State v. Edna Finley, 98-LW-2378
| Decision Date | 19 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | 98-LW-2378,C.A. 96-CA-30 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee v. EDNA FINLEY, Defendant-Appellant C.A. Case No. 96-CA-30 |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
STEPHEN A. SCHUMAKER, Prosecuting Attorney, 50 E. Columbia Street Springfield, Ohio 45502, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
DAVID H. BODIKER, Ohio Public Defender, By: JILL E. STONE Assistant State Public Defender, 8 E. Long Street, 11th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215, Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant
In 1989, Thomas Finley, Jr. met and married Donna Finley while they were living in Florida. During his marriage, Thomas mailed love letters from Florida to Velma Lemmings, who lived in his hometown, Springfield, Ohio. In his correspondence Thomas indicated to Lemmings that he would kill his wife, Donna, in order to be with Lemmings. In October of 1993, Thomas moved his wife and children back to Springfield to his parents' house so that he could be closer to Lemmings. Shortly after, Thomas, Jr. and his father, Thomas Finley, Sr., purchased a .25 caliber handgun at a local pawn shop. Thomas, Jr. and Lemmings practiced firing the handgun in the basement of Lemmings's residence.
At some point, Thomas, Jr. and Lemmings agreed to kill Donna. Lemmings asked for money to complete the killing, and they agreed that Lemmings would receive $500 for her services. Thomas, Jr. testified that his mother, defendant-appellant Edna Finley, who also wanted Donna killed, intervened on his behalf in order to persuade Lemmings to lower her price to $500.
On November 6, 1993, Lemmings entered the Finley home and woke Thomas, Jr., who was sleeping in the front room with his wife. Thomas, Jr. and Lemmings went into the kitchen to discuss their plans to kill Donna. At some point, Finley entered the kitchen. Lemmings retrieved the .25 caliber handgun from a cupboard and went into the front room. Lemmings returned from the front room and told Thomas, Jr. that she shot Donna and that it was his turn. Thomas, Jr. went into the front room with the handgun and shot Donna. Thomas, Jr. and Lemmings testified that next, Finley went into the front room and shot Donna.
Lemmings decided to dispose of the body in the country, so she and Thomas, Jr. dragged Donna's body to the brown Chevrolet Citation owned by Thomas, Sr. and put the body in the trunk. Finley drove the car to an isolated area away from town, and Thomas, Jr. and Lemmings dragged Donna's body into a cornfield. Afterwards, Finley assisted Thomas, Jr. in cleaning up the front room where Donna had been killed.
On November 15, 1993, Finley was indicted by the Clark County Grand Jury for Aggravated Murder, with a firearm specification, Tampering with Evidence, and Abuse of a Corpse. The indictment was later dismissed, and Finley was re-indicted on September 26, 1994 on the same charges, along with a death penalty specification alleging that the murder was committed "for hire." The trial court separated the charges, and Finley's Aggravated Murder charge was tried separately from her Tampering with Evidence and Abuse of a Corpse charges. After a jury trial, Finley was found guilty of Aggravated Murder, including death penalty and firearm specifications. During the penalty phase, the jury recommended that Finley be sentenced to life imprisonment, with parole eligibility after thirty years served. The trial court adopted the jury's recommendation and sentenced Finley accordingly.
From the judgment of the trial court, Finley appeals.
Finley's First Assignment of Error is as follows:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING MRS. FINLEY COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL.
Finley argues that the facts presented during the competency hearings demonstrated that her comprehension deficits are so severe that she could never achieve the level of understanding necessary to enable her to assist in her own defense. Finley notes that all of the experts agreed that she had serious weakness in comprehending abstract concepts and other significant intellectual limitations. Finley also suggests that after the trial court's initial finding of incompetence the State had the burden of proving that she was competent, which it failed to sustain. In sum, Finley maintains that her mental limitations did not change after the trial court's earlier determination of incompetency and that she was incompetent when she went to trial.
On April 21, 1994, the trial court held a hearing on Finley's motion to suppress during which her expert witness, Dr. Jeffrey L. Smalldown, a clinical psychologist, testified as to her mental capacity to understand her Miranda rights and her ability to waive those rights. Dr. Smalldown opined that Finley had borderline intellectual functioning and had difficulty with abstract thinking and concept formation. Specifically, Dr. Smalldown testified that although Finley could understand almost all of the words contained in the Miranda warnings, she could not understand the implications of those words. Based on Dr. Smalldown's testimony, the trial court determined that the issue of competency had been raised and that further hearings on the matter were required.
On June 9, 1994, the trial court held a competency hearing in which both parties presented expert witnesses. On behalf of the State, Dr. Bobbie Hopes, a forensic psychologist, testified that she had tested Finley's intellectual functioning and concluded that Finley had a verbal I.Q. of 73, which indicates borderline intellectual functioning. Dr. Hopes testified that she also administered the Georgia Court Competency Test, which tested Finley's understanding of court proceedings and her ability to assist in her defense. Finley scored an 80 out of 100, with 70 being the threshold score for competency. Based on the test scores, Dr. Hopes concluded that Finley was competent to stand trial.
On behalf of Finley, Dr. Smalldown again testified that Finley had borderline intellectual functioning and again opined that Finley was not competent to stand trial. However, Dr. Smalldown also testified that Finley did not suffer from a mental illness and that she was not mentally retarded. Dr. Smalldown opined that Finley could be restored to competency within one year and stand trial at that time. Based on the evidence presented during the competency hearing, the trial court determined that Finley was not competent to stand trial pursuant to R.C. 2945.38(B) but that she could be restored to competency within one year.
On October 4, 1994, the trial court held a second competency hearing. The State presented Dr. Douglas Mossman, a psychiatrist, who testified regarding Finley's competency. Dr. Mossman testified that he questioned Finley regarding her understanding of the legal charges against her and the judicial process. Mossman also had administered the Georgia Court Competency Test, and Finley scored 76 points, within the range of competency. Based on his evaluation, Dr. Mossman opined that Finley was competent to stand trial.
On behalf of Finley, Dr. Smalldon testified that Finley was unable to describe to him the role of the attorneys in the trial, the charges against her, or the penalties associated with the charges. Based on his evaluation, Dr. Smalldon opined that Finley was incompetent to stand trial. Dr. Smalldon also expressed serious doubts as to whether Finley was restorable to competency. Based on the experts' testimony, the trial court ruled that Finley was not competent to stand trial but that she might be restorable to competency within one year.
On May 22, 1995, the trial court held a third competency hearing. Dr. Mossman testified that his testing of Finley indicated that she was exaggerating her mental problems and her difficulties with memory. Dr. Mossman had administered the Symptom Validity Test, which indicated that Finley was malingering, and he further noted that in conversation Finley claimed she could not recall details of the incidents relating to the alleged crime that she recalled with specificity ten months after the killing. Dr. Mossman opined that although Finley had a desire to avoid thinking about painful subjects, she had the ability to understand the implications of her acts and the nature of the proceedings against her.
Dr. Dixon Wulff, a psychologist at the Dayton Mental Health Center, testified on behalf of the State. Dr. Wulff was responsible for assessing Finley's progress within the treatment plan for restoration of her competence. Wulff testified that Finley told him at one point that she believed that she was incompetent and could no longer remember the events relating to the alleged crime. Dr. Wulff opined that Finley was malingering by choosing not to remember events so as to appear more mentally deficient and that she was competent to stand trial.
On behalf of the defense, Dr. Smalldon opined that Finley's desire to assist defense counsel by taking various competency tests, particularly the Georgia Competency Test, was inconsistent with the opinion that she was malingering. Further, Dr. Smalldon testified that Finley was unable to satisfactorily describe the charges against her and the role of the prosecutor. In sum, Dr. Smalldon opined that Finley was not competent to stand trial and could not be restored to competency within one year.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court ruled as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial