("Count Four").

(2) Aggravated murder of Leonard Wilcox by prior calculation and design in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A). This count ("Count Five") carried a firearm specification along with aggravating specifications of mass murder and felony murder, i.e., that Claytor killed Wilcox to avoid arrest for the murder of Decker.

(3) Aggravated murder of Wilcox in violation of R.C. 2903.01(B), the murder being committed while the defendant was attempting to escape in violation of R.C. 2921.34. This count ("Count Six") also carried a firearm specification and the aggravating specifications of mass murder and felony murder (avoiding arrest).

(4) The kidnapping of Edward Gotovac in violation of R.C. 2905.01 with a firearm specification ("Count Seven").

(5) The felonious assault of Joyce Taggart in violation of R.C. 2903.11 with a firearm specification ("Count Eight").

Appellant pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, though the former plea was not pursued with any vigor and virtually abandoned when appellant took the stand to recount his recollection of the shootings.

Dr. Richard Markey, a psychiatrist, testified for the defense that appellant was a paranoid schizophrenic and legally insane in that he was unable to refrain from shooting the two guards. In rebuttal, the state offered the testimony of three psychiatrists, Dr. William H. Grant, Dr. Kathleen Dougherty and Dr. Phillip J. Resnick. All three agreed with the opinion of the defense psychiatrist that appellant suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. That illness is defined as a " * * * preoccupation with one or more systematized delusions or with frequent auditory hallucinations related to a single theme" associated with " * * * unfocused anxiety, anger, argumentativeness and violence." American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3 Ed.Rev.1987). Drs. Resnick and Grant testified on cross-examination that appellant had a history of being admitted to the hospital following violent episodes brought on by his failure to take his medication. (Drs. Markey and Grant testified that appellant was taking, at various times, Navane, Thorazine, Cogentin, Thiamine and Haldol, designed to prevent psychotic episodes, moderate violent behavior or combat side effects of the other drugs.) However, all state experts testified that they believed appellant was aware of the wrongfulness of his conduct when he shot the officers and could have refrained from killing them. All three said that appellant told them various versions of what happened that night, including a belief that the guards were really wolves or that they were going to shoot him and that he fired in self-defense. In each instance, they said, appellant later admitted to lying. They also said appellant told them that he feared he would be forced to submit to a rectal examination if admitted to the hospital again. Drs. Grant and Dougherty said appellant felt he had previously been singled out for such an exam and had found it to be humiliating. Appellant was convicted on all counts.

The mitigation hearing consisted of testimony from appellant's mother and two expert witnesses: Dr. Kurt A. Bertchinger, a forensic psychiatrist and director of the Court Psychiatric Clinic for Lake County, and Dr. James J. Karpawich, a forensic psychologist and clinical professor at Case-Western Reserve University Medical School. Dr. Bertchinger testified that, while he believed appellant did not meet the test for legal insanity, he also believed that appellant lacked the "substantial capacity" to conform his conduct to the law's requirements. He testified that appellant had a six-year history of being hospitalized repeatedly because of his mental illness and " * * * most of those occasions he was demonstrating violence, out of control, aggressive, threatening behavior as a product of his mental illness." Dr. Karpawich testified that appellant had a history of growing confusion followed by violence, usually directed at his mother, as a result of not taking his medication. Dr. Karpawich also testified that his psychological testing showed appellant to have an IQ of seventy-eight, on the "borderline" between retarded and normal. He testified that the "normal" range for IQ was eighty-five to one hundred fifteen. None of this testimony was rebutted by the state, which did not call any witnesses during the penalty phase. The jury found that the aggravating circumstances did not outweigh the mitigating factors in Decker's murder and recommended a life sentence with no parole eligibility until after thirty years for the aggravated murder of Decker. The jury found that the aggravating circumstances did outweigh mitigating factors in the two counts related to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
105 cases
  • Sheppard v. Bagley
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • 4 March 2009
    ...had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating factors. State v. Claytor, 61 Ohio St.3d 234, 574 N.E.2d 472 (1991); State v. Lawrence, 44 Ohio St.3d 24, 541 N.E.2d 451 Lawson v. Warden, Mansfield Corr. Inst., 197 F.Supp.2d 1072, 10......
  • Houston v. Cool
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • 15 July 2022
    ...214, 2006-Ohio-791, 842 N.E.2d 996, ¶ 45, citing State v. Robbins, 58 Ohio St.2d 74, 78-79, 388 N.E.2d 755 (1979), State v. Claytor, 61 Ohio St.3d 234, 241, 574 472 (1991), and *415 Cotton, 56 Ohio St.2d at 9-10, 381 N.E.2d 190. See also Palmer, 80 Ohio St.3d at 569-570, 687 N.E.2d 685 (aft......
  • Shover v. Cordis Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 31 July 1991
    .......         A number of prior cases decided within this state have held that "[a] fraudulent concealment by which the plaintiff has been delayed will not enlarge the time for bringing an action under the statute ......
  • State v. Smith, s. 96-677
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 15 October 1997
    ...to do so. See State v. Jenkins (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 164, 199, 203, 15 OBR 311, 345, 473 N.E.2d 264, 296, 299; State v. Claytor (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 234, 244, 574 N.E.2d 472, However, the Supreme Court of Ohio has always had the constitutional grant of "appellate jurisdiction" in capital c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT