State v. Ketterer

Decision Date25 October 2006
Docket NumberNo. 2004-0485.,2004-0485.
Citation2006 Ohio 5283,111 Ohio St.3d 70,855 N.E.2d 48
PartiesThe STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. KETTERER, Appellant.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Robin N. Piper, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Daniel G. Eichel, First Assistant Prosecuting Attorney and Chief, Appellate Division, and Michael A. Oster Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and Ruth L. Tkacz and Timothy R. Payne, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant.

MOYER, C.J.

{¶ 1} In the late afternoon on February 24, 2003, defendant-appellant, 53-year-old Donald Ketterer, beat and stabbed 85-year-old Lawrence Sanders to death in Hamilton, Ohio. Ketterer then stole money and other property and drove Sanders's car away. Ketterer pleaded guilty to burglary, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, grand theft of a motor vehicle, and aggravated murder and was sentenced to death.

{¶ 2} According to his confession, Ketterer went to Sanders's home on Shuler Avenue in Hamilton, Ohio on February 24, 2003, to borrow $200 so he could pay a court fine. Ketterer claimed that Sanders "swore up and down to [him] that he did not have the money" and asked Ketterer to leave. Ketterer felt that Sanders "was being very disrespectful," and he hit Sanders in the head with a skillet three times. Ketterer remembered thinking, "[I]f I just knocked him out, he would know who did it, so I thought I should stab him," which Ketterer did. Ketterer further stated that after Sanders "quit moving," Ketterer took $60 to $70 out of Sanders's wallet, searched the house for more money, and found loose and rolled coins. Then he drove away in Sanders's 1995 Pontiac Grand Am.

{¶ 3} Mary Gabbard, a friend of Ketterer's, said that Ketterer was at her East Avenue residence on the evening of February 24, wearing yellow gloves that appeared to have blood on them. When Gabbard asked about the blood, Ketterer said that he had been in a fight. According to Gabbard, latex gloves that police found at her residence were similar to those that Ketterer had worn on February 24. A forensic scientist concluded that DNA extracted from blood on these gloves contained a mixture of DNA that belonged to Sanders and Ketterer.

{¶ 4} Gabbard also reported that around 11:30 p.m. on February 24, Ketterer again stopped by her residence. Both Gabbard and Ketterer used drugs, often together, and Gabbard had supplied drugs to Ketterer. At that time, Ketterer told Gabbard that "he had some stuff that he had stolen," including "crosses, rosaries, costume jewelry" and "a couple hundred dollars worth of change." Ketterer wanted "to trade [these items] for crack cocaine." Ketterer also explained that "he wanted to go back over there [to Shuler Avenue] because he had [by mistake] * * * gotten the woman's stuff and he wanted the man's stuff." The evening before, Gabbard had left her home and had bought cocaine for Ketterer, using $40 that he had given her. When Gabbard woke up around 5:30 a.m. on February 25, Ketterer left her residence. In his confession, Ketterer admitted that at around 4:00 p.m. on February 25, he had returned to Sanders's house for an hour and a half and had stolen silverware and other items.

{¶ 5} Around 7:00 p.m. on February 25, Hamilton police officer Christy Collins impounded Sanders's abandoned 1995 Pontiac Grand Am, which had struck a garage near East Avenue, where Gabbard lived. After Officer Collins traced the car, she went to Sanders's home, but got no response. At about that same time, Lisa Lawson, a bartender, saw Ketterer at Cindy's Pub. When Ketterer got up to leave, he dropped a bag, and "stuff [was] laying all over the floor," including coins. Lawson helped Ketterer put the items into another bag, and Ketterer told her, "I've got to get out of here. I have heat on me." A cab driver then drove Ketterer over to East Avenue.

{¶ 6} Shortly after 7:00 p.m. that same evening, police officers seeking to interview Ketterer about an unrelated matter found him outside Gabbard's home and asked him to voluntarily come to the station. Ketterer was carrying a plastic bag, which he brought to the station. Around 8:30 p.m., police advised Ketterer of his Miranda rights, which he waived. Ketterer consented in writing to a search of his person and the plastic bag he carried. Police found a large quantity of loose change and rolled coins in Ketterer's possession, as well as papers that mentioned Sanders.

{¶ 7} That evening, police went to Sanders's home and discovered his mutilated body inside. The contents of drawers had been dumped on the floor, and Sanders's pants pockets were inside out. The back of Sanders's wristwatch case was loose, and his watch had stopped at 5:18 or 5:20. A broken skillet was found in the kitchen. In the alley behind Sanders's house, police found silverware that Ketterer had dropped.

{¶ 8} Dr. James Swinehart, a pathologist, concluded after an autopsy that Sanders had died of "multiple traumatic injuries," including "a severe craniocerebral injury with extensive skull fractures," nine distinct "stab wounds with penetration * * * of the left lung," and "multiple bilateral rib fractures." In addition, "two forks, a knife, and a pair of scissors" had been stuck in Sanders's face. Dr. Swinehart also discovered multiple defensive wounds on Sanders's hands and arms.

{¶ 9} Around 12:30 a.m., on February 26, after Sanders's body had been found, police returned to the police station. Police again advised Ketterer of his Miranda rights, which he waived. Ketterer initially denied recollection of Sanders's death. But during a later interview that morning, Ketterer orally confessed and then signed a written confession. At 5:05 a.m., Ketterer signed another statement admitting that he killed Sanders.

Charges and Verdict

{¶ 10} The grand jury indicted Ketterer in Count One for the aggravated murder of Sanders in the course of an aggravated robbery. Count One included three death specifications: specification one, R.C. 2929.04(A)(3) (murder to escape detection or apprehension), specification two, R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) (murder during an aggravated robbery), and specification three, R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) (murder during an aggravated burglary). The grand jury also indicted Ketterer for aggravated robbery in Count Two, aggravated burglary in Count Three, grand theft of a motor vehicle in Count Four, and burglary in Count Five. Count Five reflected Ketterer's return to the crime scene on February 25, the day after the murder. Ketterer waived a jury and pleaded guilty, as charged, before a three-judge panel. Following the state's presentation of evidence, the panel found Ketterer guilty as charged.

{¶ 11} After a penalty-phase hearing, the three-judge panel sentenced Ketterer to death for the aggravated murder of Sanders and to prison terms, as well as fines, for the other felonies.

{¶ 12} The case is now on direct appeal to our court, and Ketterer presents 15 propositions of law for our consideration. We find no merit in any of his propositions. Hence, we affirm the findings of guilt. We have independently weighed the aggravating circumstances against the mitigating factors and have considered the appropriateness of the death sentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, including the death sentence.

Jury Waiver and Guilty Plea (II)

{¶ 13} In proposition II, Ketterer argues that he did not "knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily" waive a jury trial and enter a guilty plea. Ketterer further argues that the trial court did not adequately inform him of his rights, particularly in view of his mental illness and medication.

{¶ 14} Contrary to Ketterer's claims, the record establishes that Ketterer consulted with his lawyers and was competent to be tried, plead guilty, make decisions about his case, and communicate with his attorneys. Further, the record is clear that Ketterer understood what he was doing by waiving a jury trial and pleading guilty as charged to the indictment. The following transcript of the proceedings at the trial court supports these conclusions:

{¶ 15} "JUDGE ONEY: Mr Ketterer, I have in front of me where you have signed a jury waiver.

{¶ 16} "THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am.

{¶ 17} "JUDGE ONEY: And have you consulted with your attorneys on this procedure?

{¶ 18} "THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am, I have.

{¶ 19} "JUDGE ONEY: And you talked with them several times leading up to also talking with them last night and talking with them this morning; is that correct?

{¶ 20} "THE DEFENDANT: That's correct.

{¶ 21} "JUDGE ONEY: And * * * did you receive advice from your attorneys in regard to the procedure?

{¶ 22} "THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am.

{¶ 23} "JUDGE ONEY: And you understand that — what the function of the jury would be that you have a potential to go to a jury, and they would be making a decision as to guilt or innocence on the charges. Do you understand that?

{¶ 24} "THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am.

{¶ 25} "JUDGE ONEY: And then if they found [you] guilty on the Count One, the aggravated murder, then they would also be making a decision as to the proper sentence to impose. Do you understand that?

{¶ 26} "THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am."

{¶ 27} "* * *

{¶ 28} "JUDGE ONEY: And with these discussions with your attorneys, are you satisfied with their advice?

{¶ 29} "THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am.

{¶ 30} "JUDGE ONEY: And are you satisfied with their preparation on their case on your behalf?

{¶ 31} "THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am, I am.

{¶ 32} "JUDGE ONEY: When you discussed with the attorneys, the pros and cons—did you discuss the pros and cons of going to a jury or going to a three-judge panel?

{¶ 33} "THE DEFENDANT: Yes, we did.

{¶ 34} "JUDGE ONEY: And did you...

To continue reading

Request your trial
342 cases
  • People v. Ghobrial, S105908
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 21, 2018
    ... ... S105908 Supreme Court of California. Filed June 21, 2018 As Modified on Denial of Rehearing August 8, 2018 Michael J. Hersek, State Public Defender, San Francisco, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Denise Anton and Anne W. Lackey, Deputy State Public Defenders, San ... ( State v. Ketterer (2006) 111 Ohio St.3d 70, 855 N.E.2d 48, 86 (conc. opn. of Lundberg, J.); see Commonwealth v. Baumhammers (2008) 599 Pa. 1, 960 A.2d 59, 106 ... ...
  • Kuck v. Robinson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • January 11, 2019
    ... ... 7), Petitioner's initial Brief in Support (ECF No. 6), the State Court Record (ECF No. 13), the Return of Writ (ECF No. 14), and Petitioner's Traverse/Reply (ECF No. 21). Procedural History On September 29, 2014, ... ] Ketterer , 111 Ohio St.3d 70, 2006-Ohio-5283, 855 N.E.2d 48, at 94, quoting State v ... Dennis , 79 Ohio St.3d 421, 430, 1997 Ohio 372, 683 N.E.2d 1096 ... ...
  • State v. Holman
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • April 9, 2018
    ... ... We will not "disturb a verdict on appeal on sufficiency grounds unless 'reasonable minds could not reach the conclusion reached by the trier-of-fact.'" State v ... Ketterer , 111 Ohio St.3d 70, 2006-Ohio-5283, 855 N.E.2d 48, 94, quoting State v ... Dennis , 79 Ohio St.3d 421, 430, 683 N.E.2d 1096 (1997); State v ... Montgomery , 148 Ohio St.3d 347, 2016-Ohio-5487, 71 N.E.3d 180, 74. Page 9 ISSUE FOR APPEAL Whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most ... ...
  • Moore v. Mitchell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • January 18, 2008
    ... ...          State v. Moore, 81 Ohio St.3d 22, 22-24, 689 N.E.2d 1 (1998) ...          B. Procedural History-State Court Proceedings 1 ... ...
  • 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