State v. Mason
| Decision Date | 18 April 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 2017–0200,2017–0200 |
| Citation | 108 N.E.3d 56,153 Ohio St.3d 476,2018 Ohio 1462 |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. MASON, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
153 Ohio St.3d 476
108 N.E.3d 56
2018 Ohio 1462
The STATE of Ohio, Appellee,
v.
MASON, Appellant.
No. 2017–0200
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Submitted January 23, 2018
Decided April 18, 2018
Ray A. Grogan, Marion County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kevin P. Collins, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Carpenter, Lipps & Leland, L.L.P., and Kort Gatterdam, Columbus; and Todd Anderson, for appellant.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Eric E. Murphy, State Solicitor, and Michael J. Hendershot, Chief Deputy Solicitor, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General.
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Christopher D. Schroeder, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office.
Ron O'Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L. Taylor, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association.
Jeffrey M. Gamso, Cleveland and Erika B. Cunliffe, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Fischer, J.
{¶ 1} At issue in this case is whether Ohio's death-penalty scheme violates the right to a trial by jury as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Marion County Court of Common Pleas found that it does, but the Third District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment. Because the Ohio scheme satisfies the Sixth Amendment, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} A jury found that appellant, Maurice Mason, raped and murdered Robin Dennis in 1993. See State v. Mason , 82 Ohio St.3d 144, 148, 694 N.E.2d 932 (1998). The jury found Mason guilty of aggravated murder with a felony-murder capital specification, rape, and having a gun while under disability. The jury recommended a death sentence, and the trial court sentenced him to death. The Third District Court of Appeals and this court affirmed the convictions and sentence. State v. Mason , 3d Dist. Marion No. 9–94–45, 1996 WL 715480 (Dec. 9, 1996) ; Mason , 82 Ohio St.3d 144, 694 N.E.2d 932.
{¶ 3} In 2008, after finding that Mason's trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted a conditional writ of habeas corpus and remanded the case to the trial court for a new penalty-phase trial. Mason v. Mitchell , 543 F.3d 766, 768 (6th Cir.2008). On remand, Mason moved the trial court to dismiss the capital specification from his indictment, arguing that Ohio's death-penalty scheme violates the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. He relied on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 616, 624, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), which invalidated Florida's former capital-sentencing scheme because it "required the judge alone to find the existence of an aggravating circumstance." The trial court granted Mason's motion, and the state appealed to the Third District Court of Appeals, which reversed the judgment and remanded the case.
{¶ 4} On appeal here, Mason argues that Ohio's death-penalty scheme is unconstitutional under Hurst .
II. Analysis
A. Standard of Review
{¶ 5} We must presume that the death-penalty scheme enacted by the General Assembly is constitutional. R.C. 1.47. To prevail on his facial challenge, Mason must establish "beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislation and constitutional
provisions are clearly incompatible." State ex rel. Dickman v. Defenbacher , 164 Ohio St. 142, 128 N.E.2d 59 (1955), paragraph one of the syllabus. Thus, "doubts regarding the validity of a legislative enactment are to be resolved in favor of the statute." State v. Gill , 63 Ohio St.3d 53, 55, 584 N.E.2d 1200 (1992).
B. Ohio's Death–Penalty Scheme
{¶ 6} R.C. 2929.03 and 2929.04 establish what is required for a death sentence to be imposed in Ohio when the defendant elects to be tried by a jury. The essential steps outlined below are required under current law and were required under the versions of R.C. 2929.03 and 2929.04 in effect when Dennis was killed in 1993. See Am.Sub.S.B. No. 1, 139 Ohio Laws, Part I, 1, 9–17. Although the Ohio General Assembly has since amended R.C. 2929.03 and 2929.04, because the changes to the wording at issue in this appeal were not substantive, the amendments do not affect the analysis in this case.
{¶ 7} First, to face the possibility of a death sentence, a defendant must be charged in an indictment with aggravated murder and at least one specification of an
aggravating circumstance. R.C. 2929.03(A) and (B). The state charged Mason with aggravated murder under R.C. 2903.01(B) and an aggravating circumstance (committing aggravated murder while committing rape) under R.C. 2929.04(A)(7).
{¶ 8} Second, the jury verdict must state that the defendant is found guilty of aggravated murder and must state separately that he is guilty of at least one charged specification. R.C. 2929.03(B). The state must prove guilt of the principal charge and of any specification beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. ; R.C. 2929.04(A). The jury found Mason guilty of aggravated murder and the charged aggravating circumstance.
{¶ 9} Third, once the jury finds the defendant guilty of aggravated murder and at least one specification, he will be sentenced either to death or to life imprisonment. R.C. 2929.03(C)(2). When the defendant is tried by a jury, the penalty "shall be determined * * * [b]y the trial jury and the trial judge." R.C. 2929.03(C)(2)(b).
{¶ 10} Fourth, in the sentencing phase, the court and trial jury shall consider (1) any presentence-investigation or mental-examination report (if the defendant requested an investigation or examination), (2) the trial evidence relevant to the aggravating circumstances the offender was found guilty of committing and relevant to mitigating factors, (3) additional testimony and evidence relevant to the nature and circumstances of the aggravating circumstances and any mitigating factors, (4) any statement of the offender, and (5) the arguments of counsel. R.C. 2929.03(D)(1). In this proceeding, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that "the aggravating circumstances the defendant was found guilty of
committing are sufficient to outweigh the factors in mitigation of the imposition of the sentence of death." Id.
{¶ 11} Fifth, the jury finds and then recommends the sentence: "If the trial jury unanimously finds , by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the aggravating circumstances * * * outweigh the mitigating factors, the trial jury shall recommend to the court that the sentence of death be imposed on the offender." (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2929.03(D)(2). But "[a]bsent such a finding" by the jury, the jury shall recommend one of the life sentences set forth in R.C. 2929.03(D)(2), and the trial court "shall impose the [life] sentence recommended." Id . Also, if the jury fails to reach a verdict unanimously recommending a sentence, the trial court must impose a life sentence. State v. Springer , 63 Ohio St.3d 167, 586 N.E.2d 96 (1992), syllabus.
{¶ 12} Sixth, if the trial jury recommends a death sentence, and if "the court finds , by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, * * * that the aggravating circumstances * * * outweigh the mitigating factors, [the court] shall impose sentence of death on the offender." (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2929.03(D)(3). Then, the court must state in a separate opinion "the reasons why the aggravating circumstances * * * were sufficient to outweigh the mitigating factors." R.C. 2929.03(F).
C. Sixth Amendment Caselaw
1. Apprendi , Ring , and Hurst
{¶ 13} Mason's Sixth Amendment claim principally relies on Hurst , which, in turn, relied on Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Ring v. Arizona , 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). Apprendi involved New Jersey's "hate crime" law, which allowed a trial court to enhance an offender's penalty if the trial judge found that the offender had been motivated by racial or other bias in committing an offense. Apprendi at 468, 120 S.Ct. 2348. The question in Apprendi was whether such an aggravating fact must be found by a jury based on proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. Id. at 469, 120 S.Ct. 2348. Apprendi held that "[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348.
{¶ 14} Two years later, in Ring , the Supreme Court applied Apprendi to invalidate Arizona's former death-penalty scheme, which permitted imposition of a death sentence based solely on a trial judge's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Delvallie
...... See also Hurst [ v. Florida , 577] U.S. [92], 136 S.Ct. 616, 619, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 [2016] ("The Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death"). Ohio's death-sentence scheme satisfies this right. State v. Mason , 153 Ohio St.3d 476, 2018-Ohio-1462, 108 N.E.3d 56, ¶ 19. {¶ 20} In Ring v. Arizona , 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), the United States Supreme Court conducted a Sixth Amendment jury trial guaranty inquiry. In Walton v. Arizona , 497 U.S. 639, 110 S.Ct. 3047, 111 ......
-
State v. Gamble
...syllabus. Further, all doubts regarding the constitutionality of any given statute are resolved in favor of the statute. State v. Mason , 153 Ohio St.3d 476, 2018-Ohio-1462, 108 N.E.3d 56, ¶ 5, quoting State v. Gill , 63 Ohio St.3d 53, 55, 584 N.E.2d 1200 (1992). {¶ 35} Under the Reagan Tok......
-
State v. Graham
...and the jury was "not require[d] * * * to make the critical findings necessary to impose the death penalty," id. at 622. In State v. Mason , 153 Ohio St.3d 476, 2018-Ohio-1462, 108 N.E.3d 56, we held that Ohio's death-penalty scheme is not unconstitutional under Hurst .{¶ 186} But Graham as......
-
State v. Grate
......We have "consistently declined to ‘second-guess trial strategy decisions’ or impose ‘hindsight views about how current counsel might have voir dired the jury differently.’ " State v. Mundt , 115 Ohio St.3d 22, 2007-Ohio-4836, 873 N.E.2d 828, ¶ 63, quoting State v. Mason , 82 Ohio St.3d 144, 157, 694 N.E.2d 932 (1998). Thus, this claim lacks merit. {¶ 152} Grate also contends that defense counsel lacked knowledge of Hurst v. Florida , 577 U.S. 92, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016). In Hurst , the United 164 Ohio St.3d 38 States Supreme Court held that ......