State v. Dennis Rydbom

• Decision Date: 14 April 1998
• Docket Number: 97CA16,98-LW-1100
• Parties: State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Dennis Rydbom, Defendant-Appellee Case
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Dennis Rydbom, Defendant-Appellee

No. 97CA16.

98-LW-1100 (4th)

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District Washington

April 14, 1998

Michael G. Spahr, Washington County Prosecuting Attorney and Alison L. Cauthorn, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Marietta, Ohio for Appellant.

Dennis Rydbom, Parkersburg, West Virginia, Appellee pro se.^[1]

DECISION

Harsha J.

The State of Ohio appeals a judgment of the Washington County Court of Common Pleas granting Dennis Rydbom's motion to

dismiss an indictment for murder. Appellant assigns the following error for our review:

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT OHIO DID NOT HAVE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION TO PROSECUTE THE APPELLEE."

On May 25, 1996, an unidentified woman was found wedged, upside down, in a concrete sewer pipe in Washington County, Ohio. Although it was initially thought the victim may have died as the result of positional asphyxiation, subsequent chemical analysis revealed the cause of death to be acute chloroform intoxication. As a result of the investigation into this homicide, the victim was later identified as Sheree Petry, a resident of Wood County, West Virginia.

Appellee was subsequently indicted by the Washington County Grand Jury for the aggravated murder of Sheree Petry. According to the indictment, appellee murdered the victim "at Wood County, West Virginia or Washington County Ohio." Appellee thereafter filed a motion to dismiss the charge claiming the Washington County Common Pleas Court lacked territorial jurisdiction over the alleged crime.

In anticipation of the hearing on appellee's motion, the parties filed an agreed stipulation of facts, an addendum to the stipulation, a second agreed stipulation and, finally, an oral stipulation of facts. The parties' first agreed stipulation stated as follows:

1. If called Howard Rowsey and Sharon Rowsey would testify that Sheree Petry lived with them at 203 [East] Fifth Street, Williamstown, West Virginia.

2. If called Howard and Sharon Rowsey would testify that Sheree Petry often slept in the clothes she was wearing when her body was found.

3. If called Sharon Rowsey would testify that she found a towel on the floor by Ms. Petry's shower, when she came home after Ms. Petry's death.

4. If called Howard and Sharon Rowsey and Barbara Blatt would testify that Sheree Petry could not drive without either her glasses or her contact lenses.

5. Howard and Sharon Rowsey would testify that Sheree Petry's glasses were found near her bed in an ordinary location, and her contacts were in their case in the medicine cabinet when they returned home after her death.

6. Howard Rowsey and Sharon Rowsey would testify that there was an area of matted grass beside the back gate, in their yard, the shape and size of a body which was visible for two to three days later.

7. Sgt Meek would testify that the location of the dent in the grass could not have been seen by either neighbor because of a high wooden fence.

8. Testimony would be that Sheree Petry was not wearing glasses or contact lenses when she was found.

9. Testimony would be that Sheree Petry was not wearing shoes or socks whet she was found. Her feet were clean.

10. Barbara Blatt and Darlene Thomas would testify that Sheree Petry was seen alive and well at between 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. on May 25, 1996 at the New Image Salon in Williamstown, W. Va. Darlene Thomas would testify that Sheree Petry came into the shop to get a massage table to work. for clients later that morning, and that she was in good spirits. One of them will testify that she was dressed nicely. She was not seen alive again.

11. Barbara Thompson would testify that Sheree Petry's car was seen outside her home in Williamstown, W. Va. at 9:05 a.m. on May 25, 1996.

12. Steven Rutter will testify that he saw a man, closely resembling the Defendant in a car closely resembling the victim's car, leaving the scene at South Seventh Street, between 9:10 a.m. and 9:22 a.m. He did not see Sheree Petry in the car.

13. Sgt. Meek would testify that the process (during a simulation) of carrying a mannequin from Sheree Petry's bedroom to the back yard of the Rowsey residence, placing it on the ground, unlatching the gate, removing the towels from the front seat and placing them on the grass, placing the mannequin in the front seat and replacing the towels and putting the bicycle into the car took eight (8) minutes.

14. Sgt. Meek would testify that the drive from Ms. Petry's home at 203 E. 5th Street, Williamstown, W. Va. to the 800 block of South Seventh Street, and placing the mannequin in the drain took eight (8) minutes.

The addendum to the stipulation stated that neither party was in possession of any evidence that would indicate the chloroform which caused Sheree Petry's death was administered anywhere other than at 203 East Fifth Street in Williamstown, West Virginia.

In their second stipulation, the parties agreed that Dr. Kenneth Leopold, the Washington County Coroner, would testify as follows:

1. That he was the first coroner to view the body at the scene.

2. That lividity was present in locations consistent with the body's position in the drain.

3. That Ms. Petry was not wearing socks, shoes, or underwear.

4. That rigor mortis was present and fixed in small muscle group and partial large muscle group.

5. That Ms. Petry's feet were clean and free of grass or dirt.

6. That his initial determination of cause of death was positional asphyxiation and blunt trauma to the head.

7. That based on further reports from Dr. McMaken based on microscopic and chemical autopsy findings, he now would determine that the cause of death was chloroform poisoning

Finally, the parties orally stipulated the following facts immediately before the commencement of the hearing:

"Lynn M. Ellis, an attorney in this town, drove, uh, from the end of the alley on East Fifth Street in front of the [Rowsey] home, out East Fifth Street and down Highland Avenue to what I call the williamstown Bridge, that would be the new bridge, and to the state line. That drive took her 2.5 minutes.

She also drove from the same location, the end of the alley by the [Rowsey] home, out Highland Av- or out, uh, East Fifth Street to Highland Avenue, and out to Interstate 77 and north on Interstate 77 to the state line sign on that bridge. That drive took her four minutes

In addition to which, the parties would stipulate that Officer Seevers if called in this hearing would testify that the victim's remains were removed from the storm sewer at between 3:30 and four o'clock on May 25, 1996. In addition to which, there are four pictures which we have agreed to submit for purposes of this hearing. Defendant's exhibit 1 would be the shirt she was wearing, when her body was recovered; defendant's exhibit 2 would be the pants she was wearing when her body was recovered; defendant's exhibit 3 would be a photograph at the scene from which she was recovered of her feet, showing that they are clean. Defendant's exhibits 4 and 5 are, uh, coroner's; photos showing the injuries to the decedent's mouth."

At the hearing, appellee called two pathologists to establish that, although the victim's body was found in Ohio, it could reasonably be determined that her death had actually occurred in West Virginia and therefore, territorial jurisdiction rested in West Virginia. See R.C. 2901.11(D)^[2]. The state's cross- examination of the pathologists attempted to demonstrate that it could not reasonably be determined from the evidence whether the victim died in west Virginia or Ohio and therefore, territorial jurisdiction rested in Ohio where the victim's body was found. See

R.C. 2901.11(B)^[3].

Based on the parties' agreed stipulations of fact, as well as the testimony adduced at the hearing, the trial court found appellee had established that it could reasonably be determined that the victim's death occurred in west Virginia. As a result, the trial court found it had no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the alleged charge and therefore ordered the case against appellee dismissed.^[4] The state filed a timely notice of appeal pursuant to R.C. 2945.67 which provides that a prosecuting attorney may appeal as a matter of right, any decision of a trial court in a criminal case which grants a motion to dismiss all or any part of an indictment.

Initially, we must determine the appropriate standard for reviewing the granting of a motion to dismiss due to the trial court's alleged lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution provide that, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused is entitled to a speedy, public trial by an impartial jury of the county in which the crime is alleged to have been committed. This constitutional mandate regarding territorial jurisdiction has been codified at R.C. 2901.11.

Specifically, R.C. 2901.11 (A)(1) provides that a person is subject to criminal prosecution in Ohio if he commits an offense under the laws of this state, any element of which takes place in this state. R.C. 2901.11(B) defines the element of a homicide offense which must be established as either the act causing the death, the physical contact which causes the death, or the death itself. This section also states that if any part of the body of a homicide victim is found in Ohio, the death is presumed to have occurred within this state. Finally, R.C. 2901.11 (D) states:

"When an offense is committed under the laws of this state, and it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense or any element thereof took place either in Ohio or in another jurisdiction or jurisdictions, but it cannot reasonably be determined in which it took place, such

...