State v. Soke

• Decision Date: 17 July 1995
• Docket Number: No. 65120,65120
• Citation: 663 N.E.2d 986,105 Ohio App.3d 226
• Parties: The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. SOKE, Appellant. *
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 226

105 Ohio App.3d 226

663 N.E.2d 986

The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v.SOKE, Appellant. ^*

No. 65120.

Court of Appeals of Ohio Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.

Decided July 17, 1995.

Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Carl Wetzel, Assistant County Prosecuting Attorney, Cleveland, for appellee.

David L. Doughten and Thomas M. Shaughnessy, Cleveland, for appellant.

PATTON, Chief Justice.

A jury found defendantTheodore Soke guilty of two counts of aggravated murder with specifications in violation of R.C. 2903.01 and one count of aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11.Following the penalty phase of the trial, the jury concluded that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt and recommended that the court impose a sentence of death on the aggravated murder counts.The court accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced defendant to death on the two counts of aggravated murder and to a term of ten to twenty-five years on the aggravated burglary count.Defendant appeals.

On May 19, 1985, family members found the bodies of Dorothy and Phillip Porter at their home in Shaker Heights.Eighty-four-year-old Phillip Porter had been stabbed twice in the back.He lay face down in his upstairs bedroom, straddling his bed.Seventy-eight-year-old Dorothy Porter lay face down on the basement floor.She had been stabbed, beaten, and strangled with the cord of an electric iron.

The coroner estimated that the Porters had been dead for at least thirty-six hours when he examined the bodies on May 20, 1985, although he could not pinpoint the exact time of death with certainty.A Porter family friend testified that she had visited the Porters between five and seven o'clock on the evening of May 17, 1985.Dorothy Porter's daughter testified that she tried to call her mother between seven and eight o'clock on the seventeenth, but received a busy signal.Both the family friend and the daughter unsuccessfully tried to call the Porters throughout the weekend.On Sunday, May 19, the daughter asked her son to check on the Porters.The son saw a newspaper in the driveway and noticed that the house lights were off.When the Porters did not come to the door, he obtained a key to the locked house and, with the help of a neighbor, entered the house and found the bodies.

The police determined that the assailants had entered the house by poking holes through a kitchen window screen.They apparently left through the same window, since all the doors to the house were locked from the inside.

Consistent with the Porters' nightly routine, the police found a thermos, glass and plate of uneaten crackers on the nightstand in Phillip Porter's room, and Dorothy Porter's unfinished milk and brandy in the kitchen.These discoveries led the police to believe that the Porters had been surprised by their assailants.Although the telephone had been removed from the hook, the Porter house had not been "tossed" in a manner consistent with a burglary.The police found a closed and apparently untampered-with wallet on a kitchen counter.

The police began an intensive investigation but were unable to identify the murderers.They failed to uncover any incriminating physical evidence at the crime scene.Dried blood stains suggested that Dorothy Porter had been stabbed on the first floor, dragged across a hallway and down a flight of stairs leading to the basement.Her fingers bore cuts indicating she had tried to defend herself from her assailants.Other dried blood droplets found on the stairs most likely fell off a knife as it was carried back up the stairs.A lack of matching blood enzymes indicated that the Porters had been stabbed with different knives.The assailants left no fingerprints or semen, and fingernail scrapings proved inconclusive.

In 1989, Lake County officials began investigating Donald Soke, defendant's son, for the murder of Karen LaSpina in Eastlake.During the course of that investigation, the police began to suspect that defendant, his son, and a man named Daniel Crawford may have been involved in the Porter murders after they learned that all three men had told fellow prison inmates about their complicity in the Porter murders.

The Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted all three on aggravated murder charges for the Porter killings.Defendant submitted to trial before a three-judge panel.Donald entered a guilty plea to two counts of aggravated murder and testified against his father.Crawford entered a guilty plea to one count of aggravated burglary and also testified against defendant.The panel found defendant guilty and sentenced him to two consecutive life terms.

After sentencing, defendant filed a motion for a new trial.Asserted as grounds for the motion were, among other things, that defendant's son Donald Soke fabricated testimony against him, that the state reneged on a promise to Donald Soke in which it agreed not to seek the death penalty against defendant in exchange for Donald's testimony, and that Donald fabricated his testimony with the aid of a written police report he saw prior to making a formal written statement.

The panel unanimously granted the motion for a new trial.In an oral ruling, the panel stated:

"The fact that Donald Soke had in his possession an initial crime scene investigation is nothing short of astounding.* * * [N]ot one member of this distinguished panel * * * can ever recall a report of this nature being produced at trial, let alone given into the possession of a witness.The reason is obvious, and it is to prevent a situation just as the one we have here now.One of the few credible things about the testimony of Donald Soke was his knowledge of information that, quote, only the murderer could know.And that is now given a new dimension.He, Donald, had the ability and the opportunity to plot with Dan Crawford, who got the most incredible plea bargain of anyone in this case.For whatever reason, they, Danny and Donny, have been constantly kept together during the pendency of this matter."

Before the second trial began, Donald Soke recanted his testimony implicating defendant.¹Neither side called him as a witness during the guilt phase of the second trial, although he did testify in defendant's behalf during the penalty phase.

Daniel Crawford testified that he and Donald Soke were friends.They met on the morning of May 17, 1985 and drove Crawford's car around trying to find money for marijuana.They were unsuccessful, so they rode in Crawford's car to the city of Fairport Harbor, where Soke's grandmother lived.While at her house, they met up with defendant.The three began drinking and decided to drive to Mayfield, where Donald collected some money that a friend owed him.The three men and Donald's friend drove to a bar in Euclid and spent the day drinking and shooting pool.When the money ran out, defendant suggested that they drive to Cleveland and burglarize a house.

Crawford testified that he and Donald had burglarized many houses according to a general plan.They waited until dusk and looked for a house with no lights on inside.They would knock on the door, and if someone answered they would make up a name and ask if that person was home.If the house was empty, they would break into it.

They dropped off Donald's friend and began looking for a house to burglarize.Around dusk, Crawford picked out a house which he later identified to the police, who confirmed it as the Porter residence.They did not have gloves to wear so they put band-aids on their fingers.Crawford stated that defendant carried a sheathed knife, but could not identify a knife shown him at trial.Crawford and Donald went to the front door while defendant stayed behind with the car.When no one answered the front door, they tried knocking at the back door.When no one answered the back door, Crawford punched holes in a window screen and entered the house through the window.They went to the front door and let defendant into the house.

Crawford looked for goods on the first floor of the house while defendant went upstairs.Crawford stated that he heard defendant yell for Donald to come upstairs.A woman screamed and Crawford ran from the house to the car.When Donald and defendant failed to show at the car, Crawford panicked and fled on foot.He eventually hitchhiked home to Lake County.

Crawford made his way back to the house owned by Donald's grandmother and saw his car parked there.Donald gave Crawford the keys to his car and told him to leave the house.He met Donald several days after the burglary and received a diamond ring as his proceeds from the burglary.Although he knew something had gone wrong during the burglary, Crawford testified that he was unaware the Porters had been murdered.He discovered that fact in subsequent conversations with Donald Soke.

Crawford testified that he met defendant in late 1987 or early 1988 while they were both incarcerated in Mansfield.Defendant asked Crawford what he knew about the Porter murders and Crawford replied that Donald had told him that two people died.Crawford told defendant that he had not been questioned about the murders.Defendant told Crawford to keep quiet about what he knew.

Defendant later discovered that the police had questioned Crawford, and he warned Crawford not to implicate him in the murders.At first, Crawford gave conflicting statements to the police, supposedly to delay investigation.However, after he pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated burglary in connection with the Porter slaying, his testimony implicating defendant became more consistent.

The state presented testimony from several prison inmates who testified that they had overheard defendant acknowledge his complicity in the Porter murders.One inmate testified that defendant was concerned Donald might implicate him in the murders.Defendant told the inmate that he had to ...