State v. Therressa Jolynn Ritchie

• Decision Date: 25 July 1997
• Docket Number: 97-LW-1885,15792
• Citation: State v. Therressa Jolynn Ritchie, 15792, 97-LW-1885 (Ohio App. Jul 25, 1997)
• Parties: STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee v. THERRESSA JOLYNN RITCHIE, Defendant-Appellant CASE
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee v. THERRESSA JOLYNN RITCHIE Defendant-Appellant

No. 15792

97-LW-1885 (2nd)

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District Montgomery

July 25, 1997

T.C. NO. 95-CR-2425

MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., Prosecuting Attorney, By: CHANTEL R. DOAKES Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, S.Ct. Regis. No. 0065430 and CARLEY J. INGRAM, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, S. Ct Regis. No. 20084, 41 N. Perry Street, Appellate Division, P.O. Box 972, Suite 315, Dayton, OH 45422, Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee, STATE OF OHIO

SHARON L. OVINGTON, S. Ct. Regis. No. 2627, 1100 Hulman Building, Dayton, OH 45402 and DAVID P WILLIAMSON, S. Ct. Regis. No. 32614, 400 National City Center, 6 North Main Street, Dayton, OH 45402, Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant, THERRESSA JOLYNN RITCHIE

OPINION

FAIN J.

Defendant-appellant Therressa Jolynn Ritchie appeals from her conviction and sentence for Murder, Gross Abuse of a Corpse, two counts of Tampering with Evidence, Inducing Panic and Making a False Alarm. Ritchie contends that the pretrial publicity surrounding her case denied her a fair trial and an impartial jury. She argues that, in light of the publicity, the trial court erred by failing to grant her motion for a change of venue. She further argues that the voir dire procedure utilized by the trial court was improper, and deprived her of an impartial jury. Ritchie contends that the State's "assassination" of her character deprived her of the right to a fair trial by introducing irrelevant and prejudicial evidence. She also contends that the trial court limited her cross-examination of Vernell Brooks, and therefore, violated her right to confront her accusers. She claims that the trial court erred by failing to utilize two of her proposed instructions, and that it improperly instructed the jury regarding deliberation on a lesser included offense as well as the definition of reasonable doubt. Finally, Ritchie claims that the two counts of Tampering with Evidence were allied offenses of similar import, and that the trial court erred by failing to merge them.

We conclude that Ritchie was not deprived of a fair trial and impartial jury as a result of either the pretrial publicity or the voir dire procedure employed by the trial court, and that therefore, the denial of her motion to change venue was not error. Further, none of the claimed "character assassination" testimony was irrelevant or prejudicial, and therefore, the trial court did not err by failing to exclude it. Nor was Ritchie prejudiced when the trial court sustained the State's objections during Ritchie's cross-examination of Vernell Brooks. We also conclude that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury, or in overruling Ritchie's motion to merge the two counts of Tampering with Evidence.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.

I

On the morning of July 18, 1995, Ritchie called the Dayton Police 911 dispatcher to report that her four year old daughter Samantha Ritchie, was missing. A massive search for Samantha was started. During the search, hundreds of people volunteered to help. Local media began reporting extensively on the status of the search. On July 22, 1995, Samantha's body was found weighted down in a large water-filled pit at a foundry near her home.

The evidence presented by the State, the prevailing party, supports the following facts. The evening before Samantha's disappearance, Ritchie had been drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana. Around 11:00 p.m., Ritchie went to the residence of a neighbor, Ernest Vernell Brooks, and began drinking with Brooks's brother. When Brooks arrived home, he and Ritchie smoked some marijuana. At some point, Ritchie left Brooks's residence. Around 1:30 a.m., Samantha entered the residence of Ritchie's neighbor, Vicky Hammond, who lived in the other half of Ritchie's duplex. Hammond told Samantha to go home, and the child left.

Around 2:00 a.m., Richie entered Hammond's residence and told them she was going to Brooks's residence. She went to Brooks's residence, and then returned to her house. Brooks met her there; they went down to her basement, gathered a pile of clothes and laid down on them. While Ritchie and Brooks were engaged in sexual conduct, Brooks noticed Samantha sitting on the steps watching them. Brooks told Ritchie, who grabbed Samantha, and began hitting her with the cast that she was wearing on her left forearm. Samantha fell to the floor and was crying. Ritchie said, "I'm tired of you fucking kids not listening to me, not doing what I tell you to do. I brought you into this world; I can take you out." While Samantha was on the floor, Ritchie began stomping her with her foot. Samantha's crying stopped. Brooks and Ritchie took Samantha's body, covered in a blanket, to the foundry, and they placed her body in the pit, using iron, rocks and steel to weigh it down. After reporting Samantha as missing, Ritchie told police that she had put Samantha to bed at 11:30 p.m. the night before, and had kissed her goodnight.

Several days after the search began, Ritchie removed her arm cast, gave it to Hammond, and asked Hammond to throw it away. Hammond had a friend call the police to tell them that the cast was under her porch. The cast was retrieved and tested. A trace of human blood was found on the cast, but could not be identified as Samantha's. Ritchie was interviewed again and said that she had been drinking and smoking marijuana the evening of July 17, but she denied involvement with Samantha's disappearance. After Samantha's body was discovered, Detective Wade Lawson informed Ritchie of the death. He testified that Ritchie did not ask him about the circumstances of the death.

On August 2, 1995, Ritchie's stepfather, Raymond Shoemaker, called investigating Detective, Tom Lawson, and asked to meet with him. During the meeting, Shoemaker stated that he had overhead Ritchie telling her mother that she had beat Samantha in the head with her arm cast. Ritchie and her mother were interviewed, and Ritchie was advised of her rights. Ritchie informed the detectives that she had been having sex with her neighbor, Vernell Brooks, on the night of Samantha's murder. However, she again denied any involvement in her daughter's death.

During the Ritchie interview, Vernell Brooks was questioned. He told the police that Ritchie had killed Samantha after she walked in on them in the basement. Detective Doyle Burke then went to the Ritchie interview room, and informed her that he knew she had killed Samantha and that he wanted to "know the truth." Ritchie then told the police that she had hit Samantha two or three times, splitting her pigtail, but that she did not mean to kill her. On August 3, 1995, the Dayton Police Chief announced to the media that Ritchie had confessed to the killing of Samantha.

The story of the missing girl was the subject of massive publicity, both before and after her corpse was found. The story was covered by three Dayton television stations, as well as two in Columbus and four in Cincinnati. Additionally, the matter received national attention when it was featured on Hard Copy and America's Most Wanted. Extensive newspaper coverage was provided by the Dayton Daily News, as well as by other newspapers in the state. There was also coverage on the radio. A local television station filed a complaint in mandamus with this court seeking access to police information regarding the case. This court permitted access to certain routine police reports, but otherwise denied the application. That decision was reviewed and affirmed by the Ohio Supreme Court. See State ex rel. WHIO-TV-7 v. Lowe (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 350.

Ritchie was indicted for Murder, Gross Abuse of a Corpse, Inducing Panic, Making a False Alarm, and two counts of Tampering with Evidence. Prior to trial, Ritchie filed a motion for change of venue. The trial court delayed ruling on the motion until after the voir dire of the jury pool.

The trial began on January 29, 1996, and continued through February 14, 1996. On the first day of trial, 126 prospective jurors appeared for jury duty. Initially, 35 prospective jurors were excused for hardship or work-related reasons. The trial court instructed the remaining jurors to categorize themselves in one of four groups:

Category One. Jurors who are not familiar with this case, the news accounts, the parties, or the attorneys, and have no opinion whether defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charges.

Category Two. Jurors somewhat familiar with the case, news accounts, parties, or attorneys. Jurors who may recall some news broadcasts or news writings, but not details of those writings or broadcasts, and have no opinion whether defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charges.

Category Three. Jurors who are familiar with the case, the news accounts, the parties or attorneys. Jurors who have followed the news accounts and recall details of the reports that have been made. Jurors who have formed or expressed an opinion about whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty, but the opinion is not firmly held.

Category Four. Jurors who are very familiar with the case, news accounts, parties, or attorneys. Jurors who have closely followed the news accounts and have substantial recall of the details of those reports. Jurors who have formed or expressed an opinion about whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty and those opinions are firmly held.

After categorizing themselves, and giving their names to the bailiff, the jurors who placed themselves in Categories One or Two were excused for the day. The jurors in Categories Three and Four were subjected to voir dire concerning their exposure to pretrial publicity.

The trial court and attorneys first proceeded to conduct voir...