Case Title: State v. Lang

Citation: 2011-Ohio-4215

Docket Number: 20071741

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-08-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State v. Lang, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4215.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2011-OHIO-4215 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. LANG, APPELLANT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State v. Lang, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4215.] 
Criminal law — Aggravated murder — Death penalty upheld. 
(No. 2007-1741 — Submitted June 7, 2011 — Decided August 31, 2011.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, 
No. 2006-CR-1824A. 
__________________ 
 
O’DONNELL, J. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal as of right of defendant-appellant, Edward Lang.  
A jury convicted him of the aggravated murder of Marnell Cheek and Jaron 
Burditte and of aggravated robbery, with each count carrying gun specifications, 
and it recommended the sentence of death for the aggravated murder of Cheek 
and life with no possibility of parole for the murder of Burditte. The trial court 
accepted those recommendations and sentenced Lang accordingly.  The court also 
imposed a 10-year term of imprisonment for the aggravated-robbery conviction 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
and a three-year term for the gun specifications, which it had merged for 
sentencing. 
{¶ 2} We affirm Lang’s convictions and sentences of death and life 
without parole, but we remand for the proper imposition of postrelease control 
pursuant to R.C. 2929.191 on his sentence for aggravated robbery. 
State’s case 
{¶ 3} The state’s case revealed that at 9:36 p.m. on October 22, 2006, 
Canton police officer Jesse Butterworth was dispatched to a traffic accident with 
injuries on Sahara Avenue in Canton.  At the scene, Butterworth observed that a 
Dodge Durango had crashed into the back of a parked car.  He discovered that the 
two people inside the Durango had been shot in the back of the head.  They were 
later identified as Jaron Burditte, the driver, and Marnell Cheek, the front-seat 
passenger. 
{¶ 4} Police investigators found a bag of cocaine in Burditte’s hand.  
Investigators examining the inside of the Durango recovered two shell casings in 
the backseat area and a spent bullet in the driver’s side door pocket.  Additionally, 
two cell phones were found in the car, and a third cell phone was found in 
Burditte’s pocket. 
{¶ 5} One of the cell phones recovered from the Durango showed that 
calls had been received at 9:13 p.m. and 9:33 p.m., which was close to the time of 
the murders.  Police learned that these calls had been made from a prepaid cell 
phone that was not registered in anyone’s name.  Phone records for the cell phone 
showed that two calls had been made to the phone number of Teddy Seery on the 
afternoon and evening of the murders. 
{¶ 6} On October 24, 2006, Sergeants John Gabbart and Mark Kandel 
interviewed Seery.  Following that interview, the police identified Lang as a 
suspect in the murders. 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
{¶ 7} At trial, Seery testified that he and Lang were together almost every 
day during the summer of 2006.  Lang called Seery on the evening of October 22, 
but Seery did not recall what they discussed.  On the morning of October 23, 
Seery was informed by another friend that someone had been murdered on Sahara 
Avenue.  Lang came to Seery’s house later that day. 
{¶ 8} During the visit, Seery asked Lang “what happened at Sahara,” 
because Lang stayed in that area.  Lang told Seery that “he killed two people up 
there” that “[t]hey were going to rob.”  Lang then described what had occurred:  
“[H]e had called the guy up and the guy came and he saw there was a girl in the 
car.  The guy passed him up.  He called him back.  The guy came back around, 
and he got in the car.”  Lang then said that he had gotten into the car and had 
“shot them * * * [t]wice.”  However, Lang did not tell Seery whom he was with 
or explain why he had shot the two people. 
{¶ 9} The police obtained a warrant for Lang’s arrest.  On the evening of 
October 24, 2006, the police stopped Lang as he was parking his girlfriend’s car 
at a local apartment.  Lang gave police a false name when asked his identity, but 
police established his identity and arrested him.  Police officers seized a 9 mm 
handgun and ammunition that had been wrapped inside a towel and were resting 
on the rear passenger floorboard of the car. 
{¶ 10} On October 25, 2006, Sergeants Gabbart and Kandel interviewed 
Lang.  After waiving his Miranda rights, Lang told police that on October 22, 
Antonio Walker had come to his house and had told him “he had somebody that 
[they] could rob.”  Lang agreed to join him.  After Walker gave him Burditte’s 
phone number, Lang called Burditte and made arrangements to purchase a 
quarter-ounce of crack cocaine for $225.  Burditte and Lang agreed to meet later 
that night “off of 30th Street and Sahara,” and Burditte said he would call Lang 
when he got close to that location. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 11} Lang stated that he gave his gun to Walker before they left the 
house because Walker had told him, “[A]ll [Lang] had to do was just be in the car 
with him basically.”   As they walked to the meeting location, Walker told Lang 
how the robbery was going to take place:  Walker said they were going to get in 
the car and hold him up, and he told Lang which direction to run afterwards. 
{¶ 12} After reaching the meeting location, Burditte called Lang and told 
him that he was “right around the corner.”  After Burditte drove past them, Lang 
said that Walker had called Burditte on Lang’s cell phone and told him where 
they were.  The car then pulled up in front of Lang and Walker.  Lang then 
described what happened:  “I walked like on the other side of the car [and] I get in 
the back seat behind the passenger and he got in the back seat behind the driver.  * 
* *  We jumped in the car and he put the gun up dude head [sic] and told dude 
that he wanted everything and like in a moment of seconds he fired two shots.  
And I jumped out the car.” 
{¶ 13} Lang stated that they went to Walker’s apartment after the 
shootings.  Lang asked Walker why he shot the two people, and Walker said that 
“he felt as though dude was reachin’ for somethin’.  * * *  And he wasn’t * * * 
sure.”  Lang stated that he vomited in a bag.  Lang also called “[his] home boy E” 
to get the gun melted down and disposed of.  In the meantime, Walker wiped 
down the gun.  Walker also told Lang that they needed to get rid of the cell phone, 
and Lang gave it to him.  Walker then dismantled the phone and went outside to 
throw it in the dumpster. 
{¶ 14} During the interview, Lang told police that he was surprised that 
Walker had shot the victims because the “plan was just to rob him.”  Lang also 
said, “I did not wanna do it.  * * *  He wanted to do it.  * * *  I just went with him 
for, that was my gun I needed some money.” 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
{¶ 15} On October 26, 2006, Walker turned himself into the police after 
learning that the police were looking for him.  Walker then talked to the police 
about the murders. 
{¶ 16} At trial, Walker testified that on the evening of October 22, 2006, 
he, Lang, and Tamia Horton, a girlfriend of Lang, were at Horton’s apartment.  
Lang had a gun out and said that he “needed to hit a lick” (commit a robbery) 
because he “needed some money.”  Lang mentioned that they could rob “Clyde,” 
who was Jaron Burditte.  Walker knew Burditte because they had been in the 
same halfway house together in 2004. 
{¶ 17} Walker agreed to help Lang rob Burditte because he was also 
“short on money.”  Their plan was to arrange to buy drugs from Burditte and then 
rob him when he showed up for the sale.  Lang then called Burditte and arranged 
to buy a quarter ounce of crack cocaine from him later that night. 
{¶ 18} Shortly thereafter, Lang and Walker walked to their meeting 
location on Sahara Avenue.  Lang loaded his 9 mm handgun while they waited for 
Burditte to arrive.  When Burditte’s Durango drove past them, Lang called 
Burditte and told him where they were.  Burditte then arrived at their location and 
stopped in front of Lang and Walker. 
{¶ 19} According to Walker, Lang got into the backseat on the driver’s 
side of the Durango.  Walker did not get into the Durango, explaining, “It didn’t 
feel right to me.”  Walker then heard two gunshots and saw Lang get out of the 
vehicle and start running.  Walker saw the Durango “crash[ ] up into the yard.” 
{¶ 20} Lang and Walker separately ran to Horton’s apartment.  Lang 
vomited in the bathroom.  Walker asked whether Lang was all right, and Lang 
said, “[E]very time I do this, this same thing happens.”  Walker testified that he 
never saw Lang’s handgun after they reached his apartment.  He also denied 
throwing away Lang’s cell phone. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 21} Michael Short, a criminalist with the Canton–Stark County crime 
lab, testified that none of the fingerprints collected matched Lang or Walker.  
Short also examined the handgun seized from Lang’s vehicle and the spent bullet 
recovered from the Durango.  He testified that testing showed that the handgun 
had fired the spent bullet.  Testing also showed that the two cartridge cases found 
in the Durango’s backseat had been ejected by this handgun. 
{¶ 22} Michele Foster, a criminalist with the Canton–Stark County crime 
lab, examined Lang’s clothing.  Blood was found on Lang’s red T-shirt and pants, 
but DNA testing showed that it was Lang’s blood.  No blood was found on Lang’s 
coat, knit hat, white T-shirt, or the athletic shoes that were taken from the car.  
Soiling was also found on Lang’s athletic shoes, jacket, and pants. 
{¶ 23} Foster also examined Walker’s clothing.  She found no blood on 
the hooded sweatshirt or the athletic shoes that Walker said he was wearing on 
October 22.  But tan-colored soiling with fragments of dried plant material was 
found on the exterior of both his shoes. 
{¶ 24} Foster conducted DNA testing of a swab taken from the trigger 
grips, slide, and magazine release on the 9 mm handgun.  Foster detected low 
levels of DNA from at least two individuals on the swab.  Foster testified, 
“Walker is not the major source of DNA that we detected from the swabbing of 
the pistol.”  She also testified, “[W]e can say that Edward Lang cannot be 
excluded as a possible minor source to the DNA that we found on the weapon.”1  
Because of the low level of DNA, Foster testified, “[W]e can’t say to a reasonable 
degree of scientific certainty that this person is the source.  In this particular case, 
the chance of finding the major DNA profile that we found on that pistol is 1 in 
                                                          
 
1 Foster may have misspoken in stating that Lang cannot be excluded as a “possible minor source” 
of the DNA.  It appears from Foster’s other testimony that she meant to say that Lang could not be 
excluded as a possible “major” rather than “minor” source of DNA found on the handgun.  This 
matter is addressed more fully in proposition V. 
 
January Term, 2011 
7 
 
3,461,” which is to say that “1 of 3,461 people could possibly be included as a 
potential source of the DNA.” 
{¶ 25} Dr. P.S.S. Murthy, the Stark County coroner, conducted the 
autopsies on Cheek and Burditte.  Murthy testified that Cheek was shot at close 
range above the left ear.  The gunshot traveled “left to right, downwards, and 
slightly backwards” and exited behind Cheek’s right ear.  Cheek’s toxicology 
report was negative for the presence of any drugs or alcohol. 
{¶ 26} Dr. Murthy testified that Burditte was shot in the back of the head.  
The trajectory of the shot was downwards, and the bullet exited through the left 
side of the victim’s mouth.  Dr. Murthy determined that the gunshot was a “near 
contact entrance wound” to the head.  Burditte’s toxicology report was positive 
for benzoylecognine, which is the metabolite for cocaine, and THCA, which is 
marijuana.  Dr. Murthy concluded that a gunshot wound to the head was the cause 
of death for both victims. 
{¶ 27} The defense presented no evidence during the guilt phase. 
Case history 
{¶ 28} Lang was indicted on two counts of aggravated murder pursuant to 
R.C. 2903.01(B).  Count One charged Lang with the aggravated murder of 
Burditte while committing or attempting to commit aggravated robbery and/or 
aiding another in so doing.  Count Two charged Lang with the aggravated murder 
of Cheek while committing or attempting to commit aggravated robbery, and/or 
aiding another in so doing. 
{¶ 29} Counts One and Two included death-penalty specifications for a 
course of conduct, R.C. 2929.04(A)(5), and aggravated murder while committing 
or attempting to commit aggravated robbery as the principal offender in the 
commission of the aggravated murder or, if not the principal offender, committed 
the aggravated murder with prior calculation and design, R.C. 2929.04(A)(7).  
Both counts also included gun specifications. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
{¶ 30} Count Three charged Lang with aggravated robbery.  This charge 
also included a gun specification. 
{¶ 31} Lang pleaded not guilty to all charges.  However, the jury found 
him guilty of the aggravated murders of Cheek and Burditte and of aggravated 
robbery, along with the associated gun specifications.  The jury’s verdict included 
findings that Lang was guilty as the principal offender (the actual shooter) of the 
two victims.  Lang was sentenced to death for the murder of Cheek, to life 
without parole for the murder of Burditte, and to ten years in prison on the 
aggravated-robbery count.  The court merged the gun specifications, for which it 
imposed an additional three-year term of imprisonment.  Lang seeks reversal of 
his convictions and sentence in 22 propositions of law. 
Pretrial and trial issues 
{¶ 32} Sufficiency of the indictment.  In proposition of law III, Lang 
argues that his indictment for aggravated robbery in Count Three is 
constitutionally defective because it fails to specify the mens rea element of the 
offense.  Lang argues that the defective charge also affects Counts One and Two 
because aggravated robbery was the predicate felony for both aggravated-murder 
charges.  He also argues that the death-penalty specifications for felony murder 
under R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) are defective because the predicate felony was 
aggravated robbery. 
{¶ 33} We have considered similar arguments in prior cases.  Lang’s 
proposition of law is not well taken. 
{¶ 34} Count Three of the indictment, the aggravated-robbery charge, 
followed the wording of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1).  The indictment alleged that Lang 
“did, in attempting or committing a theft offense, as defined in Section 2913.01 of 
the Revised Code, or in fleeing immediately after the attempt or offense, have a 
deadly weapon on or about his person or under his control, to-wit: a Firearm, and 
did either display the weapon, brandish it, indicate that he possessed it, or used 
January Term, 2011 
9 
 
said weapon, and/or did aid or abet another in so doing, in violation of Section 
2911.01(A)(1) of the Ohio Revised Code.”  Lang did not object to the indictment 
at trial. 
{¶ 35} Lang invokes State v. Colon, 118 Ohio St.3d 26, 2008-Ohio-1624, 
885 N.E.2d 917 (“Colon I”), in arguing that the indictment’s failure to allege the 
mens rea for the offense of aggravated robbery constitutes structural error.  In 
Colon I, this court held that the omission of a mens rea allegation in the 
indictment was a structural defect that rendered the conviction improper.  Id. at ¶ 
19.  Further, we held that the issue could be raised for the first time on appeal.  Id.  
However, in State v. Colon, 119 Ohio St.3d 204, 2008-Ohio-3749, 893 N.E.2d 
169 (“Colon II”), this court clarified that when a defendant fails to preserve 
objections to a defective indictment during the course of a trial, the issues are 
generally forfeited and must be reviewed under a plain-error analysis except in 
rare cases of structural error.  Id. at ¶ 7. 
{¶ 36} In State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St.3d 466, 2010-Ohio-3830, 935 
N.E.2d 26, this court overruled Colon I and Colon II to the extent that they held 
that such indictments are defective.  Id. at ¶ 45.  Horner holds, “An indictment 
that charges an offense by tracking the language of the criminal statute is not 
defective for failure to identify a culpable mental state when the statute itself fails 
to specify a mental state.”  Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus.  Horner also holds 
that a defendant’s failure to make a timely objection to a defect in an indictment 
constitutes waiver of all but plain error.  Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus. 
{¶ 37} Based on Horner, the failure to include mens rea in Lang’s 
indictment for aggravated robbery did not constitute plain error, because the 
indictment tracked the language of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1).  For the same reasons, we 
reject Lang’s argument that the aggravated felony-murder charges and the R.C. 
2929.04(A)(7) specifications must be dismissed. 
{¶ 38} Based on the foregoing, we overrule proposition III. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
{¶ 39} Disclosure of grand jury testimony.  In proposition of law VI, Lang 
argues that the trial court erred by denying his request for grand jury testimony. 
{¶ 40} Lang made various pretrial motions requesting the names of the 
witnesses who testified before the grand jury and the transcripts of the grand jury 
testimony.  The trial court ruled that the defense had failed to provide “any 
particularized need” for the transcripts and denied the request.  The trial court also 
denied the defense motion to disclose the names of the grand jury witnesses.  In a 
subsequent judgment entry, the trial court stated that it had reviewed the grand 
jury transcripts, which included the testimony of four witnesses, and determined 
that “the defendant has not provided a particularized need for the transcripts” and 
has “not met the burden to establish the disclosure” of them.  The trial court also 
found that “no exculpatory or other information which must be disclosed to the 
defendant exists within said transcripts.”  The transcripts were sealed and made 
part of the appellate record. 
{¶ 41} We have recognized a limited exception to the general rule of 
grand jury secrecy:  an accused is not entitled to review the transcript of grand 
jury proceedings “unless the ends of justice require it and there is a showing by 
the defense that a particularized need for disclosure exists which outweighs the 
need for secrecy.”  State v. Greer (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 139, 20 O.O.3d 157, 420 
N.E.2d 982, paragraph two of the syllabus.  A particularized need is established 
“when the circumstances reveal a probability that the failure to provide the grand 
jury testimony will deny the defendant a fair trial.”  State v. Sellards (1985), 17 
Ohio St.3d 169, 173, 17 OBR 410, 478 N.E.2d 781.  Determining whether a 
particularized need exists is a matter within the trial court’s discretion.  Greer, 
paragraph one of the syllabus. 
{¶ 42} Lang argues that the trial court erred by failing to disclose the 
grand jury testimony of his codefendant, Walker.  But review of the grand jury 
January Term, 2011 
11 
 
testimony shows that Walker never testified before the grand jury.  Thus, this 
claim lacks merit. 
{¶ 43} Lang also makes a generalized argument that he needed the grand 
jury testimony to prepare for cross-examination of the witnesses and to 
adequately prepare for his defense.  Lang also argues that he was unable to 
establish a particularized need without knowing who testified at the grand jury or 
the content of their testimony. 
{¶ 44} Lang’s speculative claim that the grand jury testimony might have 
contained material evidence or might have aided his cross-examination does not 
establish a particularized need.  See State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163, 2010-Ohio-
1017, 926 N.E.2d 1239, ¶ 68-69 (rejecting claim that the grand jury “must have” 
considered favorable or exculpatory evidence in returning the indictment); State v. 
Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57, 2006-Ohio-160, 840 N.E.2d 1032, ¶ 71 (rejecting 
claim that “it seems apparent” that grand jury witnesses made statements that 
“may” have been inconsistent with other statements or “may” have contained 
other unspecified “exculpatory or impeachment information”); State v. Webb 
(1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 325, 337, 638 N.E.2d 1023 (rejecting claim that grand jury 
testimony might have aided cross-examination by revealing contradictions). 
{¶ 45} Lang’s assertion that he did not know who testified during the 
grand jury or what they said provides no excuse for failing to establish a 
particularized need. Lang was required to show that nondisclosure of the grand 
jury transcripts would probably deprive him of a fair trial.  Greer, 66 Ohio St.2d 
139, 20 O.O.3d 157, 420 N.E.2d 982, paragraph three of the syllabus.  Lang has 
failed to make such a showing, and nothing in the record (including the testimony 
under seal) supports it here.  We find that the trial court did not abuse its 
discretion in ruling that Lang failed to establish a particularized need for the grand 
jury testimony. 
{¶ 46} Based on the foregoing, we reject proposition VI. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
 
{¶ 47} Juror misconduct.  In proposition of law I, Lang argues that he was 
denied a fair trial because one of the jurors was related to Marnell Cheek, one of 
the victims. 
{¶ 48} Before she was seated as a juror, juror No. 386 failed to disclose 
that her stepfather was Cheek’s brother.  Juror No. 386 failed to mention this 
relationship on either her juror questionnaire or her pretrial-publicity 
questionnaire.  When asked to disclose her “personal knowledge” about the 
shooting deaths, juror No. 386 wrote, “Well the newspaper stated that both of 
them were shot execution style in the back of the heads over drugs.”  When asked 
to disclose what she had “heard, read, discussed or seen” concerning the shootings 
“from any source including * * * friends, neighbors, relatives, co-workers or 
family,” juror No. 386 wrote, “None.” 
{¶ 49} Juror No. 386 also failed to disclose her relationship with Cheek 
during voir dire.  Juror No. 386 indicated that she learned about the shootings 
from reading the newspaper but provided no further information about her 
relationship with Cheek during the questioning. 
{¶ 50} Following the testimony of the state’s first two witnesses, the 
prosecutor notified the court that Cheek’s father had informed him that “Juror No. 
386’s mother is married to Marnell’s brother.”  The trial court stated that he 
would address the matter during the “very next break.” 
{¶ 51} After the testimony of two more witnesses, the trial court, the 
prosecutor, and the defense counsel questioned juror No. 386 about her 
relationship with Cheek.  Juror No. 386 acknowledged, “My mom is married to 
[Cheek’s] brother” and that she had failed to previously disclose that information.  
Juror No. 386 also stated that she knew two of the spectators in the courtroom 
who were related to her mother through marriage.  Juror No. 386 stated that she 
had met Marnell and had attended her funeral.  However, juror No. 386 said that 
she had not talked to her mother, other relatives, or anybody else about the case.  
January Term, 2011 
13 
 
Despite her relationship to Marnell, juror No. 386 stated that she could remain 
fair.  Finally, juror No. 386 stated that she had not talked to any of the other jurors 
about her relationship with Cheek. 
{¶ 52} Following questioning, the prosecution moved to excuse juror No. 
386, and the defense agreed.  The trial court excused juror No. 386 and instructed 
her not to talk with any of the jurors about the case or why she was excused from 
the jury.  Before leaving the courtroom, juror No. 386 reiterated that she had not 
previously talked to other jurors about this matter. 
{¶ 53} Before the trial continued, the trial court informed the jurors that 
juror No. 386 had been excused because “she may have had a relative relationship 
with either a witness or a party or somebody that was involved in the case.”  The 
trial court then asked the jurors as a group whether any of them had had any 
discussions with juror No. 386 about this matter, and they indicated that they had 
not.  The trial then resumed. 
{¶ 54} First, Lang argues that the presence of juror No. 386 on the jury, 
even for a short period of time, deprived him of an unbiased jury.  Yet “due 
process does not require a new trial every time a juror has been placed in a 
potentially compromising situation.  * * *  Due process means a jury capable and 
willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it, and a trial judge ever 
watchful to prevent prejudicial occurrences and to determine the effect of such 
occurrences when they happen.  Such determinations may properly be made at a 
hearing like that ordered in Remmer * * *. ”  Smith v. Phillips (1982), 455 U.S. 
209, 217, 102 S.Ct. 940, 71 L.Ed.2d 78; see also Remmer v. United States (1954), 
347 U.S. 227, 74 S.Ct. 450, 98 L.Ed. 654 (when integrity of jury proceedings is in 
question, court “should determine the circumstances, the impact thereof upon the 
juror, and whether or not it was prejudicial, in a hearing with all interested parties 
permitted to participate”).  Moreover, “a court will not reverse a judgment based 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
14 
 
upon juror misconduct unless prejudice to the complaining party is shown.”  State 
v. Keith (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 514, 526, 684 N.E.2d 47. 
{¶ 55} Nothing in the record supports Lang’s claim that the jury was 
tainted by the presence of juror No. 386.  Before being excused, juror No. 386 
assured the court that she had not talked to any of the other jurors about her 
relationship with Cheek.  The other jurors also indicated during group questioning 
that they had had no conversations with juror No. 386 about this matter.  Thus, 
Lang’s bias claim is speculative and unsupported by the evidence. 
{¶ 56} Second, Lang argues that the trial court erred by failing to excuse 
juror No. 386 from the jury immediately after being informed of the juror’s 
relationship with the victim.  Lang contends that the continued presence of juror 
No. 386 during the testimony of two more witnesses tainted the jury. 
{¶ 57} Defense counsel requested that the trial court talk to juror No. 386 
before other witnesses testified, to eliminate any risk that the juror’s presence 
might taint the jury.  The trial court replied, “There is no risk at this point. * * * 
We will do it at the very next break.  We will do it before this juror has any 
opportunity to go down and talk to the jury.  We won’t let the juror leave the 
courtroom before she has a chance to go down and talk to them.”  The trial court 
then questioned juror No. 386 at the next break, and the juror was excused before 
she had had an opportunity to talk with the other jurors.  Thus, this claim lacks 
merit. 
{¶ 58} Finally, Lang argues that the trial court failed to conduct a hearing 
into the juror’s misconduct and its possible effect on the other jurors as required 
by Remmer, 347 U.S. 227, 74 S.Ct. 450, 98 L.Ed. 654, and State v. Phillips 
(1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 72, 88-89, 656 N.E.2d 643.  Remmer set forth the 
procedures that a trial court should follow for inquiring into possible jury 
misconduct: “The trial court should not decide and take final action ex parte * * * 
but should determine the circumstances, the impact thereof upon the juror, and 
January Term, 2011 
15 
 
whether or not it was prejudicial, in a hearing with all interested parties permitted 
to participate.”  Remmer at 229-230. 
{¶ 59} The trial court conducted a Remmer hearing in the presence of the 
prosecutor, defense counsel, and the accused.  The trial court and both counsel 
questioned juror No. 386.  During questioning, juror No. 386 discussed her 
relationship with Cheek, admitted that she had failed to disclose this information 
to the court, and assured the court that she had not discussed this matter with any 
of the other jurors.  Thereafter, the trial court questioned the other jurors as a 
group and obtained their assurance that they had not discussed this matter with 
juror No. 386.  Neither the state nor the defense counsel objected to the 
questioning or requested an additional inquiry.  Under these circumstances, we 
hold that no further inquiry was required. 
{¶ 60} Nevertheless, Lang argues that the trial court was obligated to 
individually question each of the jurors to ensure that juror No. 386 had not 
spoken to them about Cheek.  The trial court asked the jurors as a group: “Is there 
any member of the jury — I will take your silence if none did — but is there any 
member of the jury that she did discuss this with at all?”  The trial court then 
stated, “I take it by your silence that she did not.” 
{¶ 61} No case authority support’s Lang’s position.  “The scope of voir 
dire is generally within the trial court’s discretion, including voir dire conducted 
during trial to investigate jurors’ reaction to outside influences.”  State v. Sanders 
(2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 245, 252, 750 N.E.2d 90.  The trial court’s questioning and 
the jurors’ negative response obviated the need for individual questioning.  
Moreover, neither the state nor the defense requested that the trial counsel 
individually question the jurors following this response.  Thus, the trial court did 
not abuse its discretion by stopping there.  See State v. McKnight, 107 Ohio St.3d 
101, 2005-Ohio-6046, 837 N.E.2d 315, ¶ 192; State v. Henness (1997), 79 Ohio 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
16 
 
St.3d 53, 65, 679 N.E.2d 686 (upholding trial court’s failure to question each juror 
individually). 
{¶ 62} However, Lang contends that the trial court should have 
individually questioned juror No. 387, because the judge noted that juror No. 386 
and juror No. 387 were seated next to each other and had been friendly.  But Juror 
No. 386 assured the court that she had not talked to juror No. 387 about Cheek.  
Juror No. 387’s silence during group questioning indicated that she had not talked 
to juror No. 386 about her relationship to any parties involved in the case.  The 
trial court was permitted to rely on juror No. 387’s silence in determining that 
juror’s impartiality.  See State v. McKnight, 107 Ohio St.3d 101, 2005-Ohio-6046, 
837 N.E.2d 315, ¶ 191.  Trial counsel’s failure to ask juror No. 387 any questions 
about possible conversations with juror No. 386 also indicated that the defense 
was satisfied with juror No. 387’s response.  Thus, the trial court did not abuse its 
discretion by failing to interrogate juror No. 387 individually. 
{¶ 63} Based on the foregoing, we overrule proposition I. 
{¶ 64} DNA evidence.  In proposition of law II, Lang argues that expert 
testimony about DNA evidence linking him to the murder weapon was unreliable 
and should not have been admitted.  He asks us to reconsider our holding in State 
v. D’Ambrosio (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 185, 616 N.E.2d 909. 
{¶ 65} Michele Foster provided expert testimony about the DNA found on 
the handgun used in the killings.  She stated that DNA was detected from “at least 
two individuals” at three different locations on the handgun.  The prosecutor then 
questioned Foster about the comparison of Lang’s and Walker’s DNA with the 
DNA found on the handgun: 
{¶ 66} “Q: Do you have an opinion as to a reasonable degree of scientific 
certainty as to whose DNA appears on that handgun? 
{¶ 67} “A:  In this particular case, we can say that Antonio Walker is not 
the major source of DNA that we detected from the swabbing of the pistol. 
January Term, 2011 
17 
 
{¶ 68} “In this case we, based on our comparison, we can say that Edward 
Lang cannot be excluded as a possible minor source to the DNA that we found on 
the weapon. 
{¶ 69} “Q: When you say not excluded, what do you mean by that? 
{¶ 70} “A: Well, in this particular case, because we had such low level 
DNA, we can’t say to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that this person is 
the source. 
{¶ 71} “In this particular case, the chance of finding the major DNA 
profile that we found on that pistol is 1 in 3,461,”  meaning that “1 of 3,461 
people could possibly be included as a potential source of the DNA.” 
{¶ 72} Lang argues that Foster’s DNA testimony suggested that Lang was 
the source of the DNA even though she could not testify that he was the source 
“to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.”  Therefore, he maintains, the 
testimony should not have been allowed.  Lang failed to object to such evidence 
at trial, however, and thus waived all but plain error.  State v. Childs (1968), 14 
Ohio St.2d 56, 43 O.O.2d 119, 236 N.E.2d 545, paragraph three of the syllabus. 
{¶ 73} Evid.R. 702(C) requires that an expert’s testimony be based on 
“reliable scientific, technical, or other specialized information.”  Under Evid.R. 
702(C), if the expert’s “testimony reports the result of a procedure, test, or 
experiment, the testimony is reliable only if all of the following apply:  
{¶ 74} “(1) The theory upon which the procedure, test, or experiment is 
based is objectively verifiable or is validly derived from widely accepted 
knowledge, facts or principles;  
{¶ 75} “(2) The design of the procedure, test, or experiment reliably 
implements the theory;  
{¶ 76} “(3) The particular procedure, test, or experiment was conducted in 
a way that will yield an accurate result.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
18 
 
{¶ 77} In D’Ambrosio, 67 Ohio St.3d at 191, 616 N.E.2d 909, the court 
held that expert witnesses in criminal cases can testify in terms of possibility 
rather than in terms of a reasonable scientific certainty or probability.  The 
treatment of such testimony involves “an issue of sufficiency, not admissibility.”  
Id.; see also State v. Jones (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 403, 416, 739 N.E.2d 300.  
“‘Questions about the certainty of the scientific results are matters of weight for 
the jury.’ ”  State v. Allen, 5th Dist. No. 2009-CA-13, 2010-Ohio-4644, ¶ 157, 
quoting United States v. Brady (C.A.6, 1979), 595 F.2d 359, 363. 
{¶ 78} Expert testimony regarding DNA evidence is similarly treated.  In 
State v. Pierce (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 490, 597 N.E.2d 107, the court concluded 
that the trial court had properly admitted calculations as to the frequency 
probabilities of DNA evidence.  Pierce held, “[Q]uestions regarding the reliability 
of DNA evidence in a given case go to the weight of the evidence rather than its 
admissibility.  No pretrial evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine the 
reliability of the DNA evidence.  The trier of fact, the judge or jury, can determine 
whether DNA evidence is reliable based on the expert testimony and other 
evidence presented.”  Id. at 501. 
{¶ 79} Foster’s DNA testimony was admissible and did not result in plain 
error.  Lang offered no evidence challenging the DNA evidence or the manner in 
which the samples were tested or collected, preferring to rely upon cross-
examination of the expert.  During cross-examination, Foster acknowledged that 
the DNA profile could not be entered into the Combined Index DNA System 
(“CODIS”), because there was such a small amount of DNA.  Foster stated that 
the “statistic has to be more than 1 in 280 billion” to “say to a reasonable degree 
of scientific certainty [that] this person is a source.”  These answers weakened the 
certainty of the DNA evidence.  But the jury remained free to assign this evidence 
whatever weight it deemed proper in arriving at the verdict. 
January Term, 2011 
19 
 
{¶ 80} Nevertheless, Lang attacks the admissibility of the DNA evidence 
on several grounds.  First, Lang argues that this court should overrule 
D’Ambrosio, 67 Ohio St.3d 185, 616 N.E.2d 909, because its application to 
criminal but not civil cases denies him equal protection of the laws. 
{¶ 81} Ohio has a split application of Evid.R. 702.  Criminal cases adhere 
to the D’Ambrosio standard in allowing expert opinion in terms of possibilities to 
be admitted under Evid.R. 702.  In contrast, Ohio courts require expert opinions 
in civil cases to rise to the level of probabilities before being admitted under 
Evid.R. 702.  See Stinson v. England (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 451, 633 N.E.2d 532, 
paragraph one of the syllabus; see also Jurs, Daubert, Probabilities and 
Possibilities, and the Ohio Solution: A Sensible Approach to Relevance Under 
Rule 702 in Civil and Criminal Applications (2008), 41 Akron L.Rev. 609, 630. 
{¶ 82} The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
United States Constitution, Section 1, commands that no state shall “deny to any 
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  The Equal 
Protection Clause does not prevent all classification, however.  It simply forbids 
laws that treat persons differently when they are otherwise alike in all relevant 
respects.  Nordlinger v. Hahn (1992), 505 U.S. 1, 10, 112 S.Ct. 2326, 120 L.Ed.2d 
1.  Lang’s equal protection argument can be rejected because criminal defendants 
and civil litigants have vastly different stakes and concerns and are not similarly 
situated.  See Mason v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (2008), 283 Ga. 271, 274-275, 
658 S.E.2d 603 (rejecting equal protection claim challenging more stringent 
requirements for admission of expert testimony in tort actions than in criminal 
cases). 
{¶ 83} Second, Lang argues that the admission of Foster’s expert 
testimony denied him his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, because of his 
inability to confront a scientifically unreliable possibility.  The Confrontation 
Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution gives the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
20 
 
accused the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.  However, the 
Confrontation Clause guarantees only “an opportunity for effective cross-
examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to 
whatever extent, the defense might wish.”  (Emphasis sic.)  Delaware v. Fensterer 
(1985), 474 U.S. 15, 20, 106 S.Ct. 292, 88 L.Ed.2d 15. 
{¶ 84} The trial court placed no limitations on the scope of cross-
examination of Foster.  Moreover, the record shows that Foster’s cross-
examination undermined the reliability of the DNA evidence by bringing out that 
such a small amount of DNA was found on the handgun that the DNA profile 
could not be entered into the CODIS data base.  Thus, we also reject this 
argument. 
{¶ 85} Third, Lang argues that the admission of the DNA evidence failed 
to meet the Evid.R. 401, 402, and 403 requirements, which address “relevancy 
and its limits.” 
{¶ 86} Evid.R. 401 defines relevant evidence as “evidence having any 
tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the 
determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be 
without the evidence.”  The “admission or exclusion of relevant evidence rests 
within the sound discretion of the trial court.”  State v. Sage (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 
173, 31 OBR 375, 510 N.E.2d 343, paragraph two of the syllabus.  Foster’s DNA 
testimony was relevant because it tended to link Lang to the handgun used to kill 
the two victims. 
{¶ 87} In addition to relevancy, Evid.R. 403 requires a court to weigh the 
probative value of the evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion 
of the issues, or misleading the jury and to exclude evidence more prejudicial than 
probative.  When considering evidence under Evid.R. 403, the trial court is vested 
with broad discretion.  See State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227, 2002-Ohio-
2126, 767 N.E.2d 216, ¶ 40. 
January Term, 2011 
21 
 
{¶ 88} Lang argues that the DNA testimony should have been excluded 
because Foster’s conclusions could not be made to a reasonable degree of 
scientific certainty, and it thereby misled the jury.  Yet DNA evidence was highly 
probative in showing that Lang could not be excluded as a contributor of the DNA 
found on the handgun.  DNA evidence also helped corroborate other evidence 
showing that Lang was the principal offender.  Questions about the certainty of 
the DNA results went to the weight to be assigned to the evidence and not its 
admissibility.  See State v. Allen, 5th Dist. No. 2009-CA-13, 2010-Ohio-4644, ¶ 
157. 
{¶ 89} Lang also argues that the DNA evidence should have been 
excluded because the prosecutor improperly used it during his final argument to 
assert that the DNA proved that Lang was the actual killer.  But the trial court was 
not required to exclude Foster’s testimony because the prosecutor might later use 
such evidence with damaging effect during his final argument.  “Unfair prejudice 
‘ “does not mean the damage to a defendant’s case that results from the legitimate 
probative force of the evidence; rather it refers to evidence which tends to suggest 
decision on an improper basis.” ’ ”  United States v. Bonds (C.A.6, 1993), 12 F.3d 
540, 567, quoting United States v. Schrock (C.A.6, 1988), 855 F.2d 327, 335, 
quoting United States v. Mendez-Ortiz (C.A.6, 1986), 810 F.2d 76, 79.  Moreover, 
the record shows that the prosecutor’s comments, which were not objected to, 
represented “fair inference.”  See State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 2008-Ohio-
6266, 900 N.E.2d 565, ¶ 213-214.  No plain error occurred. 
{¶ 90} As a final matter, Lang argues that the improperly admitted DNA 
evidence requires reversal of his convictions because the state cannot prove 
beyond a reasonable doubt that this evidence did not affect the jury’s decision.  
However, we reject this claim because the DNA evidence was properly admitted. 
{¶ 91} Based on the foregoing, we overrule proposition II. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
22 
 
{¶ 92} Prior consistent statements.  In proposition of law VII, Lang argues 
that Walker’s prior consistent statements were improperly admitted under Evid.R. 
801(D)(1)(b), a hearsay  rule, and violated his Sixth Amendment right to 
confrontation. 
{¶ 93} During the state’s direct examination, Walker testified about his 
plea deal.  He said that he had pleaded guilty to two counts of complicity to 
murder with firearm specifications and one count of complicity to commit 
aggravated robbery with a firearm specification.  Walker also testified that he had 
received concurrent sentences for these offenses of “18 to life.”  The prosecutor 
then elicited the following testimony: 
{¶ 94} “Q:  And what were you asked to do because you were given that 
sentence? 
{¶ 95} “A:  Testify. 
{¶ 96} “Q:  Testify, how? 
{¶ 97} “A:  To give truthful testimony of the events of October 22. 
{¶ 98} “Q:  And that’s the same story that you gave Detective Kandel 
when you were arrested on October 27? 
{¶ 99} “A:  Yes. 
{¶ 100} “Q:  Before you had any deal? 
{¶ 101} “A:  Yes.” 
{¶ 102} Evid.R. 801(D)(1)(b) authorizes the admission of prior consistent 
statements that are offered to rebut charges that the testimony is influenced by an 
improper reward.  It provides: 
{¶ 103} “(D) Statements which are not hearsay.  A statement is not 
hearsay if: 
{¶ 104} “(1) Prior statement by witness.  The declarant testifies at trial or 
hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the 
statement is  
January Term, 2011 
23 
 
{¶ 105} “* * *  
{¶ 106} “(b) consistent with declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut 
an express or implied charge against declarant of recent fabrication or improper 
influence or motive * * *.” 
{¶ 107} Prior consistent statements that an offering party seeks to 
introduce to rehabilitate its witness must have been made before the alleged 
influence or motive to fabricate arose to be admissible under this rule.  See Tome 
v. United States (1995), 513 U.S. 150, 157-158, 115 S.Ct. 696, 130 L.Ed.2d 574; 
State v. Nichols (1993), 85 Ohio App.3d 65, 71, 619 N.E.2d 80; State v. Patel, 9th 
Dist. No. 24030, 2008-Ohio-4693, ¶ 9. 
{¶ 108} Lang argues that Walker’s police statement should not have been 
admitted as a prior consistent statement because it was made after his motive for 
fabrication arose.  However, defense counsel failed to object to the admission of 
the statement at trial and waived all but plain error.  See Childs, 14 Ohio St.2d 56, 
43 O.O.2d 119, 236 N.E.2d 545, paragraph three of the syllabus.  An alleged error 
is plain error only if the error is “obvious,” State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 
21, 27, 759 N.E.2d 1240, and “but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly 
would have been otherwise.” State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 7 O.O.3d 
178, 372 N.E.2d 804, paragraph two of the syllabus.  Notice of plain error “is to 
be taken with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to 
prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.”  Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus. 
{¶ 109} During his opening statement, defense counsel told the jury that 
Walker had entered into a plea agreement that allowed him to plead guilty to 
lesser charges.  Defense counsel also informed the jury that in exchange for this 
deal, Walker signed an agreement to “testify truthfully at any proceeding, 
including trials, involving the case of [his] Co-Defendant, Edward Lang.”  
Defense counsel recited Walker’s agreement: “I further understand that if I fail to 
cooperate and testify truthfully as agreed, this agreement and sentence can be 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
24 
 
voided by the State of Ohio, and I can be prosecuted to the fullest extent as 
allowed by law including have a consecutive sentence imposed.”  Defense 
counsel then concluded his opening statement by stating: “[A]fter you have heard 
all of the evidence you will come to the conclusion that the only evidence against 
Eddie Lang are the statements of a person or persons with an interest in the case.”  
(Emphasis added.)   
{¶ 110} Defense counsel’s opening statement implied that Walker had had 
a motive to lie because of the favorable terms of his pretrial agreement.  This was 
an allegation of recent fabrication or improper influence that allowed the state to 
introduce Walker’s prior consistent statements to rehabilitate his testimony.  See 
State v. Wolff, 7th Dist. No. 07 MA 166, 2009-Ohio-2897, ¶ 78 (allegations of 
recent fabrication during opening statement provided grounds for admitting prior 
consistent statement). 
{¶ 111} Furthermore, Walker had made the statements at issue before he 
entered into his pretrial agreement.  See State v. Howe (Sept. 30, 1994), 2d Dist. 
App. No. 13969, 1994 WL 527612, *9 (prior consistent statement made before an 
offer of leniency admissible following a defense allegation that the offer 
established a motive to falsify); State v. Mullins (1986), 34 Ohio App.3d 192, 197, 
517 N.E.2d 945.  Thus, no error, plain or otherwise, occurred when the trial court 
admitted Walker’s prior consistent statements. 
{¶ 112} Lang invokes Crawford v. Washington (2004), 541 U.S. 36, 124 
S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177, in arguing that Walker’s testimony about his prior 
consistent statements violated his right to confrontation because those first 
statements had not been subject to cross-examination.  In Crawford, the Supreme 
Court held that the Confrontation Clause bars “testimonial statements of a witness 
who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant 
had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.”  Id. at 53-54. 
January Term, 2011 
25 
 
{¶ 113} Lang argues that Walker’s prior statement violated Crawford, 
because he did not have an earlier opportunity to cross-examine Walker about his 
police statement.  But Walker testified at trial and was subject to cross-
examination.  “[W]hen the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the 
Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior 
testimonial statements.  * * *  The Clause does not bar admission of a statement 
so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it.”  Id. at 59, fn. 9.  
Accordingly, we reject Lang’s Crawford claim. 
{¶ 114} Based on the foregoing, we overrule proposition VII. 
{¶ 115} Inflammatory evidence and gruesome photographs.  In 
proposition of law VIII, Lang argues that the prosecutor elicited irrelevant and 
inflammatory evidence.2  He also argues that the trial court erred in admitting 
gruesome crime-scene and autopsy photographs. He claims that the Rules of 
Evidence prohibit the introduction of this information. 
{¶ 116} Under Evid.R. 404(B), “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts 
is not admissible to prove” a defendant’s character in order to show criminal 
propensity.  “It may, however, be admissible * * * [to show] proof of motive, 
opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake 
or accident.” 
{¶ 117} 1. Inflammatory evidence.  First, Lang argues that Walker 
improperly testified, over defense objection, that Lang wore red all the time.  
However, the trial court sustained the defense objection when the prosecutor 
asked Walker whether he was “familiar with the significance of red.” 
{¶ 118} Lang argues that Walker’s testimony about the color red should 
not have been admitted because the implication was that Lang was a member of 
                                                          
 
2 Lang’s claims in this proposition are made against the prosecutor but are not alleged in terms of 
prosecutorial misconduct.  In proposition of law IX, Lang recasts some of these allegations as 
prosecutorial misconduct.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
26 
 
the “Bloods” gang.  The state counters that the testimony that Lang wore red was 
relevant in showing his familiarity with firearms and the drug culture, and it 
contends that the very nature of these crimes pointed to gang-related homicides.  
However, no evidence was presented at trial linking the two murders to gang 
activity.  Accordingly, testimony that Lang frequently wore red was irrelevant and 
should not have been admitted.  But the testimony was brief, and no explanation 
was presented linking the color red to gang activity.  Given the substantial 
evidence of Lang’s guilt, such testimony constituted harmless error. 
{¶ 119} Second, Lang argues that Sergeant John Dittmore, a Canton police 
officer, improperly testified that he supervises the police department’s “Gang 
Unit.”  But trial counsel’s failure to object to this testimony waived all but plain 
error.  Childs, 14 Ohio St.2d 56, 43 O.O.2d 119, 236 N.E.2d 545, paragraph three 
of the syllabus. 
{¶ 120} Lang argues that testimony about Dittmore’s duties with the gang 
unit implied that he was involved in the investigation because of Lang’s gang 
activity.  In response, the state argues that Dittmore’s testimony about his duties 
was relevant because of the possible gang-related nature of these crimes.  This 
testimony was irrelevant and should not have been admitted because there was no 
evidence linking the murders with gang activity.  However, this testimony did not 
result in plain error in this case.  Dittmore’s testimony made no reference to 
Lang’s gang involvement or affiliation, if any.  Dittmore also testified that he 
worked closely with narcotics investigators, which would have explained why he 
was involved in this murder investigation. 
{¶ 121} Third, Lang argues that Walker and Seery improperly testified 
that Lang’s nickname was “Tech,” or “Tek.”  Lang claims that this nickname 
suggested that he was familiar with guns and was violent, because “Tech” is 
shorthand for a type of 9 millimeter handgun.  However, Lang failed to object to 
this testimony and thus waived all but plain error. 
January Term, 2011 
27 
 
{¶ 122} There was no testimony explaining the meaning of Lang’s 
nickname or its association with a 9 mm handgun.  It is speculative to conclude 
that the jurors made such a connection.  Thus, no plain error occurred.  See State 
v. Gillard (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 226, 230, 533 N.E.2d 272 (testimony that 
defendant’s nickname was “Dirty John” was not plain error). 
{¶ 123} Fourth, Lang argues that Sergeant Dittmore’s testimony 
improperly suggested that Lang had previously purchased illegal drugs.  Dittmore 
testified, over defense objection, that drug dealers do not sell drugs and deal with 
people they do not know.  During redirect examination, Dittmore clarified that 
“small amounts of crack cocaine that are bought on the street, the street level 
dealers will sell to anybody.  But larger amounts as in a quarter ounce of powder 
or crack or whatever is a larger amount of drugs * * *. That’s going to be done 
more surreptitiously behind the scenes, and those people generally know each 
other.”  But Lang did not object to this testimony and waived all but plain error. 
{¶ 124} Dittmore’s redirect testimony showed the likelihood that Lang 
knew Burditte when he called him and set up the drug deal for a quarter ounce of 
crack cocaine.  Such testimony was relevant because Lang told police he did not 
know Burditte prior to calling him.  It also suggested that Lang’s motive to kill 
Burditte was to avoid identification.  Thus, Dittmore’s redirect testimony was 
relevant and did not constitute plain error. 
{¶ 125} Fifth, Lang argues that Walker improperly testified that after the 
murders, Lang vomited and said, “[E]very time I do this, this same thing 
happens.”  Lang claims that the prosecution used this testimony to imply that 
Lang had previously killed someone.  However, defense counsel’s failure to 
object to this testimony waived all but plain error. 
{¶ 126} Lang’s conduct and comments after the murders were relevant in 
reflecting his consciousness of guilt.  See State v. Richey (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 
353, 357, 595 N.E.2d 915.  Moreover, the prosecution made no attempt to use 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
28 
 
Lang’s comments as showing that he had previously murdered other people.  No 
plain error occurred. 
{¶ 127} Sixth, Lang argues that his statement admitting that he might be 
guilty of conspiracy to commit murder was improperly admitted.  During the 
state’s case-in-chief, the prosecution played the tape-recorded statement that Lang 
made to the police.  The trial court, over defense objection, allowed the prosecutor 
to play a segment of the tape that included Lang’s admission to conspiracy to 
commit murder: 
{¶ 128} “(Officer) Kandel:  * * * When everything went bad and you felt 
so bad about it, why didn’t you call the police? 
{¶ 129} “Lang:  Basically that he used my gun and then that I was in the 
car when that shit happenin’.  And then as though, you know what I’m sayin’, 
that’s conspiracy to murder. 
{¶ 130} “* * * 
{¶ 131} “Kandell:  That’s what you believe? 
{¶ 132} “Lang:  Yeah.  If you right there at the scene of a crime and you 
witness somethin’ or you bein’ a part of somethin’ no matter how much you 
played a part in it, if you involved in it, * * * that’s conspiracy to murder.”  
(Emphasis added.)  
{¶ 133} After the tape was played, the trial court provided the jury with 
the following limiting instructions:  “You may have heard in the statement some 
references by both sides to a concept known as conspiracy to murder.  I would 
indicate to you that there are no charges in this case that alleged conspiracy to 
murder.  You may take the Defendant’s statement or the statements of the officers 
if they deal with the facts of this case, but not as they may discuss any legal 
conclusions because they may be correct or incorrect legally.” 
{¶ 134} Lang’s opinion that he might be guilty of conspiracy to commit 
murder was irrelevant.  No prejudicial error, however, resulted from playing this 
January Term, 2011 
29 
 
segment of Lang’s statement, because the trial court’s limiting instructions 
ensured that the jury did not improperly consider it.  See State v. Noling, 98 Ohio 
St.3d 44, 2002-Ohio-7044, 781 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 49; State v. Heinish (1990), 50 Ohio 
St.3d 231, 241, 553 N.E.2d 1026. 
{¶ 135} Seventh, Lang argues that Walker falsely testified that he did not 
know the make and model of the murder weapon.  Walker testified that he saw 
Lang with a handgun before the murders.  He testified, “[I]t was a grey and black 
gun.  I didn’t know what kind of gun it was at the time, but I found out it was a .9 
millimeter.”  Walker later testified that while waiting for Burditte to arrive at the 
meeting point, Lang had trouble placing a round in the handgun.  Walker also 
testified that he knew how to chamber a round on a 9 mm handgun. 
{¶ 136} Lang claims that Walker’s familiarity with how to load a 9 mm 
handgun shows that Walker lied when he said that he did not know the make and 
model of Lang’s handgun.  However, Walker’s statement that he knew how to 
load a 9 mm handgun does not establish that Walker lied when he stated, “I didn’t 
know what kind of gun it was at the time.”  Walker’s credibility was a matter for 
the jury to decide after they heard his testimony.  Moreover, the defense failed to 
object to such testimony and waived all but plain error.  No plain error occurred. 
{¶ 137} Finally, Lang argues that unreliable DNA evidence was 
improperly admitted.  But as discussed in proposition II, this argument lacks 
merit. 
{¶ 138} 2. Gruesome photographs.  Lang argues that the trial court erred 
in admitting two gruesome crime-scene photographs and three gruesome autopsy 
photographs.  However, trial counsel failed to object to this evidence at trial and 
waived all but plain error with respect to those exhibits.  State v. Trimble, 122 
Ohio St.3d 297, 2009-Ohio-2961, 911 N.E.2d 242, ¶ 132. 
{¶ 139} In capital cases, nonrepetitive photographs, even if gruesome, are 
admissible as long as the probative value of each photograph substantially 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
30 
 
outweighs the danger of material prejudice to the accused.  State v. Morales 
(1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 252, 257, 513 N.E.2d 267; State v. Maurer (1984), 15 Ohio 
St.3d 239, 15 OBR 379, 473 N.E.2d 768, paragraph seven of the syllabus.  
Decisions on the admissibility of photographs are “left to the sound discretion of 
the trial court.”  State v. Slagle (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 597, 601, 605 N.E.2d 916. 
{¶ 140} State’s exhibit No. 33-P is a decidedly gruesome photograph 
showing the bodies of Cheek and Burditte inside the Durango after the shooting.  
This photograph was probative of Lang’s intent and the manner and 
circumstances of the victims’ deaths.  See State v. Craig, 110 Ohio St.3d 306, 
2006-Ohio-4571, 853 N.E.2d 621, ¶ 92.  No plain error resulted from admitting 
this photograph. 
{¶ 141} State’s exhibit No. 33-R shows where a shell casing was found on 
the bloodstained area behind the passenger seat.  However, the “photos of blood 
stains * * * do not have a shock value equivalent to a photograph of a corpse.  
The term ‘gruesome’ in the context of photographic evidence should, in most 
cases, be limited to depictions of actual bodies or body parts.”  State v. DePew 
(1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 275, 281, 528 N.E.2d 542.  Thus, the photograph of the 
bloodstains was not so gruesome to preclude its admission into evidence. 
{¶ 142} State’s exhibits Nos. 31A and B are autopsy photographs 
depicting the entry and exit gunshot wounds on Cheek’s head.  State’s exhibit No. 
32B depicts the exit wound of the gunshot through Burditte’s mouth.  Although 
these photographs are gruesome, each of them supported the coroner’s testimony 
and provided a perspective of the victims’ wounds.  No plain error occurred in 
admitting these photographs.  See State v. Trimble, 122 Ohio St.3d 297, 2009-
Ohio-2961, 911 N.E.2d 242, ¶ 148. 
{¶ 143} Based on the foregoing, proposition VIII is overruled. 
{¶ 144} Instructions.  In proposition of law IV, Lang argues that the trial 
court’s instructions on the R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) specification failed to provide the 
January Term, 2011 
31 
 
jury with the option of finding that he was guilty under either the principal-
offender element or the prior-calculation-and-design element of that specification. 
{¶ 145} Lang failed to object to these instructions and waived all but plain 
error.  State v. Underwood (1983), 3 Ohio St.3d 12, 3 OBR 360, 444 N.E.2d 1332, 
syllabus.  Moreover, defense counsel’s proposed instructions included the 
language that Lang now contends was erroneous.  Thus, the defense invited any 
error and may not “ ‘take advantage of an error which he himself invited or 
induced.’ ”  State v. Bey (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 487, 493, 709 N.E.2d 484, quoting 
Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 20, 28 
OBR 83, 502 N.E.2d 590, paragraph one of the syllabus. 
{¶ 146} During final instructions, the trial court advised the jury that it 
could find Lang guilty of aggravated murder in Counts One and Two if the jurors 
found that he “purposely caused the death” of the victims “while committing, 
attempting to commit, or fleeing immediately after committing or attempting to 
commit the offense of aggravated robbery and/or did aid or abet another in so 
doing.” 
{¶ 147} The trial court also advised the jury that it could find Lang guilty 
of Specification Three, the felony-murder death penalty specification that 
accompanied Counts One and Two, if it found that the “State proved beyond a 
reasonable doubt that the aggravated murder as set forth in [Counts One and Two] 
was committed while the Defendant was committing * * * the offense of 
aggravated robbery and the Defendant was the principal offender in the 
commission of the aggravated murder.”  The trial court advised the jury that the 
term “principal offender” meant the “actual killer.” 
{¶ 148} Lang argues that the trial court’s instructions on the R.C. 
2929.04(A)(7) specifications were incomplete because they did not advise the 
jury of the option of finding him guilty of the “prior calculation and design” 
alternative as set forth in the statute.  Lang also argues that the jury may have 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
32 
 
found him guilty because the jurors were presented with an all-or-nothing choice 
between finding him guilty as the shooter or acquitting him.  Compare Beck v. 
Alabama (1980), 447 U.S. 625, 100 S.Ct. 2382, 65 L.Ed.2d 392. 
{¶ 149} Pursuant R.C. 2929.04(A)(7), a defendant found guilty of 
aggravated murder may also be found guilty of this death-penalty specification if 
the defendant committed one of the enumerated felony murders and was either 
“the principal offender in the commission of the aggravated murder or, if not the 
principal offender, committed the aggravated murder with prior calculation and 
design.”  (Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 150} In Beck, the United States Supreme Court struck down an 
Alabama statute that prohibited lesser-included-offense instructions in capital 
cases.  In so holding, the court stated, “[O]n the one hand, the unavailability of * * 
* convicting on a lesser included offense may encourage the jury to convict for an 
impermissible reason – its belief that the defendant is guilty of some serious crime 
and should be punished.  On the other hand, the apparently mandatory nature of 
the death penalty may encourage it to acquit for an equally impermissible reason 
– that, whatever his crime, the defendant does not deserve death.  * * * [T]hese 
two extraneous factors * * * introduce a level of uncertainty and unreliability into 
the factfinding process that cannot be tolerated in a capital case.”  Id. at 642-643, 
100 S.Ct. 2382, 65 L.Ed.2d 392.  See also Schad v. Arizona (1991), 501 U.S. 624, 
646-647, 111 S.Ct. 2491, 115 L.Ed.2d 555. 
{¶ 151} Here, the trial court’s instructions on aggravated murder counts 
presented the jury with the option of finding Lang guilty as the principal offender 
or as an aider or abettor.  Unlike in Beck, the jury was presented with two options 
of finding Lang guilty of the aggravated-murder counts.  The jury was instructed 
to consider the death-penalty specifications after making findings on the 
aggravated-murder counts.  Under these circumstances, it is illogical to conclude 
that the jury would find the defendant guilty of Counts One and Two as an aider 
January Term, 2011 
33 
 
or abettor, but find him guilty of Specification Three as the principal offender.  
Accordingly, the court’s instructions were not constitutionally defective. 
{¶ 152} Moreover, Lang would have still been eligible for the death-
penalty if the jury had found that he had committed the aggravated murder with 
prior calculation and design.  Thus, even if there was a Beck violation, such error 
was harmless. 
{¶ 153} We reject Lang’s claims on the basis of plain error and invited 
error and overrule proposition IV. 
{¶ 154} Prosecutorial misconduct.  In proposition of law IX, Lang argues 
that the prosecutor committed misconduct during the guilt-phase proceedings.  
However, except where noted, defense counsel failed to object and waived all but 
plain error.  Childs, 14 Ohio St.2d 56, 43 O.O.2d 119, 236 N.E.2d 545, paragraph 
three of the syllabus. 
{¶ 155} The test for prosecutorial misconduct is whether the remarks were 
improper, and if so, whether they prejudicially affected the accused’s substantial 
rights.  State v. Smith (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 13, 14, 14 OBR 317, 470 N.E.2d 883.  
The touchstone of the analysis “is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of 
the prosecutor.”  Phillips, 455 U.S. at 219, 102 S.Ct. 940, 71 L.Ed.2d 78. 
{¶ 156} First, Lang argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by 
improperly seeking a commitment from the prospective jurors that they would 
sign a death verdict.  During voir dire, the prosecutor asked the prospective jurors 
whether they could sign a death verdict if all 12 of them agreed that the 
aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating factors beyond a reasonable 
doubt.  The prosecutor then asked individual jurors whether they could do so. 
{¶ 157} The prosecutor’s questioning was proper because the relevant 
inquiry during voir dire in a capital case is whether the juror’s beliefs would 
prevent or substantially impair his or her performance of duties as a juror in 
accordance with the instructions and the oath.  State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
34 
 
2008-Ohio-2, 880 N.E.2d 31, ¶ 76, citing Wainwright v. Witt (1985), 469 U.S. 
412, 424, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841.  “Clearly, a juror who is incapable of 
signing a death verdict demonstrates substantial impairment in his ability to fulfill 
his duties.”  State v. Franklin, 97 Ohio St.3d 1, 2002-Ohio-5304, 776 N.E.2d 26, ¶ 
34.  Accordingly, Lang’s argument in this regard is not well taken. 
{¶ 158} Second, Lang argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct 
by failing to lay a foundation to establish Sergeant Dittmore’s expertise before 
presenting his testimony about drug dealers and drug transactions.  As discussed 
in proposition VIII, Dittmore testified that drug dealers sell “larger amounts of 
drugs * * * surreptitiously behind the scenes, and those people generally know 
each other.” 
{¶ 159} Pursuant to Evid.R. 702(B), an expert may be qualified by reason 
of his or her “specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education 
regarding the subject matter of the testimony” to give an opinion that will assist 
the jury in understanding the evidence and determining a fact at issue.  Dittmore 
testified that he had experience setting up drug transactions in his present job and 
while serving on the police department’s vice unit.  Dittmore’s specialized 
knowledge of drug-related transactions was knowledge of a matter not possessed 
by the average layman.  Accordingly, Dittmore was qualified to testify as an 
expert on these matters under Evid.R. 702.  Given his qualifications, the 
prosecutor’s failure to tender Dittmore as an expert was of no consequence and 
did not result in plain error.  See State v. Skatzes, 104 Ohio St.3d 195, 2004-Ohio-
6391, 819 N.E.2d 215, ¶ 97. 
{¶ 160} Lang also argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct 
during closing arguments by telling the jury that DNA evidence found on the 
handgun “proves * * * beyond a reasonable doubt that Eddie Lang * * * is the 
actual killer.”  He contends that expert testimony offered in regard to the DNA 
evidence does not support the prosecutor’s argument.  Lang incorporates his 
January Term, 2011 
35 
 
argument from proposition II in claiming that the DNA evidence was unreliable 
and should not have been admitted because Foster could not testify to “a 
reasonable degree of scientific certainty” that Lang was the source of DNA on the 
handgun.  However, as discussed in proposition II, the DNA evidence was 
properly admitted.  Thus, the prosecutor’s argument about the DNA evidence was 
a reasonable theory and represented a fair inference based on the record.  No plain 
error occurred. 
{¶ 161} Fourth, Lang asserts the existence of prosecutorial misconduct in 
speculative comments made during closing argument, claiming that the prosecutor 
argued, over defense objection, that Lang “took the gun * * * and turned it toward 
Marnell who saw it coming because she put her hand up.”  Lang asserts that the 
prosecutor’s assertion that Cheek raised her hand to ward off the fatal gunshot 
was not supported by the evidence. 
{¶ 162} Dr. Murthy, the coroner, testified that Cheek was shot at close 
range, and the bullet had entered the left side of her head above the ear.  He also 
testified that there was a “prominent area of stippling” found on the back of 
Cheek’s left hand, which indicated that her hand was only a “few inches” from 
the muzzle of the gun.  The evidence also showed that Cheek had been sitting in 
the front passenger seat, and she had been shot from behind.  Thus, the 
prosecutor’s argument represented a fair inference that could be made from the 
record.  See State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 2008-Ohio-6266, 900 N.E.2d 565, 
¶ 214-215. 
{¶ 163} Lang also claims that the prosecutor’s argument that Cheek “saw 
it (the bullet) coming because she put her hand up” was a comment that 
improperly focused on what the victim experienced in the final moments of her 
life.  But the prosecutor’s comments were not such remarks.  Compare State v. 
Wogenstahl (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 344, 357, 662 N.E.2d 311.  Even if the 
comments were improper, any errors were corrected by the trial court’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
36 
 
instructions that the arguments of counsel were not evidence and that the jury was 
the sole judge of the facts.  See State v. Waddy (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 424, 436, 
588 N.E.2d 819. 
{¶ 164} Additionally, Lang contends that the prosecutor improperly 
speculated during his final argument that Lang’s DNA was on the handgun 
“[f]rom firing the gun.”  Michael Short, a forensic expert, testified: “The 
discharging of a firearm would greatly increase the probability of finding * * * 
what they call touch DNA on the surfaces of a firearm.”  Lang’s argument fails, 
because the prosecutor’s argument represented a fair characterization of Short’s 
testimony.  No plain error occurred. 
{¶ 165} Fifth, Lang argues that the prosecutor improperly vouched for 
several of the state’s witnesses.  An attorney may not express a personal belief or 
opinion as to the credibility of a witness.  State v. Williams (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 
1, 12, 679 N.E.2d 646.  “Vouching occurs when the prosecutor implies 
knowledge of facts outside the record or places his or her personal credibility in 
issue.”  State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404, 2008-Ohio-2, 880 N.E.2d 31, ¶ 232. 
{¶ 166} Lang claims that the prosecutor improperly vouched for Walker’s 
testimony and bolstered Walker’s claim that he did not shoot Cheek and Burditte.  
The prosecutor argued: “We know Antonio didn’t enter the truck because he tells 
us that.”  These comments simply argue the evidence.  The comments do not 
vouch for Walker’s veracity or imply knowledge of facts outside the record. 
{¶ 167} Lang also claims that the prosecutor vouched for the testimony of 
Short and his identification of the handgun.  The prosecutor stated: “We know 
that this is the murder weapon beyond a reasonable doubt.  Mike Short told you 
that.”  This is not vouching.  The prosecutor merely summarized the evidence 
supporting his argument by referring to the witness who provided the testimony.  
Lang’s argument is unpersuasive and rejected. 
January Term, 2011 
37 
 
{¶ 168} Lang further claims that the prosecutor vouched for Seery’s 
testimony.  Here, the prosecutor argued: “But I submit to you, and you judge his 
credibility and you look at what he knew, he is telling the truth.”  The trial court 
sustained a defense objection to these comments and instructed the jury to 
“disregard the Prosecutor’s indication that he believes that he was telling the 
truth.”  Thus, the trial court’s instructions cured the effect of any improper 
vouching.  See State v. Garner (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 59, 656 N.E.2d 623 
(jury is presumed to follow the trial court’s curative instructions). 
{¶ 169} In addition, Lang recasts several of his objections in proposition 
VIII into claims of prosecutorial misconduct.  Lang claims prosecutorial 
misconduct in introducing: (1) testimony that Lang frequently wore red to suggest 
that he was a gang member, (2) Dittmore’s testimony that he was a member of the 
police department’s gang unit, (3) testimony that Lang’s nickname was “Tech” in 
an effort to associate him with guns, (4) Walker’s testimony that Lang vomited 
after the murders and said, “[E]very time I do this, this same thing happens,” (5) 
Lang’s statement that he may be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, and (6) 
Walker’s testimony about the make and model of the murder weapon.  But as 
discussed in proposition VIII, testimony that Lang frequently wore red constituted 
harmless error, and Lang’s opinion about his guilt of conspiracy was not 
prejudicial.  None of the other claims rise to the level of plain error. 
{¶ 170} Finally, Lang argues that the extensive prosecutorial misconduct 
during the guilt phase carried over into the jury’s penalty-phase deliberations.  We 
reject this argument because prejudicial misconduct did not occur. 
{¶ 171} Based on the foregoing, proposition IX is overruled. 
{¶ 172} Ineffective assistance of counsel.  In proposition of law X, Lang 
asserts the ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt-phase proceeding.  
Reversal of a conviction based on ineffective assistance requires that the 
defendant show first that counsel’s performance was deficient, and second that the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
38 
 
deficient performance prejudiced the defendant so as to deprive the defendant of a 
fair trial.  Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 
L.Ed.2d 674.  Accord State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 
373, paragraph two of the syllabus. 
{¶ 173} First, Lang argues that his counsel were ineffective by failing to 
forcefully challenge the state’s DNA evidence.  However, the record belies this 
claim.  During cross-examination, defense counsel elicited from Michele Foster, 
the state’s DNA expert, that there was such a small amount of DNA obtained 
from the handgun that the DNA profile could not be entered into the CODIS data 
base.  Counsel also elicited from Foster, “[W]hen we say to a reasonable degree 
of scientific certainty this person is a source, that statistic has to be more than 1 in 
280 billion.” 
{¶ 174} Lang also argues that defense counsel should have moved to 
suppress the DNA evidence under Evid.R. 401 through 403 (relevant evidence).  
As discussed in proposition II, the state’s DNA evidence was relevant because it 
tended to connect Lang to the handgun used to kill the victims.  In addition, the 
trial court could have determined that the admission of the DNA evidence 
outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading 
the jury.  Thus, this ineffectiveness claim also lacks merit. 
{¶ 175} Next, Lang argues that his counsel were ineffective by conceding 
that the DNA found on the handgun matched his DNA.  During closing argument, 
his counsel stated: 
{¶ 176} “The gun.  I was interested in noting how Mr. Barr misstated the 
facts.  He said Eddie Lang’s DNA is on the gun. 
{¶ 177} “That’s not what I heard.  I think the Crime Lab people said that 
he can’t be excluded.  I think that’s what they said.  I don’t think they said it is 
conclusive. 
January Term, 2011 
39 
 
{¶ 178} “Plus, there was some minor DNA that they couldn’t identify 
whose DNA it was.  But maybe I am wrong.  Maybe they did say that.  It is 
conclusively Eddie Lang’s DNA.  Maybe that’s true.”  (Emphasis added.)   
{¶ 179} Counsel’s argument was a poor attempt to rectify his previous 
misstatements about the DNA evidence.  But Lang contends that defense 
counsel’s concession was unduly prejudicial because there was no conclusive 
proof that his DNA was found on the handgun.  Even assuming that counsel’s 
approach was deficient, Lang fails to establish prejudice under the Strickland test.  
Evidence that Lang’s DNA might be on the handgun was not surprising because 
the handgun was his.  Moreover, such evidence was not crucial to the outcome of 
the defense case.  Lang’s defense was that he gave Walker his handgun, and 
Walker shot the victims.  Thus, testimony that Walker’s DNA was not found on 
the handgun was the key evidence, and testimony about Lang’s DNA was not.  
This ineffectiveness claim is rejected. 
{¶ 180} Second, Lang argues that counsel were ineffective during his final 
argument by comparing the jury to a lynch mob.  During final argument, trial 
counsel stated: 
{¶ 181} “A lynch mob is made up of the same people that make up a jury.  
They are citizens of the community, employers, employees, taxpayers, voters, 
they are the same people. 
{¶ 182} “So what separates them?  One thing separates a lynch mob from 
a jury and one thing only.  That’s your oath of office. 
{¶ 183} “* * * 
{¶ 184} “They (a lynch mob) are not interested in evidence.  They are not 
interested in the fact that there is no forensic evidence linking Eddie Lang to 
either one of those murders.  They are not interested in that. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
40 
 
{¶ 185} “A jury is.  A jury is interested, and they want to know of four 
people in that vehicle on October 22, why do you run tests on three of them and 
not the guy that got the deal? 
{¶ 186} “Why run tests on Jaron Burditte’s clothes?  Why run tests on 
Marnell Cheek’s clothes?  Why run tests on Eddie Lang’s clothes, and stop, come 
to a halt with Antonio Walker’s clothes?  Why? 
{¶ 187} “A jury, not a lynch mob, would be interested in that.  They are 
made up of the same people. 
{¶ 188} “Now, just because a jury takes an oath of office does not mean 
that they have to act like a jury.  They can go in the jury room, close the jury door, 
hey, let’s flip a coin.  So guilty, let’s go.  Okay.  Jury has spoken. 
{¶ 189} “But the problem is violence was done to not only the Defendant 
but beyond that.  Violence was done to the system.  If I am indicted, if the Court 
is indicted, Prosecutor is indicted, if Mr. Koukoutas is indicted, even if one of 
those Deputies are indicted, the only safeguard we have is the oath of office. 
{¶ 190} “Life will go on for everybody in this courtroom.  If you act like a 
jury or if you act like a lynch mob.” 
{¶ 191} Lang argues that trial counsel lost credibility and alienated the 
jury when he made his lynch-mob argument.  Lang contends that the jury may 
have perceived counsel’s lynch-mob comparison as an attempt to play the race 
card, particularly because an African-American counsel made the argument on 
behalf of an African-American defendant. 
{¶ 192} Counsel for both sides are afforded wide latitude during closing 
arguments.  State v. Brown (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 305, 317, 528 N.E.2d 523.  
Debatable trial tactics generally do not constitute a deprivation of effective 
counsel.  State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio St.3d at 85, 656 N.E.2d 643.  Trial counsel’s 
lynch-mob argument focused the jury’s attention on their oath and obligation as 
jurors.  Counsel’s argument also highlighted the lack of forensic testing conducted 
January Term, 2011 
41 
 
on Walker’s clothing.  Lang’s claim that counsel’s argument alienated the jury by 
presenting the imagery of racist brutality is speculative.  Thus, counsel’s decision 
to make this argument was a “tactical” decision and did not rise to the level of 
ineffective assistance.  See Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d at 144, 538 N.E.2d 373. 
{¶ 193} Third, Lang argues that his counsel were ineffective by failing to 
hire a forensic expert to conduct independent testing of Walker’s clothing to 
obtain evidence to support his claim that Walker was the principal offender. 
{¶ 194} The police seized Walker’s shoes and the hooded sweatshirt he 
was wearing on the night of the murders, but not his pants.  Foster examined 
Walker’s shoes and hooded sweatshirt and found no blood or trace evidence.  
Gunshot residue tests were not conducted on these clothes because the state never 
requested it. 
{¶ 195} Lang argues that defense counsel were ineffective by failing to 
secure a forensic expert to test the pants that Walker was wearing on the night of 
the murders for bloodstains and gunshot residue.  However, counsel could not 
make such a request because the police never seized his pants.  Thus, this 
ineffectiveness claim lacks merit. 
{¶ 196} As for the other clothing, counsels’ failure to pursue independent 
testing of them appears to have been a tactical decision.  See State v. Hartman 
(2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 274, 299, 754 N.E.2d 1150.  Moreover, defense counsel 
used the state’s failure to conduct testing of Walker’s clothing during closing 
arguments as a reason for finding him not guilty.  Finally, resolving this issue in 
Lang’s favor would be speculative.  “Nothing in the record indicates what kind of 
testimony an * * * expert could have provided.  Establishing that would require 
proof outside the record, such as affidavits demonstrating the probable testimony.  
Such a claim is not appropriately considered on a direct appeal.”  State v. 
Madrigal (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 378, 390-391, 721 N.E.2d 52. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
42 
 
{¶ 197} Fourth, Lang argues that his counsel were unprepared to 
effectively cross-examine Dr. Murthy, the coroner.  During cross-examination of 
Dr. Murthy, defense counsel asked about finding a firearm: 
{¶ 198} “Q: Okay.  When you examined the body of Jaron Burditte, you 
took a firearm off of that body, didn’t you? 
{¶ 199} “Mr. Scott (prosecutor):  Objection. 
{¶ 200} “Mr. Beane (trial counsel):  It is in his report, Your Honor. 
{¶ 201} “Mr. Barr (prosecutor):  Where? 
{¶ 202} “The Court:  Let’s find it in the report. 
{¶ 203} “Mr. Beane:  On the bottom, weapon, firearm. 
{¶ 204} “Mr. Barr:  No, no, that is the cause. 
{¶ 205} “The Court:  You can ask the question. 
{¶ 206} “Q: The weapon down is firearm.  That is the cause of death, not 
the fact that that is on him?   
{¶ 207} “* * * 
{¶ 208} “A: Yes, yes. 
{¶ 209} “Q: Thank you. 
{¶ 210} “The Court:  So that the jury understands, in looking at the report, 
it was not on the person.  It was just indicated that that was the cause of death.” 
{¶ 211} Lang contends that trial counsel’s questioning showed that his 
counsel were unprepared and diminished their credibility with the jury.  These 
claims are speculative.  Moreover, counsel’s mistake was quickly corrected to 
ensure that the jury was not misled.  Thus, counsel’s misstep made no difference 
in the outcome of the case. 
{¶ 212} Fifth, Lang argues that his counsel were ineffective by failing to 
challenge the chain of custody of the handgun seized from the defendant’s 
vehicle.  Lang does not assert that there was an actual problem with the chain of 
January Term, 2011 
43 
 
custody.  Rather, he contends that the state failed to establish the chain of custody 
for the gun between the time it was seized and when it was taken to the lab. 
{¶ 213} Counsels’ action appears to have been a tactical decision.  
Nothing in the record indicates that there was a problem with the chain of 
custody.  Moreover, Sergeant Gabbard testified that the handgun was collected 
and forwarded to the Stark County Crime Lab.  Given the “strong presumption” 
that counsel’s performance constituted reasonable assistance, this claim is 
rejected.  State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d at 144, 538 N.E.2d 373. 
{¶ 214} Sixth, Lang argues that his counsel were ineffective by failing to 
request the court to seal the prosecutor’s file for appellate purposes.  Lang 
contends that sealing was necessary to ensure the complete disclosure of 
exculpatory evidence as required by Brady v. Maryland (1963), 373 U.S. 83, 87, 
83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215.  But the court was not required to seal the 
prosecutor’s file based on speculation that the prosecutor might have withheld 
exculpatory evidence.  State v. Frazier, 115 Ohio St.3d 139, 2007-Ohio-5048, 873 
N.E.2d 1263, ¶ 123.  Moreover, we denied a defense motion to seal the 
prosecutor’s file that was filed with this court.  State v. Lang, 118 Ohio St.3d 
1469, 2008-Ohio-3153, 889 N.E.2d 545.  Thus, this claim is also rejected. 
{¶ 215} As a final matter, Lang raises other alleged acts of ineffective 
assistance of counsel, but even if we assume deficient performance by counsel, 
none prejudiced him.  Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 
80 L.Ed.2d 674.  As discussed in other propositions of law, Lang was not 
prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to object to the indictment (III), the 
instructions on the R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) specifications (IV), Walker’s prior 
consistent statement (VII), gruesome photographs (VIII), prosecutorial 
misconduct (IX), or the failure to request the individual voir dire of jurors about 
their possible discussions with juror No. 386 (I). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
44 
 
{¶ 216} Furthermore, Lang was not prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to 
object to testimony that his nickname was “Tech,” or that Lang vomited and said, 
“every time I do this, this same thing happens,” or Walker’s testimony about the 
identity of the handgun (VIII).  Lang also suffered no prejudice from counsel’s 
failure to object to Dittmore’s testimony that he was employed by the police 
department’s gang unit, or his testimony about the selling practices of drug 
dealers (VIII). 
{¶ 217} Based on the foregoing, we overrule proposition X. 
{¶ 218} Sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence.  In proposition of 
law V, Lang challenges both the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence 
to convict him as the principal offender of the aggravated murders as charged in 
Specification Three of Counts One and Two. 
{¶ 219} A claim raising the sufficiency of the evidence invokes a due 
process concern and raises the question of whether the evidence is legally 
sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law.  State v. Thompkins 
(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541.  In reviewing such a challenge, 
“[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most 
favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the 
essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”  State v. Jenks 
(1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492, paragraph two of the syllabus, 
following Jackson v. Virginia (1979), 433 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 
560. 
{¶ 220} A claim that a jury verdict is against the manifest weight of the 
evidence involves a different test.  “ ‘The court, reviewing the entire record, 
weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of 
witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury 
clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the 
conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.  The discretionary power to 
January Term, 2011 
45 
 
grant a new trial should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which the 
evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.’ ”  Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 
387, 678 N.E.3d 541, quoting State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 
20 OBR 215, 485 N.E.2d 717. 
{¶ 221} Lang’s sufficiency claims lack merit.  Walker’s and Seery’s 
testimony, evidence that the murder weapon was found in Lang’s possession, and 
DNA evidence sufficiently established Lang’s guilt as the principal offender.  The 
evidence showed that on the night of October 22, 2006, Lang and Walker agreed 
to rob a drug dealer.  Lang suggested that they rob Burditte.  Their plan was to 
meet Burditte, enter his car, and rob him.  Lang then called Burditte and arranged 
a meeting to purchase crack cocaine from him that evening. 
{¶ 222} Lang and Walker went to the meeting location later that night.  
Lang carried a 9 mm handgun and loaded it while they waited for Burditte to 
arrive.  Shortly thereafter, Burditte and Cheek arrived.  According to Walker, 
Lang got into the backseat of their vehicle and shot Burditte and Cheek in the 
backs of their heads. 
{¶ 223} On the following day, Lang went to Seery’s house and admitted to 
him that he had shot the victims.  When the police later arrested Lang, they found 
a 9 mm handgun in the backseat of the car that he was driving.  Forensic 
examination of the handgun identified it as the murder weapon.  Additionally, 
Foster testified that Lang could not be excluded as a possible source of DNA that 
was found on the handgun. 
{¶ 224} Nevertheless, Lang argues that the evidence is insufficient to 
convict him.  Lang asserts that Walker’s testimony was not credible because he 
accepted a plea deal in exchange for his testimony against him.  He also argues 
that Seery’s testimony should be discounted because Seery had initially told 
police that he did not know anything about the killings.  But these claims call for 
an evaluation of Walker’s and Seery’s credibility, which is not proper on review 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
46 
 
of evidentiary sufficiency.  State v. Drummond, 111 Ohio St.3d 14, 2006-Ohio-
5084, 854 N.E.2d 1038, ¶ 200. 
{¶ 225} Lang also argues that none of his clothing was found with blood 
or gunshot residue, and Walker’s clothing was untested.  But Foster testified that 
she examined Walker’s hooded sweatshirt and shoes and found no blood or other 
trace evidence linking Walker to the murders. 
{¶ 226} Finally, Lang argues that none of the scientific evidence 
established that he was the principal offender.  This argument overlooks evidence 
tending to show that Lang’s DNA was found on the handgun, and Walker’s DNA 
was not.  However, Lang continues to argue that the DNA evidence was 
unreliable, because testing did not establish that his DNA was found on the 
handgun to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.  As discussed in 
proposition II, questions about the certainty of the DNA results went to the weight 
of the evidence and not its admissibility. 
{¶ 227} Despite some discrepancies, the jury accepted the testimony of the 
state’s witnesses.  Furthermore, a review of the entire record shows that the 
testimony was neither inherently unreliable nor unbelievable.  Therefore, witness 
testimony, circumstantial evidence, and forensic evidence provided sufficient 
evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lang was guilty of the R.C. 
2929.04(A)(7) specifications. 
{¶ 228} Although Lang does not raise the point, we note that Foster 
provided conflicting testimony about the DNA evidence found on the handgun.  
Foster testified that Lang could not be excluded as a possible “minor” source of 
DNA.  Foster then testified that the chance of finding the “major” DNA profile 
that was found on the pistol is 1 in 3,461.  Foster also testified that there was a 
minor contributor to the DNA, but “[t]here wasn’t enough there of that second 
person * * * to compare to anyone * * * [and] we couldn’t say anything about that 
minor person that was present.”  Thus, Foster’s testimony that there was 
January Term, 2011 
47 
 
insufficient DNA to identify the minor contributor is inconsistent with her 
testimony that Lang could not be excluded as a possible “minor” source of the 
DNA that was found. 
{¶ 229} It is apparent from the context of Foster’s testimony that she 
misspoke about Lang’s DNA.  It appears that Foster meant to say that Lang could 
not be excluded as a possible “major” source rather than a “minor” source of 
DNA found on the handgun. 
{¶ 230} Even discounting Foster’s testimony, sufficient evidence was 
presented to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lang is guilty of the 
aggravated murders as the principal offender.  Walker’s and Seery’s testimony 
established that Lang was the principal offender.  The murder weapon belonged to 
Lang, and the police found it in the back of the car that Lang was driving.  
Moreover, the presence of Lang’s DNA on the handgun was not crucial to the 
state’s case, because it was Lang’s handgun, and his DNA could be expected to be 
found on it.  Accordingly, the jury could have found Lang guilty of Specification 
Three of Counts One and Two without the DNA testimony. 
{¶ 231} With respect to Lang’s manifest-weight challenges, this is not an 
“‘exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.’ ” 
Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387, 678 N.E.2d 541, quoting Martin, 20 Ohio 
App.3d at 175, 20 OBR 215, 485 N.E.2d 717.  Lang’s challenge to the credibility 
of Walker’s and Seery’s testimony is unpersuasive.  Thus, the jury neither lost its 
way nor created a manifest miscarriage of justice in convicting Lang of 
Specification 3 of Counts One and Two. 
{¶ 232} Based on the foregoing, we overrule proposition V. 
Penalty-phase issues 
{¶ 233} Victim-impact testimony and readmission of guilt-phase evidence.  
In proposition of law XV, Lang argues that the trial court erred by admitting 
victim-impact testimony from the victims’ siblings in the mitigation phase of the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
48 
 
trial.  Lang also argues that the trial court erred in readmitting guilt-phase 
evidence during the penalty phase. 
{¶ 234} 1. Victim-impact testimony.  The trial court, over defense 
objection, allowed LaShonda Burditte, the sister of Jaron, and Rashu Jeffries, the 
brother of Cheek, to testify about the victims. 
{¶ 235} LaShonda briefly discussed Jaron’s early life, his schooling, his 
Navy enlistment, and his work record.  LaShonda testified that Jaron married and 
had two daughters.  She mentioned that Jaron was charged with possession of 
cocaine in 2005 and was sent to a halfway house, and he later lived with 
LaShonda.  She also testified that Jaron and Cheek met in June 2006, and Jaron 
was 32 years old when he was killed. 
{¶ 236} Rashu testified that Cheek was raised in Canton and was one of 
four children.  He stated that Cheek graduated from Canton’s McKinley High 
School and was the mascot for the band.  Rashu mentioned that Cheek married 
when she was 18 years old, and she had two children.  Rashu also discussed 
Cheek’s employment history and stated that she was 40 years old when she was 
killed. 
{¶ 237} Victim-impact 
testimony 
does 
not 
violate 
constitutional 
guarantees.  See Payne v. Tennessee (1991), 501 U.S. 808, 825, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 
115 L.Ed.2d 720.  This court has permitted victim-impact testimony in limited 
situations in capital cases where the testimony is not overly emotional or directed 
to the penalty to be imposed.  See State v. Hartman, 93 Ohio St.3d at 292, 754 
N.E.2d 1150.  In Hartman, the victim’s mother briefly discussed the victim’s 
early life, her schooling, her close-knit family, and the victim’s contact with her 
family after she moved from North Carolina to Ohio.  Id.  The witness also 
testified, “[I]t has been an extremely bad time for us and will be from now on.  
She’ll never leave our heart.”  Id. 
January Term, 2011 
49 
 
{¶ 238} As in Hartman, LaShonda’s and Rashu’s testimony was not 
overly emotional.  Both witnesses briefly summarized the victims’ lives, their 
schooling, their marriages and children, and their work history.  Neither witness 
mentioned the effect that the victim’s death had on their families.  Moreover, 
neither witness mentioned or recommended a possible sentence. 
{¶ 239} Lang cites State v. White (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 433, 446, 709 
N.E.2d 140, in arguing that the victim-impact testimony was improper.  White 
held that victim-impact testimony about the impact on victims of noncapital 
crimes in a capital murder case was improper.  Id. at 446-447.  Unlike in White, 
victim-impact testimony presented during Lang’s trial addressed only the impact 
on the victims of capital crimes.  Lang’s reliance on White is rejected.  Thus, the 
trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the limited victim-impact 
testimony. 
{¶ 240} 2. Readmission of guilt-phase evidence.  At the start of the 
penalty phase, the trial court, over defense objection, readmitted the handgun and 
the swab of the grip, trigger, and slide area of the handgun, Lang’s police 
statement, two spent cartridges, one spent bullet, a photograph of the victims as 
they were found in the Durango, and the coroner’s photographs and autopsy 
reports. 
{¶ 241} R.C. 2929.03(D)(1) provides that the prosecutor at the penalty 
stage of a capital proceeding may introduce “any evidence raised at trial that is 
relevant to the aggravating circumstances the offender was found guilty of 
committing.”  See State v. DePew, 38 Ohio St.3d 275, 528 N.E.2d 542, paragraph 
one of the syllabus.  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in readmitting this 
evidence because these items bore some relevance to the nature and 
circumstances surrounding the R.C. 2929.04(A)(5) and (A)(7) specifications. 
{¶ 242} Based on the foregoing, proposition XV is overruled. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
50 
 
{¶ 243} Instructions.  In proposition of law XIV, Lang argues that that the 
trial court’s improper instructions rendered the jury’s penalty-phase verdict 
unreliable. 
{¶ 244} 1. Instructions on mitigating factors.  During jury selection, the 
trial court advised the first group of prospective jurors, “If the State proved that 
the specific aggravating circumstance outweighed any of the mitigating factors, 
then you would have to, the law would require you to consider and to in fact order 
the death penalty.” (Emphasis added.) The trial court provided similar instructions 
to subsequent groups of prospective jurors. 
{¶ 245} Lang argues that the trial court’s failure to advise the prospective 
jurors that they must weigh the mitigating factors collectively was improper and 
prejudicial.  However, Lang’s failure to object to these instructions waived all but 
plain error.  Underwood, 3 Ohio St.3d 12, 3 OBR 360, 444 N.E.2d 1332, syllabus. 
{¶ 246} The trial court’s voir dire instructions were incorrect.  “The law 
requires that the mitigating factors be considered collectively, not individually.”  
State v. Fears (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 329, 345, 715 N.E.2d 136.  However, the 
trial court’s penalty-phase instructions properly advised the jurors of the correct 
standard for considering the mitigating factors.  “[T]he judge’s shorthand 
references to legal concepts during voir dire cannot be equated to final 
instructions given shortly before the jury’s penalty deliberations.”  State v. 
Stallings (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 280, 285, 731 N.E.2d 159.  Thus, the trial court’s 
penalty-phase instructions cured its earlier misstatements.  See State v. Ahmed, 
103 Ohio St.3d 27, 2004-Ohio-4190, 813 N.E.2d 637, ¶ 147.  No plain error 
occurred. 
{¶ 247} 2. Instructions on consideration of trial-phase evidence.  During 
penalty-phase instructions, the trial court advised the jury: 
{¶ 248} “Some of the evidence and testimony that you considered in the 
trial phase of this case may not be considered in this sentencing phase.  We went 
January Term, 2011 
51 
 
through the exhibits.  I’ve culled out only certain exhibits that will be with you in 
the jury room. 
{¶ 249} “For purposes of this proceeding, only that evidence admitted in 
the trial phase that is relevant to the aggravating circumstances and to any of the 
mitigating factors is to be considered by you.  You will also consider all of the 
evidence admitted during the sentencing phase.” 
{¶ 250} Lang argues that the instructions improperly allowed the jury to 
determine which trial-phase evidence was relevant to the aggravating 
circumstances during the penalty phase.  However, defense counsel failed to 
object to this instruction and waived all but plain error.  Underwood, 3 Ohio St.3d 
12, 3 OBR 360, 444 N.E.2d 1332, syllabus.  Neither plain error nor any other 
error occurred. 
{¶ 251} It is the trial court’s responsibility to determine what guilt-phase 
evidence is relevant in the penalty phase.  See State v. Getsy (1998), 84 Ohio 
St.3d 180, 201, 702 N.E.2d 866.  Here, the trial court’s instructions on relevancy 
limited the jury’s consideration of the guilt-phase evidence and testimony to the 
two aggravating circumstances and the mitigating factors.  The trial court’s 
instructions also made it clear that the jury would see only those guilt-phase 
exhibits that the trial judge admitted and deemed relevant.  Viewing the penalty-
phase instructions as a whole, we conclude that the trial court adequately guided 
the jury as to the evidence to consider in the penalty phase.  Proposition XIV is 
overruled. 
{¶ 252} Prosecutorial misconduct.  In proposition of law XII, Lang argues 
that the prosecutor committed misconduct during the penalty-phase proceedings.  
However, defense counsel’s failure to object waived all but plain error.  Childs, 
14 Ohio St.2d 56, 43 O.O.2d 119, 236 N.E.2d 545, paragraph three of the 
syllabus. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
52 
 
{¶ 253} First, Lang argues that the prosecutor misrepresented the evidence 
during final argument by stating, “We know now that Eddie was born in 
Baltimore, Maryland, that until the age of 10 life seemed to be pretty good.”  
(Emphasis added.) Lang argues that this argument mischaracterized the evidence 
because Yahnena Robinson, Lang’s half-sister, testified, “A lot of times my 
mother didn’t let him [Lang’s father] come” to see the defendant.  Lang argues 
that Robinson’s testimony shows that he did not have a good or normal childhood. 
{¶ 254} Other testimony supported the prosecutor’s argument.  Robinson 
also testified, “We had a typical brother sister relationship.  We would watch 
movies and play school, other things that an older sister do [sic] with a younger 
brother we shared and did” before Lang was ten.  Thus, the prosecutor’s argument 
represented fair comment.  No plain error occurred. 
{¶ 255} Second, Lang argues that the prosecutor misstated the evidence in 
arguing that the trauma he suffered while living with his father for two years was 
not supported by the evidence.  Robinson and Tracy Carter, Lang’s mother, 
testified about the trauma Lang suffered during the two years that he lived with 
his father and the counseling and psychiatric treatment that Lang received for this 
trauma after returning home. 
{¶ 256} During rebuttal argument, the prosecutor stated that the jury could 
discount testimony from Lang’s mother and sister about Lang’s trauma.  The 
prosecutor argued, “[I]t is all speculation as to what happened in that two-year 
period of time.  Nobody knows.  But they want you to speculate that bad things 
happened when there is absolutely no evidence of that.”  (Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 257} The prosecutor’s argument mischaracterized the evidence because 
Robinson’s and Carter’s testimony constituted evidence of what happened to 
Lang when he lived with his father.  Nevertheless, when viewed in its entirety, the 
prosecutor’s misstatement did not contribute unfairly to the death verdict and did 
January Term, 2011 
53 
 
not create outcome-determinative plain error.  See Bey, 85 Ohio St.3d at 497, 709 
N.E.2d 484. 
{¶ 258} Third, Lang argues that the prosecutor improperly faulted him for 
not taking his medications as a child.  Lang complains that the prosecutor argued, 
“And we know that his mother on numerous occasions sought help for Eddie, but 
Eddie didn’t take his medication.” 
{¶ 259} During final argument, the prosecutor mentioned Lang’s failure to 
take his medications while summarizing the mitigating testimony.  The 
prosecutor’s argument followed Carter’s testimony that Lang took medication for 
depression and other psychiatric or behavioral problems before and after he lived 
with his father.  But she also stated that Eddie “did not take it all the time.” 
{¶ 260} Lang contends that the prosecutor’s argument improperly 
criticized his struggle with mental health and turned a mitigating factor into an 
aggravating circumstance.  Review of the state’s argument in its entirety shows 
that the prosecutor’s argument about Lang’s medications was an isolated remark 
that did not convey the improper meaning that Lang suggests.  See State v. 
Braden, 98 Ohio St.3d 354, 2003-Ohio-1325, 785 N.E.2d 439, ¶ 89.  Indeed, 
isolated comments by a prosecutor are not to be taken out of context and given 
their most damaging meaning.  Donnelly v. DeChristoforo (1974), 416 U.S. 637, 
646-647, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431.  Moreover, the court’s instructions 
clearly described the aggravating circumstances that the jury was to consider 
during deliberations.  No plain error occurred. 
{¶ 261} Fourth, Lang argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by 
referring to him by the nickname “Tek” during the penalty-phase opening 
statements.  During the state’s opening statement, the prosecutor advised the 
jurors of the aggravating circumstances: “The first is that Eddie Lang, also known 
as Tek, committed the offense of * * *.”  The prosecutor repeated the reference to 
Lang’s nickname in advising the jury about the second aggravating circumstance.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
54 
 
The prosecutor also completed his opening statement by stating, “Based upon that 
I submit that * * * two sentences of death shall by [sic] pronounced against Eddie 
Lang, also known as Tek * * *.” 
{¶ 262} Lang argues that the prosecutor’s reference to his nickname was 
an improper attempt to associate him with gangs and violence.  As discussed in 
proposition VIII, no testimony was introduced explaining the meaning of Lang’s 
nickname.  Thus, Lang’s claim that the prosecutor was trying to paint him as a 
gang member is speculative.  Nevertheless, the prosecutor’s use of Lang’s 
nickname was unnecessary and may have been an attempt to impugn his 
character.  But the prosecutor did not repeat Lang’s nickname during the 
remainder of the penalty-phase proceedings.  Although error, the prosecutor’s 
brief remarks do not rise to the level of outcome-determinative plain error. 
{¶ 263} Fifth, Lang argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by 
improperly making a victim-impact comment during the state’s closing argument.  
Lang complains that the prosecutor argued, “We know that Eddie has a child just 
like Jaron and Marnell.”  Lang argues that the prosecutor’s comments about the 
victims’ children were made only to enhance the enormity of the crime.  In the 
alternative, Lang argues that the prosecutor’s statement about kids “just like Jaron 
and Marnell” presented the argument that the two victims had once been children 
too. 
{¶ 264} The prosecutor’s isolated remarks about the victims’ children 
were made while summing up the mitigating evidence.  “Merely mentioning the 
personal situation of the victim’s family, without more, does not constitute 
misconduct.”  State v. Goodwin (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 331, 339, 703 N.E.2d 1251.  
The prosecutor’s brief remarks did not result in plain error.  Moreover, Lang’s 
alternative argument is speculative and lacks merit. 
January Term, 2011 
55 
 
{¶ 265} Finally, Lang argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct 
during closing argument by arguing that the jurors should “render justice” and 
impose a sentence of death.  (Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 266} “There is nothing inherently erroneous in calling for justice * * 
*.”  State v. Evans (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 231, 240, 586 N.E.2d 1042.  The 
prosecutor’s argument was within the creative latitude afforded both parties in 
closing arguments.  See State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404, 2008-Ohio-2, 880 
N.E.2d 31, ¶ 311.  No plain error occurred. 
{¶ 267} Based on the foregoing, proposition XII is rejected. 
{¶ 268} Ineffective assistance of counsel.  In proposition of law XIII, Lang 
argues that his counsel provided ineffective assistance on multiple occasions 
during the penalty phase. 
{¶ 269} First, he argues that his counsel failed to offer evidence of 
Cheek’s involvement in Burditte’s criminal activities to show that Cheek 
“induced or facilitated” the offense. 
{¶ 270} Inducing or facilitating the offense is a statutory mitigating factor.  
See R.C. 2929.04(B)(1).  Lang argues that his counsel should have established the 
existence of this factor by presenting evidence showing that Cheek was Burditte’s 
girlfriend and knew that Burditte had planned to sell drugs on the night of the 
murders, because Burditte was found with a package of cocaine in his hand. 
{¶ 271} No evidence was presented showing that Cheek was involved 
with the drug sale on the night of the murders.  The fact that Cheek was sitting in 
the front seat with Burditte at the time of the drug sale is not sufficient to establish 
her involvement or show that she “induced or facilitated” the offense.  R.C. 
2929.04(B)(1); see State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d at 18, 679 N.E.2d 646.  
Moreover, Lang’s assertion that his counsel should have presented evidence of 
Cheek’s involvement in Burditte’s other criminal activities is not well founded 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
56 
 
because nothing shows that such evidence existed.  Thus, this is a speculative 
claim and it lacks merit. 
{¶ 272} Even if such evidence did exist, the presentation of testimony 
suggesting that Cheek induced or facilitated her own murder might have backfired 
on the defense.  The jury might have viewed trial counsel’s attempt to present 
such evidence as unnecessarily attacking Cheek’s character.  Thus, counsel were 
not ineffective by failing to offer evidence suggesting that Cheek induced or 
facilitated the offense. 
{¶ 273} Second, Lang argues that his counsel failed to fully investigate, 
prepare, and present mitigating evidence. 
{¶ 274} The presentation of mitigating evidence is a matter of “trial 
strategy.”  State v Keith, 79 Ohio St.3d at 530, 684 N.E.2d 47.  “ ‘Moreover, 
“strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to 
plausible options are virtually unchallengeable.” ’ ”  State v. Bryan, 101 Ohio 
St.3d 272, 2004-Ohio-971, 804 N.E.2d 433, ¶ 189, quoting Wiggins v. Smith 
(2003), 539 U.S. 510, 521, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471, quoting Strickland 
v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 690-691, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. 
{¶ 275} Lang claims that his counsel were deficient because they failed to 
collect and present his medical records, school records, police records, and social 
service records to corroborate the mitigation testimony of Carter and Robinson. 
{¶ 276} Defense counsel employed a mitigation expert, a psychologist, 
and a criminal investigator in preparing for trial.  Each of these individuals began 
working on Lang’s case several months before the penalty phase.  The defense 
also requested records about Lang from the Department of Social Services in 
Baltimore, Maryland, which was Lang’s childhood home.  Thus, the record shows 
that defense counsel thoroughly prepared for the penalty phase of the trial. 
{¶ 277} The record does not show why this documentary evidence was not 
introduced into evidence.  But Carter and Robinson provided lengthy testimony 
January Term, 2011 
57 
 
about Lang’s background, his father’s abuse, and the mental-health problems 
Lang suffered before and after living with his father for two years.  Counsel’s 
decision to rely solely on Carter’s and Robinson’s testimony constituted a tactical 
choice and not ineffective assistance of counsel.  See State v. Hand, 107 Ohio 
St.3d 378, 2006-Ohio-18, 840 N.E.2d 151, ¶ 241. 
{¶ 278} Additionally, Lang claims that his counsel failed to present a 
psychologist as a witness to explain the impact of his childhood abuse, abduction 
by his father, and the failure to take medications.  Dr. Jeffrey Smalldon, a clinical 
psychologist employed by the defense, interviewed and performed psychological 
testing on Lang and also interviewed Lang’s mother and half-sister.  Lang’s claim 
that Dr. Smalldon would have provided important mitigating evidence on his 
behalf is speculative at best, and counsel’s decision not to call Dr. Smalldon as a 
witness was a tactical choice as part of a trial strategy. 
{¶ 279} Third, Lang argues that his counsel misrepresented the evidence 
during closing argument by telling the jury, “You learned that [Lang] had 
siblings, that * * * like the prosecutor said, pretty normal childhood up until he 
was ten.”  (Emphasis added.) Lang argues that counsel’s argument misrepresented 
the evidence about his childhood and was prejudicial. 
{¶ 280} Defense counsel’s argument did not misrepresent the evidence.  
Carter testified that Lang did not meet his abusive father until he was 10 years 
old. As discussed in proposition XII, Robinson also testified that before Lang was 
ten years old, they “had a typical brother sister relationship.” 
{¶ 281} Counsel’s argument also maintained defense credibility and 
allowed the defense to focus the jury’s attention on defense counsel’s argument 
that addressed Lang’s abuse after his father abducted him.  Thus, counsel’s 
characterization of Lang’s early childhood did not result in ineffective assistance 
of counsel.  See State v. Jones (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 335, 356-357, 744 N.E.2d 
1163. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
58 
 
{¶ 282} Fourth, Lang argues that his counsel were ineffective by failing to 
present evidence to the jury that they promised to present during the opening 
statements. 
{¶ 283} First, Lang claims that his counsel broke his promise to present 
evidence showing that he grew up in “one of the most dangerous” neighborhoods 
in Baltimore.  However, counsel did not make a direct promise that he would 
present such evidence.  Rather, trial counsel told the jury, “[Y]ou will probably 
hear the neighborhood is now known as one of the most dangerous ones in the 
State of Maryland.”  (Emphasis added.) Thus, Lang has failed to show that his 
counsel broke such a promise to the jury. 
{¶ 284} Second, Lang argues that his counsel broke a promise to present 
testimony that he suffered from thoughts of suicide.  During opening statements, 
defense counsel stated that Lang was a “different person” after he returned home 
following his abduction.  Counsel also stated, “You’ll hear about Eddie’s thoughts 
of suicide.” 
{¶ 285} Defense counsel presented no evidence during the mitigation case 
that Lang had considered suicide.  Thus, counsel were deficient in failing to keep 
this promise.  But Lang has not established that this deficiency was prejudicial.  
See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674.  
He merely speculates that such an omission caused the defense to lose credibility 
and weakened the overall defense case.  Accordingly, this claim is rejected. 
{¶ 286} Fifth, Lang argues that counsel were ineffective by failing to 
object to prosecutorial misconduct, instructions, and rulings of the trial court.  But 
none of these claims has any merit.  As discussed in other propositions, counsel 
were not ineffective by failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct (proposition 
XII) or the definition of reasonable doubt (proposition XX).  Counsel were also 
not ineffective by failing to object to the trial court’s instructions on the 
January Term, 2011 
59 
 
consideration of trial-phase evidence during the penalty phase (proposition XIV) 
or the imposition of court costs (proposition XIX). 
{¶ 287} Finally, Lang argues that the cumulative effect of counsel’s errors 
and omissions resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel.  However, the record 
shows that Lang received a fair trial, and any error was nonprejudicial. 
{¶ 288} Based on the foregoing, proposition XIII is rejected. 
{¶ 289} Arbitrary sentencing.  In proposition of law XI, Lang argues that 
his death sentence for Cheek’s murder should be vacated because the jury’s 
sentencing recommendations — life for Burditte’s murder (Count One) and death 
for Cheek’s murder (Count Two) — are arbitrary.  Lang contends that the 
disparity in sentencing occurred because Burditte was a drug dealer and Cheek 
was not.  Consequently, Lang argues, the jury improperly considered the victim’s 
status as an aggravating circumstance in reaching its death verdict. 
{¶ 290} We reject Lang’s argument.  The jury verdicts are not 
inconsistent.  The jury was required to “consider, and weigh against the 
aggravating circumstances proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the nature and 
circumstances of the offense.”  R.C. 2929.04(B); see Wogenstahl, 75 Ohio St.3d 
at 355, 662 N.E.2d 311.  Here, the nature and circumstances of the offense 
showed that Burditte was involved in selling illegal drugs to Lang at the time of 
his murder.  There was no evidence showing that Cheek was involved.  In 
weighing the nature and circumstances of the offense, the jurors might have 
determined that Burditte’s murder was mitigated because of Burditte’s 
involvement in the events leading up to his murder.  On the other hand, the jury 
might have decided that Lang’s murder of Cheek was not mitigated at all.  See 
State v. Gapen, 104 Ohio St.3d 358, 2004-Ohio-6548, 819 N.E.2d 1047, ¶ 139. 
{¶ 291} Moreover, it is not for an appellate court to speculate about why a 
jury decided as it did.  State v. Lovejoy (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 440, 445, 683 
N.E.2d 1112.  “ ‘Courts have always resisted inquiring into a jury’s thought 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
60 
 
processes * * *; through this deference the jury brings to the criminal process, in 
addition to the collective judgment of the community, an element of needed 
finality.’ ” Id., quoting United States v. Powell (1984), 469 U.S. 57, 66-67, 105 
S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461. 
{¶ 292} Additionally, we reject Lang’s claim that the jurors improperly 
considered Burditte’s status as a drug dealer as an aggravating circumstance.  The 
trial court properly instructed the jury on the aggravating circumstances that they 
could consider during their deliberations.  The trial court’s instructions included 
the admonition, “The aggravated murder itself is not an aggravating circumstance.  
You may only consider the aggravating circumstances that were just described to 
you and which accompanied the aggravated murder.”  It is presumed that the jury 
followed the trial court’s instructions.  See, e.g., State v. Cunningham, 105 Ohio 
St.3d 197, 2004-Ohio-7007, 824 N.E.2d 504, ¶ 90.  Based on the foregoing, we 
overrule proposition XI. 
Remaining issues 
{¶ 293} Settled issues.  In proposition of law XX, Lang challenges the 
constitutionality of the instructions on reasonable doubt during both phases of the 
trial.  However, we have already affirmed the constitutionality of the “reasonable 
doubt” definition provided by R.C. 2901.05.  See State v. Jones (2000), 91 Ohio 
St.3d 335,  347, 744 N.E.2d 1163. 
{¶ 294} In proposition of law XXI, Lang attacks the constitutionality of 
Ohio’s death-penalty statutes.  This claim is summarily rejected.  See State v. 
Carter (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 593, 607, 734 N.E.2d 345; State v. Jenkins (1984), 
15 Ohio St.3d 164, 15 OBR 311, 473 N.E.2d 264, paragraph one of the syllabus. 
{¶ 295} Lang also argues that Ohio’s death-penalty statutes violate 
international law and agreements to which the United States is a party.  We also 
reject this argument.  See State v. Issa (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 49, 69, 752 N.E.2d 
904; State v. Bey, 85 Ohio St.3d at 502; 709 N.E.2d 484. 
January Term, 2011 
61 
 
{¶ 296} Sentencing opinion.  In proposition of law XVII, Lang asserts that 
there are numerous flaws in the trial court’s sentencing opinion. 
{¶ 297} First, Lang argues that the trial court improperly concluded that 
Cheek was not involved in the drug deal.  In summarizing the evidence, the trial 
court stated, “[T]here is no evidence to suggest that Marnell Cheek was a 
participant in the drug transaction.  All evidence points to the fact that she was a 
person riding in the vehicle at the wrong place and at the wrong time.”  The trial 
court’s conclusion represented a fair assessment of the evidence.  Thus, there was 
no error. 
{¶ 298} Second, Lang contends that the court erroneously sentenced him 
to death because nothing in the record supports imposing the death sentence for 
Cheek’s murder and a life sentence for Burditte’s murder.  The court’s sentencing 
opinion analyzed the aggravating circumstances, identified the mitigating factors 
found to exist, and fully explained why the aggravating circumstances outweighed 
the mitigating factors as R.C. 2929.03(F) requires.  But the trial court was not 
required to address the propriety of Lang’s death sentence in view of the life 
sentence that Lang received for Burditte’s murder.  Moreover, our independent 
review of the sentence will cure any flaws in the trial court’s opinion.  State v. 
Fox (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 183, 191, 631 N.E.2d 124. 
{¶ 299} Third, Lang argues that the trial court did not properly consider 
his youth as a mitigating factor and erroneously concluded that “his conduct and 
taped statement show a street-hard individual.”  The “assessment and weight to be 
given mitigating evidence are matters for the trial court’s determination.”  State v. 
Lott (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 171, 555 N.E.2d 293.  Here, the trial court 
identified Lang’s youth (he was 19 at the time of the offense) as his strongest 
mitigating factor and fully discussed the weight it was giving to this mitigation.  
The trial court could reasonably assign minimal weight to this evidence.  See 
State v. Hanna, 95 Ohio St.3d 285, 2002-Ohio-2221, 767 N.E.2d 678, ¶ 103. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
62 
 
{¶ 300} Fourth, Lang claims that the trial court improperly considered the 
nature and circumstances of the offense even though the defense never raised it as 
a mitigating factor.  Lang also argues that the trial court’s finding that there was 
nothing mitigating in the nature and circumstances of the offense transformed 
them into an aggravating factor. 
{¶ 301} The trial court did not err in considering the nature and 
circumstances of the offense.  R.C. 2929.04(B) provides that the court, in 
determining whether death is an appropriate penalty, “shall consider, and weigh 
against the aggravating circumstances proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the 
nature and circumstances of the offense * * *.”  (Emphasis added.)  Accordingly, 
the trial court was required to review these factors.  See State v. Steffen (1987), 31 
Ohio St.3d 111, 116-117, 31 OBR 273, 509 N.E.2d 383.  Nothing, however, in 
the sentencing opinion indicates that the trial court viewed the nature and 
circumstances of the offense as an aggravating circumstance rather than a 
mitigating factor. 
{¶ 302} Finally, Lang argues that the trial court trivialized mitigating 
evidence about his history, character, and background.  Lang claims that the trial 
court glossed over testimony about his father’s abusive relationship with his 
mother, failed to fully consider the mental and psychological abuse he suffered 
after being abducted by his father, and faulted him for not always taking his 
medications. 
{¶ 303} Nothing in the sentencing opinion indicates that the trial court 
trivialized or glossed over mitigating evidence. The trial court thoroughly 
discussed mitigating evidence about his father’s abuse, mentioned that Lang was 
treated at various psychiatric facilities on over 30 occasions, and properly 
summarized evidence that Lang did not always take his medications.  The trial 
court also stated that it had “weighed all of the evidence presented as it relates to 
Mr. Lang’s history, character, and background.”  Thus, this claim also lacks merit. 
January Term, 2011 
63 
 
{¶ 304} Based on the foregoing, proposition XVII is overruled. 
{¶ 305} Imposition of court costs.  The trial court assessed Lang with 
court costs.  In proposition of law XIX, Lang argues that the trial court’s 
imposition of court costs on him, an indigent defendant, “violates the spirit of the 
Eighth Amendment.”  But Lang’s failure to object has waived this issue.  See 
State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277, 2006-Ohio-905, 843 N.E.2d 164, ¶ 23 
(motion to waive costs must be made at time of sentencing to preserve issue for 
appeal). 
{¶ 306} Costs may be assessed against and collected from indigent 
defendants.  State v. White, 103 Ohio St.3d 580, 2004-Ohio-5989, 817 N.E.2d 
393, paragraphs one and two of the syllabus.  Lang cites no authority for his 
“spirit-of-the-Eighth-Amendment” claim.  Thus, no plain error occurred.  See 
State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118, 2008-Ohio-3426, 892 N.E.2d 864, ¶ 245 
(upholding imposition of costs on convicted capital defendant).  Proposition XIX 
is rejected. 
{¶ 307} Errors in imposition of postrelease control.  In proposition of law 
XXII, Lang argues that the trial court failed to properly impose postrelease 
control on him as part of his sentence for the aggravated robbery. 
{¶ 308} Based upon his conviction for aggravated robbery, a first-degree 
felony, R.C. 2911.01(C), the trial court imposed five years of postrelease control.  
See R.C. 2967.28(B)(1).  However, the trial court failed to specify that if Lang 
violated his supervision or a condition of postrelease control, the parole board 
could impose a maximum prison term of up to one-half of the prison term 
originally imposed.  See R.C. 2929.19(B)(3)(e).  The trial court’s judgment entry 
also failed to properly state the length of confinement that could be imposed for a 
violation of postrelease control. 
{¶ 309} Because the trial court failed to properly impose postrelease 
control, we remand this case so that the trial court may impose the proper terms of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
64 
 
postrelease control and correct the judgment entry.  See State v. Ketterer, 126 
Ohio St.3d 448, 2010-Ohio-3831, 935 N.E.2d 9, ¶ 77-79; State v. Fry, 125 Ohio 
St.3d 163, 2010-Ohio-1017, 926 N.E.2d 1239, ¶ 214.  The trial court should 
follow the procedures set forth in R.C. 2929.191(C) because Lang’s sentencing 
occurred after July 11, 2006.  See State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173, 2009-
Ohio-6434, 920 N.E.2d 958, paragraph two of the syllabus. 
{¶ 310} Cumulative error.  In proposition of law XVIII, Lang argues that 
cumulative errors during both phases of the proceedings deprived him of a fair 
trial.  However, Lang was not prejudiced by any error at his trial.  Thus, 
proposition XVIII is rejected. 
{¶ 311} Appropriateness of death sentence.  In proposition of law XVI, 
Lang argues that the death penalty is not appropriate because of the compelling 
mitigating evidence presented in his behalf.  These arguments will be addressed 
during our independent sentence evaluation. 
INDEPENDENT SENTENCE EVALUATION 
{¶ 312} Having completed our review of Lang’s propositions of law, we 
are required by R.C. 2929.05(A) to independently review Lang’s death sentence 
for appropriateness and proportionality. 
{¶ 313} Aggravating circumstances.  The evidence at trial established 
beyond a reasonable doubt that Lang murdered Marnell Cheek as part of a course 
of conduct involving the purposeful killing of two or more people, R.C. 
2929.04(A)(5).  The evidence also established beyond a reasonable doubt that 
Lang murdered Cheek during an aggravated robbery and that he was the principal 
offender in the commission of the aggravated murder, R.C. 2929.04(A)(7). 
{¶ 314} Mitigating evidence.  Against these aggravating circumstances, 
we are called upon to weigh the mitigating factors contained in R.C. 2929.04(B).  
Lang presented two mitigating witnesses. 
January Term, 2011 
65 
 
{¶ 315} Yahnena Robinson, the defendant’s half-sister, had a close 
relationship with Lang before he was 10 years old.  She described it as a “typical 
brother sister relationship.”  Lang was also a “good student.” 
{¶ 316} Robinson testified that Lang’s father, Edward Lang Sr., abused 
their mother and was on drugs.  Their mother would not allow Edward to visit 
Lang very often because of “his history and his anger problems.” 
{¶ 317} After Lang graduated from elementary school, Lang visited his 
father in Delaware.  The visit was supposed to last for two weeks, but Edward did 
not allow the defendant to return home.  Two years later, their mother found the 
defendant and brought him home. 
{¶ 318} Lang was happy when he first came home, but later, his mood 
changed.  According to Robinson, “he would be sad sometimes, quiet * * * [and] 
other times he would look real hurt or be angry.”  Subsequently, Lang received 
counseling, went to a psychiatric facility, and spent time in a residential facility 
for his mental-health problems. 
{¶ 319} Robinson also testified that Lang has a two-year-old daughter 
whose name is Kanela Lang. 
{¶ 320} Tracy Carter, the defendant’s mother, testified that Lang is the 
third of her four children.  Carter met Edward Lang Sr. when he was her landlord.  
Carter did not have money to pay the rent, and she slept with him in exchange for 
lodging.  Carter and Edward then developed a relationship. 
{¶ 321} Carter stated that Edward became violently abusive when he was 
intoxicated and using drugs.  After Lang was born, Edward went to jail for 
stabbing Carter and setting her apartment on fire.  Edward was also incarcerated 
for child molestation. 
{¶ 322} Carter would not allow Lang to visit his father until a court order 
ordered her to do so.  Carter lived in Baltimore, Maryland, and Edward lived in 
Delaware.  When he was 10 years old, Lang went to see his father in Delaware for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
66 
 
a two-week visit.  However, Edward did not allow Lang to return home after the 
two weeks ended, and  Carter did not see her son for the next two years.  Carter 
made repeated attempts to find Lang in Delaware, but was unsuccessful.  Finally, 
Carter found Lang and brought him home. 
{¶ 323} Carter stated that her son was malnourished when she found him 
and was wearing the same clothing that he had been wearing when he left.  Lang 
also had a burn on his shoulder, a gash on his hand, and other bruises.  Lang told 
his mother that the burn was a cigarette burn. 
{¶ 324} Before he saw his father, Lang had been treated with Depakote, 
Lithium, and Risperdal for depression and other conditions.  Carter made sure that 
he took these medications on a regular basis.  However, Lang did not continue to 
take them when he was with his father, because Edward did not obtain refills for 
the prescriptions. 
{¶ 325} After returning home, Lang was withdrawn.  Lang told Carter that 
he was fine and did not want to talk to her about what had happened.  But Carter 
learned from her son, Mendez, that Edward had sexually abused Lang. 
{¶ 326} Lang has received extensive psychiatric and other treatment.  
Carter testified, “He stayed in the Bridges Program twice for 90 days.  He stayed 
at Woodburn Respiratory Treatment Center for a year.  And he stayed off and on 
at * * * [the] Sheppard Pratt Center [“a crisis center”] 28 times.” 
{¶ 327} Lang has one child, Kanela.  Carter states, “He has taken care of 
his daughter ever since the mother was pregnant.  * * * [There] was nothing that 
he wouldn’t do for her and for the baby.” 
{¶ 328} Lang did not finish high school.  He dropped out of the 11th grade 
and “went to take care of his baby’s mother.”  Lang got a job working for the 
census department.  In June 2006, Lang moved to Canton. 
January Term, 2011 
67 
 
{¶ 329} As a final matter, Carter told the jury, “We all are suffering.  * * * 
I never sat here and said my son was a perfect child.  I never sat here and said that 
my child had a good life or a bad life.  But I am asking you not to kill my child.” 
Sentence evaluation 
{¶ 330} We find nothing mitigating in the nature and circumstances of the 
offense.  Lang brutally murdered Marnell Cheek during an attempted robbery of 
Jaron Burditte, a drug dealer.  Cheek’s murder was part of a course of conduct 
during which Lang also murdered Burditte. 
{¶ 331} Although Lang’s character offers nothing in mitigation, we give 
some weight to Lang’s history and background.  Lang was abused by his father 
during his childhood.  He was also malnourished and physically abused during the 
two years that he stayed with his father.  Moreover, Lang required extensive 
counseling and psychiatric after returning home to his mother.  Nevertheless, 
there is no evidence of any connection between Lang’s abusive treatment and the 
two murders.  See, e.g., State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118, 2008-Ohio-3426, 892 
N.E.2d 864, ¶ 265 (decisive weight seldom given to defendants with unstable 
childhoods). 
{¶ 332} Lang argues that his history of substance abuse deserves 
mitigating weight.  However, nothing in the record shows that Lang had such a 
history. 
{¶ 333} The statutory mitigating factors under R.C. 2929.04 include 
(B)(1) (victim inducement), (B)(2) (duress, coercion, or strong provocation), 
(B)(3) (mental disease or defect), (B)(4) (youth of the offender), (B)(5) (lack of a 
significant criminal record), (B)(6) (accomplice only), and (B)(7) (any other 
relevant factors).  We find that the R.C. 2929.04(B)(2), (B)(5), and (B)(6) factors 
are inapplicable here. 
{¶ 334} The R.C. 2929.04(B)(1) factor would apply only to the course-of-
conduct specification because Lang was sentenced to death for Cheek’s murder.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
68 
 
However, we give no weight to the (B)(1) factor, because Burditte’s participation 
in the drug sale does not mean that he “induced or facilitated” the murders. Id. 
“While participation in criminal activity certainly carries with it an element of 
serious risk, the unlawful taking of a human life cannot be deemed less serious 
simply because the victim was involved in unlawful activity.”  State v. Williams, 
79 Ohio St.3d at 18, 679 N.E.2d 646. 
{¶ 335} We also find that the R.C. 2929.04(B)(3) factor is not applicable 
because no evidence was presented showing that “at the time of committing the 
offense, the offender, because of a mental disease or defect, lacked substantial 
capacity to appreciate the criminality of the offender’s conduct or to conform the 
offender’s conduct to the requirements of the law.” 
{¶ 336} However, we give some weight to Lang’s mental problems under 
the catchall provision, R.C. 2929.04(B)(7).  Testimony showed that Lang suffered 
from depression and received extensive psychological and psychiatric treatment. 
But again, there was no evidence of any significant connection between Lang’s 
mental illness and the murders. 
{¶ 337} We give significant weight to Lang’s youth pursuant to R.C. 
2929.04(B)(4).  Lang was a few days older than 19 when the offenses occurred.  
However, we have upheld the death penalty in other cases in which the defendant 
committed aggravated murder at Lang’s age or younger.  See State v. Bethel, 110 
Ohio St.3d 416, 2006-Ohio-4853, 854 N.E.2d 150, ¶ 203 (age 18); State v. 
Noling, 98 Ohio St.3d 44, 2002-Ohio-7044, 781 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 149 (age 18); State 
v. Franklin, 97 Ohio St.3d 1, 2002-Ohio-5304, 776 N.E.2d 26, ¶ 98 (age 18); and 
State v. Slagle, 65 Ohio St.3d at 613, 605 N.E.2d 916 (age 18). 
{¶ 338} We also give weight as a (B)(7) mitigating factor to evidence that 
Lang shares love and support with his mother and half-sister and has provided 
care to his young daughter and her mother. 
January Term, 2011 
69 
 
{¶ 339} Finally, we reject Lang’s argument that the disparity in sentencing 
between himself and Walker weighs in favor of sparing his life.  The disparity in 
sentencing can be explained on the basis that Lang was the principal offender and 
Walker was not. 
{¶ 340} Upon weighing the aggravating circumstances against the 
mitigating factors, we find that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the 
mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt.  Lang’s murder of Cheek during an 
aggravated robbery as the principal offender and his course of conduct in 
murdering Cheek and Burditte are grave aggravating circumstances.  Lang’s 
mitigating evidence pales in comparison to these aggravating circumstances. 
{¶ 341} We also find that the penalty imposed in this case is not 
“excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases.”  R.C. 
2929.05(A).  The death penalty is proportionate to death sentences approved in 
cases for other robbery-murder cases.  See State v. Monroe, 105 Ohio St.3d 384, 
2005-Ohio-2282, 827 N.E.2d 285, ¶ 120 (two victims murdered in drug-related 
robbery); State v. Jackson (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 436, 453, 751 N.E.2d 946 (two 
victims shot in back of the head during drug-related robbery); State v. Palmer 
(1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 543, 577, 687 N.E.2d 685 (two victims murdered and 
robbed).  The death penalty is also proportionate to death sentences approved for 
other course-of-conduct murders.  State v. Cunningham, 105 Ohio St.3d 197, 
2004-Ohio-7007, 824 N.E.2d 504, ¶ 140; State v. Gapen, 104 Ohio St.3d 358, 
2004-Ohio-6548, 819 N.E.2d 1047, ¶ 182; State v. Braden, 98 Ohio St.3d 354, 
2003-Ohio-1325, 785 N.E.2d 439, ¶ 162. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 342} We affirm the capital conviction, the conviction for aggravated 
robbery, the sentence of death, and the judgment of the trial court, but we remand 
for the trial court to impose the appropriate term of postrelease control pursuant to 
R.C. 2929.191. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
70 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur 
separately. 
_________________ 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurring. 
{¶ 343} Lang brutally murdered two people during an attempted robbery 
of a drug dealer.  In many respects, Lang is no more sympathetic than the 
defendant in State v. Ketterer, 111 Ohio St.3d 70, 2006-Ohio-5283, 855 N.E.2d 
48, who brutally murdered a family friend.  But I question their culpability 
because the two capital defendants share a common bond — mental illness.  
Ketterer suffered from bipolar disorder.  Id. at ¶ 172.  While Lang’s defense never 
actually introduced documentation of his diagnoses, clearly, at a minimum, Lang 
suffered from depression as a child, evidenced by his prescriptions for Depakote, 
Lithium, and the antipsychotic medicine Risperdal, and as evidenced by his 
frequent stays in psychiatric facilities. 
{¶ 344} In Ketterer, I wrote that I believed that the time had come to 
reexamine whether we as a society should administer the death penalty to a 
person with a serious mental illness.  Ketterer, 111 Ohio St.3d 70, 2006-Ohio-
5283, 855 N.E.2d 48, ¶ 212 (Lundberg Stratton, J., concurring).  Because I 
continue to adhere to that belief, I write separately, five years later, to continue to 
encourage our General Assembly to take up this critical issue. 
Facts 
{¶ 345} Like Ketterer, Lang, too, was seriously abused by his father as a 
child.  Lang’s parents met when his father was his mother’s landlord.  Lang’s 
mother was a single parent and could not pay her rent.  Lang’s father traded her a 
place to live for sex.  Lang’s father was a drug addict who would beat his mother, 
even when she was pregnant.  Eventually, Lang and his mother received a brief 
January Term, 2011 
71 
 
respite from Lang’s father when he was incarcerated for beating and stabbing 
Lang’s mother and setting fire to their apartment.  Lang’s father also served time 
in prison for child molestation. 
{¶ 346} The damage inflicted on Lang by this turbulent and violent 
childhood is probably best illustrated by what was in essence a kidnapping that he 
suffered at the hands of his father.  At age ten, Lang went for a court-ordered two-
week visit with his father out of state, but was held by his father for two years.  
Lang’s mother testified that after repeated, unsuccessful attempts to find her son, 
she found him two years later malnourished and emaciated, weighing about 88 
pounds, and wearing the shirt and shoes he had left in.  Despite its being 
December in Maryland, he had no coat or warm clothes.  When Lang’s mother 
took him to buy new clothes, she discovered that his body showed physical abuse.  
Lang had bruises, a gash on his hand, and an unmistakable burn on his back from 
a cigarette. 
{¶ 347} Before he left to see his father, Lang had been treated for 
depression and was on three psychotropic drugs.  During his forced stay with his 
father, Lang’s father refused to obtain refills for Lang’s medications.  Not 
surprisingly, after two years apart from his mother, Lang was withdrawn when he 
returned home.  He kept to himself and refused to discuss the ordeal or any of 
what had happened to him in  those two years.  For the next several years, Lang 
received extensive psychiatric treatment.  Lang made 28 visits to Sheppard Pratt, 
a psychiatric facility, usually staying for two weeks at a time.  Twice he spent 90 
days at the Bridges Program.  He spent a full year at Woodburn Respiratory 
Treatment Center.  Lang’s mother testified that her older son, Mendez, told her 
that Lang’s father had sexually abused Lang. 
{¶ 348} As both parties noted, the mitigation evidence was compelling, 
but unsupported.  Two lay witnesses testified on Lang’s behalf, but they did not 
present any documents, medical reports, or other evidence.  Lang’s half-sister and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
72 
 
mother testified about his turbulent family life, and his mother testified how 
Lang’s father had kept him for two years without allowing her to see him.  Both 
witnesses testified to, but did not provide any other evidence of, Lang’s mental 
state.  The state noted to the jury that both witnesses had ample reason to lie and 
that without any proof, the testimony should be dismissed as mere speculation.  
The defense hired Dr. Jeffrey Smalldon as its mitigation expert, but did not have 
him testify. It is concerning that Lang was repeatedly hospitalized for extensive 
psychiatric treatment over a period of years, yet no clear mental-health diagnosis 
appears in the record — symbolic of a failure of the system. 
Evolving Standards of Decency that 
Mark the Progress of a Maturing Society 
{¶ 349} In Ketterer, as here, I noted that guilt is not at issue.  Ketterer, 111 
Ohio St.3d 70, 2006-Ohio-5283, 855 N.E.2d 48, ¶ 228 (Lundberg Stratton, J., 
concurring).  Also as in Ketterer, I am concurring rather than dissenting because 
the court’s sentence of death is authorized under our current law.  Id.  But as in 
Ketterer, I continue to believe that we as a society should reexamine current law.  
Id. 
{¶ 350} “ ‘The legislators who passed our current death penalty laws did 
not intend to force grotesque issues to the center stage of constitutional 
adjudication.  The death penalty was supposed to be about getting even with 
Charles Manson and Ted Bundy, not executing teenagers and the retarded, or 
wrestling condemned schizophrenics to the gurney for forced doses of Haldol.  
But here we are.’ ”  Mello, Executing the Mentally Ill, Criminal Justice (Fall 
2007), quoting David Bruck, a clinical professor of law and director of the 
Virginia Capital Case Clearinghouse at Washington and Lee University School of 
Law. 
{¶ 351} “[T]hese questions go to the core of our legal system of death: 
Who, and why, do we execute? The problem of the intersection between mental 
January Term, 2011 
73 
 
illness and capital punishment isn’t rocket science.  It’s much harder than that.”  
Id. 
{¶ 352} Two recent United States Supreme Court rulings barring 
execution of juvenile offenders and people with mental retardation seem to give 
hope that others with diminished capacity for judgment will also be spared the 
fate of a punishment that they may not even comprehend.  Malone, Cruel and 
Inhumane: Executing the Mentally Ill, Amnesty International Magazine (Mar. 27, 
2007) at http://amnestyusa.org/node/87240.  Although neither court case 
addresses persons with mental illness, Victor Streib, an Ohio Northern University 
law professor, quoted 11 times by the United States Supreme Court in Roper v. 
Simmons (2005), 543 U.S. 551, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1, notes, “If certain 
mentally ill defendants think and act like juveniles or the mentally retarded, then 
they should be excluded from death row.”  Id. 
Unconstitutionality of Executing Persons with 
Mental Retardation/Developmental Disabilities 
{¶ 353} In 1989, the United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth 
Amendment to the United States Constitution did not mandate a categorical 
exemption from the death penalty for mentally retarded offenders.3  Penry v. 
Lynaugh (1989), 492 U.S. 302, 335, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256.  At the 
time, the court noted that only two states had enacted laws banning the imposition 
of the death penalty on a mentally retarded person convicted of a capital offense.  
Id. at 334.  Penry held that those two state enactments, “even when added to the 
14 States that have rejected capital punishment completely, do not provide 
sufficient evidence at present of a national consensus.”  Id. 
                                                          
 
3  This concurrence uses the term “mentally retarded” rather than the more recently acceptable 
term “persons with developmental disabilities,” because the term “mentally retarded” has been 
consistently used by the United States Supreme Court and other courts and has a legal 
significance.  Penry, 492 U.S. at 344, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (Brennan, J., concurring in 
part and dissenting in part). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
74 
 
{¶ 354} Thirteen years later, the court reconsidered the constitutionality of 
executing mentally retarded capital offenders.  In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), 536 
U.S. 304, 321, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335, the court noted that “standards 
of decency” had evolved since Penry and now demonstrate that the execution of 
the mentally retarded is cruel and unusual punishment.  Atkins noted, “[I]n the 13 
years since we decided Penry * * *, the American public, legislators, scholars, 
and judges have deliberated over the question whether the death penalty should 
ever be imposed on a mentally retarded criminal.  The consensus reflected in 
those deliberations informs our answer to the question presented by this case.”  Id. 
at 307. 
{¶ 355} Atkins noted the many state legislatures across the country since 
Penry that had begun to address the issue.  Citing several states, the court held, “It 
is not so much the number of these States that is significant, but the consistency of 
the direction of change.”  Id. at 315.  The court noted that when Atkins was 
decided, only a minority of states permitted the practice, and even in those states, 
it was rare.  Id. at 314-315.  Therefore, evolving standards of decency compelled 
the conclusion that execution of mentally retarded offenders “has become truly 
unusual and it is fair to say that a national consensus has developed against it.”  
Id. at 316. 
Unconstitutionality of Executing Juveniles 
{¶ 356} Another category of persons whose eligibility for execution has 
rightly caused much consternation for the United States Supreme Court is 
juveniles.  In Stanford v. Kentucky (1989), 492 U.S. 361, 109 S.Ct. 2969, 106 
L.Ed.2d 306, the court held that contemporary standards of decency in this 
country did not proscribe the execution of juvenile offenders who were over 15 
but under 18 when they committed their crimes.  Id. at 370-371.  Stanford had 
noted that 22 of the 37 death-penalty states permitted the death penalty for 16-
year-old offenders, and among those 37 states, 25 permitted it for those who had 
January Term, 2011 
75 
 
offended at 17 years old.  These numbers, in the court’s view, indicated no 
national consensus “sufficient to label a particular punishment cruel and unusual.”  
Id. at 371. 
{¶ 357} Sixteen years later, the court reconsidered that issue and held that 
the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty on 
offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed.  
Roper, 543 U.S. at 568, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1.  The court noted, “The 
evidence of national consensus against the death penalty for juveniles is similar, 
and in some respects parallel, to the evidence Atkins held sufficient to 
demonstrate a national consensus against the death penalty for the mentally 
retarded.  When Atkins was decided, 30 states prohibited the death penalty for the 
mentally retarded.  This number comprised 12 that had abandoned the death 
penalty altogether, and 18 that maintained it but excluded the mentally retarded 
from its reach.  By a similar calculation in this case, 30 States prohibit the 
juvenile death penalty, comprising 12 that have rejected the death penalty 
altogether and 18 that maintain it but, by express provision or judicial 
interpretation, exclude juveniles from its reach.”  (Citation omitted.)  Id. at 564. 
{¶ 358} Again, Roper noted the “ ‘consistency of the direction of 
change.’”  Id. at 566, quoting Atkins, 536 U.S. at 315, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 
L.Ed.2d 335.  “As in Atkins, the objective indicia of consensus in this case — the 
rejection of the juvenile death penalty in the majority of States; the infrequency of 
its use even where it remains on the books; and the consistency in the trend 
toward abolition of the practice — provide sufficient evidence that today our 
society views juveniles, in the words Atkins used respecting the mentally retarded, 
as “categorically less culpable than the average criminal.”  Roper at 567, 125 
S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1, citing Atkins at 316. 
The Case for Banning Execution of 
Persons with Severe Mental Illness 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
76 
 
{¶ 359} Although it is unconstitutional to execute someone who is 
incompetent at the time of his or her execution, see Ford v. Wainwright (1986), 
477 U.S. 399, 417-418, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 91 L.Ed.2d 335, and Panetti v. 
Quarterman (2007), 551 U.S. 930, 934, 127 S.Ct. 2842, 168 L.Ed.2d 662, the 
United States Supreme Court has not yet decided whether it is unconstitutional to 
execute someone who suffered from a serious mental illness at the time of the 
crime.  If executing persons with mental retardation/ developmental disabilities or 
executing juveniles offends “evolving standards of decency,” Roper, 543 U.S. at 
563, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1, then I simply cannot comprehend why these 
same standards of decency have not yet evolved to also prohibit execution of 
persons with severe mental illness at the time of their crimes. 
Legislative Enactments and other Indications of our 
Evolving Standards of Decency 
{¶ 360} Although not the groundswell noted in Atkins and Roper, since 
my concurrence in Ketterer in 2006, a few states have considered limiting the 
execution of those who were severely mentally ill at the time of the crime.  
Connecticut is the only state to prohibit execution of the mentally ill.  Entzeroth, 
The Challenge and Dilemma of Charting a Course to Constitutionally Protect the 
Severely Mentally Ill Capital Defendant from the Death Penalty (2011), 44 Akron 
L.Rev. 529, 564.  It exempts a capital defendant from execution if the jury or 
court finds that his or her  “mental capacity was significantly impaired or the 
defendant’s  ability to conform the defendant’s conduct to the requirements of law 
was significantly impaired but not so impaired in either case as to constitute a 
defense to prosecution.”  Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. 53(a)-46(a). 
{¶ 361} Using 
language 
from 
the 
American 
Bar 
Association’s 
Recommendation 122A, legislators in Kentucky and North Carolina have 
introduced bills to bar the execution of defendants who, at the time of the offense, 
“had a severe mental disorder or disability that significantly impaired their 
January Term, 2011 
77 
 
capacity to (a) appreciate the nature, consequences, or wrongfulness of their 
conduct, (b) exercise rational judgment in relation to conduct, or (c) conform their 
conduct to the requirements of the law.”  Kentucky H.B. No. 446, introduced in 
the 2009 regular session, and North Carolina H.B. 553/S.B. No. 1075 use nearly 
identical language. 
{¶ 362} In addition, Indiana established the Bowser Commission to 
examine the execution of the mentally ill.  The Bowser Commission issued a 
report in November 2007 recommending the exemption of the severely mentally 
ill from the death penalty.  Final Report of the Bowser Commission, Indiana 
Legislative Services Agency, November 2007, http://www.in.gov/legislative/ 
interim/committee/reports/BCOMAB1.pdf, p. 3.  In 2009, Indiana’s S.B. No. 22 
was introduced to prohibit the imposition of the death penalty on an individual 
judicially determined to have had a severe mental illness, defined as 
schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, major depression, or 
delusional disorder, at the time of the crime.  www.deathpenaltyinfo.org.  See 
Entzeroth at 564. 
{¶ 363} Finally, the Tennessee Disability Coalition reports that in 2011, 
Tennessee legislators introduced H. B. No. 2064 and S.B. No. 1692 to prohibit the 
execution of a person who had severe and persistent mental illness at the time of 
committing murder in the first degree.  http://tn.disability.org. 
{¶ 364} Moreover, at least five leading professional associations, the 
American Bar Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American 
Psychological Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, and Mental 
Health America, have adopted policy statements recommending prohibition of 
execution of persons with severe mental illness at the time of the offense.  
Winick, The Supreme Court’s Evolving Death Penalty Jurisprudence: Severe 
Mental Illness as the Next Frontier (2009), 50 B.C.L.Rev. 785, 789. 
The Crux of the Issue 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
78 
 
{¶ 365} Mental Health America estimates that five to ten percent of all 
death row inmates suffer from a severe mental illness.  Mental Health America, 
Death Penalty and People with Mental Illness, www.nmha.org/go/position-
statements/54).  In my view, a consensus is slowly growing to stop executing 
persons with severe mental illness.  But excluding the severely mentally ill from 
death row involves a more complicated analysis.  Juveniles and persons with 
mental retardation can be identified by a number, either an age or an IQ score and 
recognized factors.  As I noted in my concurrence in Ketterer, “mental illness is 
not as easily quantified as mental retardation.  Mental retardation is a fixed 
condition with more objective symptoms.  Mental illness is a much broader 
category, with wide ranges of diagnoses and periods of decompensation and 
remission.  Treatment options vary widely, including counseling, behavior 
modifications, group therapy, and medication.  Some treatments and medications 
are controversial as to effectiveness and side effects.  Mental illness as a defense 
is a difficult issue to quantify in a court of law.”  * * * Therefore, while I 
personally believe that the time has come for our society to add persons with 
severe mental illness to the category of those excluded from application of the 
death penalty, I believe that the line should be drawn by the General Assembly, 
not by a court.  * * * [N]othing prevents the legislature from examining and using 
those * * * evolving standards [of decency].  In fact, it is the legislature’s role to 
do so.  Therefore, I urge our General Assembly to consider legislation setting the 
criteria for determining when a person with a severe mental illness should be 
excluded from the penalty of death.  Unlike mental retardation, which can be 
determined by a number on an IQ test and other basic criteria, mental illnesses 
vary widely in severity.  The General Assembly would be the proper body to 
examine these variations, take public testimony, hear from experts in the field, 
and fashion criteria for the judicial system to apply.”  Ketterer, 111 Ohio St.3d 70, 
2006-Ohio-5283, 855 N.E.2d 48, ¶ 246-247 (Lundberg Stratton, J., concurring). 
January Term, 2011 
79 
 
Conclusion 
{¶ 366} “ ‘A society that denies mental health care to those who need it 
the most and then subsequently executes them is cruel and inhumane at its very 
core.  All of us need to be asking: ‘Is this the kind of society that we envision for 
ourselves?’ My answer is that we can and must do better.’ ”  Sue Gunawardena-
Vaughn, Director of Amnesty International USA’s Program to Abolish the Death 
Penalty, quoted in Malone, Cruel and Inhumane: Executing the Mentally Ill, 
Amnesty International Magazine, http://www.amnestyusa.org/node/87240.  
{¶ 367} For these reasons, as well as those expressed in my concurrence in 
Ketterer, I reluctantly concur in the majority decision today, but I continue to 
fervently urge our General Assembly to take up the critical issue of whether, 
and/or under what circumstances, this state should continue to execute persons 
with varying degrees of mental illness. 
PFEIFER and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion. 
__________________ 
 
John D. Ferrero Jr., Stark County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald Mark 
Caldwell and Kathleen O. Tatarsky, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee. 
 
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, Joseph E. Wilhelm, Chief 
Counsel, Death Penalty Division, and Benjamin D. Zober, Jennifer A. Prillo, and 
Rachel Troutman, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant. 
_____________________