Case Title: State v. Joseph

Citation: 1995-Ohio-288

Docket Number: 19940372

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1995-08-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Joseph, Appellant. 
[Cite as State v. Joseph (1995), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Criminal law -- Aggravated murder -- Death penalty upheld, when. 
 
(No. 94-372 -- Submitted May 10, 1995 -- Decided August 30, 1995.) 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Allen County, No. 1-91-11. 
 
During the fall of 1989, defendant-appellant, Richard E. Joseph, began 
dating Cara M. Wireman.  They began to date steadily until sometime in 
February 1990.  Cara decided to end the relationship because she did not like 
the way appellant treated her and she attended her senior prom with someone 
else.  In April, Cara started dating the victim, Ryan Young, a student at the 
same high school.  Ryan and appellant knew each other from playing together 
on the school football team. 
 
Cara testified that appellant was jealous of Ryan’s relationship with her.  
Appellant wanted her to stop seeing Ryan so they could renew their 
relationship.  This was evidenced by several letters appellant wrote to Cara 
indicating his jealousy and desire to continue dating Cara.  In one letter, he 
indicated he had been secretly watching Cara and Ryan together for three 
 
2 
hours.  Cara knew that martial arts played a big part in appellant’s life and she 
had previously seen him with guns and knives. 
 
On Monday, June 25, 1990, the day prior to the kidnapping, Cara and 
Ryan observed appellant driving around in the area where Cara and Ryan both 
lived.  Cara indicated she did not normally see appellant driving in this area. 
 
On Tuesday, June 26, 1990, Ryan asked his mother if he could go to 
Cara’s house, and he left around seven o’clock that evening driving his father’s 
1981 Oldsmobile.  Ryan’s mother received a telephone call from Ryan about 
10:30 p.m. that evening and, during that conversation, she told him he could 
stay and finish watching the movie and then come straight home. 
 
Cara’s next-door neighbor, Rose Fetter, was outside walking her dog at 
about 11:15 p.m. that night, when she observed a clean white car driving 
slowly down Thayer Road.  There were two occupants in the car.  Fetter 
indicated she first saw the car being driven north up Thayer Road.  About ten 
minutes later she observed the car heading south on Thayer Road.  The car 
pulled into a dirt driveway leading to property owned by a local kennel club 
and parked for a few minutes.  Just prior to Fetter’s going into her home she 
 
3 
observed the car back out of the driveway and head north for a second time.  
Fetter testified she and her husband took care of the property for the kennel 
club and that she mowed around the driveway earlier in the day and did not 
observe any tire tracks at that time.  However, the next morning she noticed 
there were tire tracks in the driveway. 
 
Ryan, Cara, and Cara’s friend, Michelle Rumer, were at the same time 
watching the movie at Cara’s house.  The movie ended at approximately 11:30 
p.m., at which time Michelle left to go home.  Ryan stayed about fifteen or 
twenty minutes after Michelle left.  Ryan and Cara walked out of Cara’s house 
and into the driveway.  As Ryan got into the car, Cara heard Ryan remark, 
“That looks like the White Cutlass that Dick [appellant] drives.”  Cara 
responded, “I doubt that.  He wouldn’t be out here.”  Ryan said, “I’m pretty 
sure that was him.”   
 
Ryan was wearing a baseball hat turned backwards on his head that 
night.  Cara saw Ryan back out onto Thayer Road into a position that would 
permit him to drive north on Thayer.  Just as Ryan backed onto the  roadway, 
 
4 
she saw the dome light in his car illuminate and heard a voice when the dome 
light came on.  Cara also saw Ryan’s head turn toward the passenger side door.   
 
Cara went back into the house and watched television for about fifteen 
minutes.  She decided to go to bed, so she went to shut the front door and saw 
the tail end of a white car drive by slowly heading south on Thayer Road.  She 
saw the tail lights on the car and heard the breaks squeak.  The subject car 
repeatedly turned around after passing Cara’s residence and passed in front of 
her house approximately ten to twelve times.  Cara testified the car matched the 
description of the car belonging to Bill Forest, a friend of appellant.  Cara 
testified appellant and Jose Bulerin, appellant’s friend and roommate, often 
borrowed Forest’s car.  Cara became upset and called Michelle concerning the 
car that had passed in front of her house.  At about 12:35 a.m., Cara called the 
residence shared by appellant and Bulerin.  She spoke with appellant’s cousin, 
April Joseph, who testified neither appellant nor Bulerin was home to answer 
the call.  Cara again called Michelle and talked for a while before calling the 
appellant’s residence a second time at 1:00 a.m.  Appellant and Bulerin still 
had not returned home. 
 
5 
 
Cara went to sleep and was awakened by a phone call from Ryan’s 
mother, Sharon Young, at approximately 4:00 a.m. that morning.  At about that 
time, Ryan’s father, Rick Young, awoke and discovered that neither his son nor 
the car Ryan had been driving was home.  The Youngs drove down Thayer 
Road toward Cara’s house in search of their son.  They found the 1981 
Oldsmobile Cutlass Ryan had been driving abandoned just north of the bridge 
on Thayer Road.  Rick entered the car and nothing apparently was out of place.  
The keys were still in the ignition and the car was still in gear.  There were no 
indications of a robbery, as Ryan’s wallet and money were, respectively, left on 
the seat and console tray of the car.  A wet spot and char marks were found on 
the passenger seat of the car.  The seat had not been wet or dirty the day before.
 
Inspector William Dailey took a material sample of a burnt log located 
across the road opposite from Cara’s house on the morning of June 27, 1990.  
The inspector observed that the vegetation there was trampled down such that 
it led him to believe that someone may have been sitting in that area.  The 
vegetation still had its color and the breaks in the leaves appeared to be fresh.  
He also took a sample of the blackened stain area on the front seat of Ryan’s 
 
6 
car for purposes of comparison with the burned log.  Chemical analysis 
performed later revealed that the samples were consistent with one another. 
 
The sheriff’s department was notified and a search began.  After talking 
with Cara,  Deputy Gene King of the Allen County Sheriff’s Office proceeded 
to appellant’s residence to question him concerning Ryan’s disappearance.  
King arrived at appellant’s residence at approximately 5:10 a.m. on the 
morning Ryan was discovered missing and observed a white Cutlass in the 
driveway.  King testified that the hood and radiator of the car were warm to the 
touch.  There was also a dirty hand print on the trunk lid of the vehicle. 
 
King spoke with appellant and Bulerin.  Appellant was hesitant to 
respond to questioning, as he persistently stared at the ground and his answers 
were invariably inaudible.  The deputy testified that in spite of the early 
morning hour, appellant did not appear to have been asleep.  The deputy also 
noticed fresh blisters on appellant’s right hand. 
 
Appellant was questioned both later that morning and about a week 
afterwards by law enforcement officers.  Appellant disclaimed any knowledge 
of Ryan’s disappearance.  Appellant told the sheriff’s detectives that on the day 
 
7 
of the disappearance he reported to work at Frank’s Car Wash.  He then left 
with Forest to go to work at Indian Lake in Logan County.  Forest testified that 
they had been building a deck in order to install a hot tub adjacent to a house.  
Appellant, Bulerin, and Forest were using Visqueen to cover up the deck to 
protect against the rain.  
 
Appellant told detectives that the trio worked until about 6:30 p.m. 
before starting back to Lima to attend karate class.  According to Forest, the 
karate class was taught by Bulerin with appellant helping out as a co-instructor.  
Appellant and Bulerin then left karate class in Forest’s car, the white Cutlass.  
Forest testified he left class with his girlfriend and did not see either appellant 
or Bulerin again that night.  Appellant and Bulerin went home, got cleaned up, 
and then left to get something to eat.  Appellant stated that, afterwards, the pair 
drove around in Forest’s car for several hours before returning home  and going 
to bed at approximately 2:30 a.m.  Appellant also stated that the brakes on 
Forest’s car did squeak on that night. 
 
Although Forest’s car had new tires on it, Bulerin took Forest’s car and 
changed the tires the day following Ryan’s disappearance.  Three of the tires 
 
8 
that had been on Forest’s car the night of Ryan’s abduction were recovered by 
Detective Sergeant James Ketchum, who testified the tread pattern on one of 
the tires was similar to the tire prints found in the driveway to the kennel club 
located on Thayer Road.   
 
Forest had kept a knife clipped to the sun visor in his car that was 
identical to another knife owned by a friend of his.  The knife of Forest’s friend 
was subsequently turned over to Lieutenant Van Horn by Forest for the 
investigation.  Forest’s knife had been in Forest’s automobile on June 26, 1990; 
however, it had not been seen since.  Forest testified that appellant and Bulerin 
had used his car, had access to it, and traveled in it together frequently.  
Appellant and Bulerin also kept articles in his car, and he had observed a piece 
of material described as plastic, vinyl, or Visqueen and a shovel in his trunk.  
Forest had observed the same shovel before at appellant’s house.  Forest also 
testified that he had watched a lot of movies with appellant and Bulerin, many 
of which dealt with the martial arts.  He also knew that appellant had a black 
mask. 
 
9 
 
Monte Stinebuck worked at Frank’s Auto Wash with appellant, Forest, 
and Bulerin.  He testified that he saw appellant and Bulerin on Thursday, June 
28, 1990, and it was rainy that day.  A discussion ensued regarding hauling 
some trash from the car wash and taking it to Joseph’s Sand and Gravel Pit.  
They had never taken trash there before and the truck was loaded a quarter full. 
 
Throughout the week following Ryan’s disappearance, an extensive 
search was conducted.  On July 4, 1990, the Allen County Sheriff’s Department 
acted upon the information provided by Stinebuck and instituted a search at 
Joseph’s Sand and Gravel Pit located in Auglaize County and owned by 
Joseph’s grandparents.  Mary Joseph, appellant’s grandmother, testified that 
she owned the sand and gravel pit and that appellant was familiar with it, as he 
had spent a lot of time there growing up. 
 
Ryan’s body was discovered in a shallow grave.  The body was wrapped 
in Visqueen, the jagged edge of which was matched positively with Visqueen 
recovered from the job site at Indian Lake where appellant had been working.  
Under the body, a black ninja mask was recovered.  An autopsy revealed that 
Ryan had superficial lacerations in the area of the throat.  Further, Ryan had 
 
10 
been stabbed two times in the back--one to the right flank and one at the base 
of the skull. 
 
Appellant and Bulerin were jointly indicted for purposely causing the 
death of Ryan Young while committing or while fleeing immediately after 
committing kidnapping.  The indictment also contained a death-penalty 
specification based upon R.C. 2929.04(A)(7).  Appellant and Bulerin were 
tried separately.  Appellant’s case was tried to a jury which found him guilty of 
aggravated murder and of the specification thereto.  The penalty phase of the 
trial began on January 28, 1991.  After deliberations, the jury found the 
aggravating circumstance surrounding the murder outweighed the mitigating 
factors beyond a reasonable doubt.  The jury recommended a sentence of death.  
After independent deliberations pursuant to R.C. 2929.03(D)(3), the trial court 
accepted this recommendation and imposed a sentence of death upon appellant. 
 
The court of appeals affirmed the conviction and the sentence of death. 
 
This matter is now before this court as a matter of right. 
__________ 
 
11 
 
David E. Bowers, Allen County Prosecuting Attorney, Gary R. Herman 
and Jana E. Emerick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys; and Brad C. Roush, for 
appellee. 
 
David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, Kathleen A. McGarry and J. 
Joseph Bodine, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant. 
__________ 
 
Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J.   In a line of cases beginning with State v. 
Poindexter (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 263, 520 N.E.2d 568, we have adopted the 
view that when we review death-penalty cases, we are not required to address 
all propositions of law in opinion form.  State v. Simko (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 
483, 644 N.E.2d 345; State v. Scudder (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 263, 643 N.E.2d 
524; State v. Hawkins (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 339, 612 N.E.2d 1227.  
Accordingly, we will not discuss the merits of many of appellant’s propositions 
of law which have been resolved in other cases or which have not been 
properly preserved.  However, while this opinion does not separately address 
each of the thirty-six propositions of law (see Appendix), we have fully 
reviewed the record and passed upon each proposition prior to reaching our 
 
12 
decision.  We have also independently assessed the evidence relating to the 
death sentence, balanced the aggravating circumstance against the mitigating 
factors, and reviewed the proportionality of the sentence to sentences imposed 
in similar cases.  As a result, we affirm the conviction and death sentence. 
I 
INDICTMENT 
 
In appellant’s first proposition of law, he asserts that the indictment in 
this case did not specify a proper aggravating circumstance, without which a 
capital offense is not charged.  Specifically, appellant argues that the error 
resulted in the trial court’s lacking subject-matter jurisdiction over the case 
and, hence, also lacking the power to sentence the appellant to death.  For the 
following reasons, we find that this argument is without merit. 
 
Initially, we note that appellant never challenged the sufficiency of the 
indictment at any time before or during his trial.  An appellate court need not 
consider an error which was not called to the attention of the trial court at a 
time when such error could have been avoided or corrected by the trial court.  
State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 112, 117, 5 O.O.3d 98, 101, 364 
 
13 
N.E.2d 1364, 1367.  As a result, such error is waived absent plain error.  State 
v. Moreland (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 58, 62, 552 N.E.2d 894, 899.  Plain error 
does not exist unless, but for the error, the outcome at trial would have been 
different.  Id. 
 
The grand jury issued a joint indictment against appellant and Bulerin.  
The indictment charged that the pair jointly and purposely caused the death of 
Ryan Young while committing or fleeing immediately after committing 
kidnapping.  The indictment also contained a death-penalty specification based 
upon R.C. 2929.04(A)(7).  The specification as stated in the indictment reads: 
 
“The Grand Jurors further find and specify that the offense was 
committed while the offenders were committing, attempting to commit, or 
fleeing immediately after committing or attempting to commit kidnapping, and 
the offenders were principal offenders in the commission of the kidnapping in 
violation of the Ohio Revised Code, Section 2903.01(B) ***.” 
 
In order to correspond with the statutory language of R.C. 
2929.04(A)(7), the last part of the specification should have indicated the 
offenders were the principal offenders in the commission of the aggravated 
 
14 
murder, and not merely the kidnapping.  However, while the indictment does 
not expressly correspond with the statutory language of R.C. 2929.04(A)(7), 
we find that this error does not render the indictment invalid here since the 
record demonstrates that appellant had sufficient notice that he was being tried 
as a principal offender in the commission of the aggravated murder of Ryan 
Young while committing kidnapping.   
 
Former Crim.R. 7(B) provided1 that the indictment “*** shall contain a 
statement that the accused has committed some public offense therein 
specified.  Such statement may be made in ordinary and concise language 
without any technical averments or any allegations not essential to be proved.  
It may be in the words of the applicable section of the statute as long as the 
words of that statute charge an offense, or in any words sufficient to give the 
accused notice of all the elements of the offense with which he is charged ***.” 
 
Thus, the indictment must adequately inform the defendant of the charge 
against him.  In the present case, the indictment adequately charged appellant 
with the crime of aggravated murder, as it set forth the essential elements 
charging appellant with the offense of aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 
 
15 
2903.01(B).   This indictment provided appellant with sufficient and adequate 
notice of the charge against him and the death-penalty specification alleged.  
Accordingly, the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the appellant, 
as the indictment adequately charged appellant with the crime of aggravated 
murder. 
 
The penalty for aggravated murder is life imprisonment or death.  R.C. 
2929.02.  If the state desires to seek the death penalty for a defendant who 
commits aggravated murder, the indictment charging the offense must contain 
at least one of eight specifications enumerated in R.C. 2929.04(A)(1) through 
(8).  R.C. 2929.04(A) provides:  “Imposition of the death penalty is precluded, 
unless one or more of the following is specified in the indictment or the count 
of the indictment pursuant to section 2941.14 of the Revised Code and proved 
beyond a reasonable doubt.”  That section then sets out eight different 
aggravating circumstances.  
 
The form of the specification is governed by R.C. 2941.14(C), which 
requires that the aggravating circumstance “may be stated in the words of the 
subdivision in which it appears, or in words sufficient to give the accused 
 
16 
notice of the same.”  Thus, the language of the statute clearly provides that the 
specification is sufficient if the accused knows which subsection, or which 
aggravating circumstance of the eight listed in R.C. 2929.04(A) has been 
alleged. 
 
While the specification in the present case contained a technical error, 
we cannot find that this error rendered the indictment invalid, as the correct 
language of the specification was clearly ascertainable to appellant.  The 
indictment’s aggravated-felony-murder count and specification recited an 
obvious and undeniable reference to R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) (the felony murder 
specification) as the capital specification pursuant to R.C. 2901.03(B) 
(aggravated-felony murder).  The indictment informed appellant of all elements 
comprising the capital offense of aggravated murder under R.C. 2901.03(B), as 
the exact language of that section containing all the elements for that offense 
was correctly recited in the single count of the indictment.  Following the count 
set forth in the indictment and pursuant to R.C. 2941.14, a capital specification 
was included, which stated verbatim the relevant language of R.C. 
2929.04(A)(7), except for the substitutional error in the last word of the 
 
17 
specification.  However, appellant certainly had sufficient notice from the 
wording of the specification that the aggravating circumstance set forth in R.C. 
2929.04(A)(7) was being alleged.  In fact, appellant, his attorneys, the 
prosecutor, and the trial judge treated the indictment as valid at all stages of the 
proceedings, never noticing any flaw in the indictment.  Thus, the record 
demonstrates that the wording of the specification was sufficient to give 
appellant notice that the state was required to prove that he was a principal 
offender in the commission of the aggravated murder of Ryan Young pursuant 
to the specification contained in R.C. 2929.04(A)(7). 
 
Furthermore, appellant has not shown that he was prejudiced in the 
defense of his case from this substitutional error or that he would have 
proceeded differently had this error been corrected.  Indeed, had the error been 
discovered, it was properly subject to amendment.  Crim.R. 7(D).  
 
Moreover, the jury verdict form correctly phrased the specification.  The 
trial court read to the jury this verdict form, which contained the properly 
worded specification.  The jury then signed each of their names to this verdict 
 
18 
form, which correctly phrased the specification to them for the jury’s 
consideration. 
 
In conclusion, we find that the flawed indictment sufficiently notified 
appellant of the charge against him and the death-penalty specification.  
Accordingly, appellant’s proposition of law number one is without merit. 
II 
GUILT PHASE 
Immunity of William Forest 
 
In proposition of law number two, the appellant asserts that he was 
denied a fair trial due to the appellee’s failure to disclose exculpatory 
information pursuant to Crim.R. 16(B)(1)(f).  Specifically, appellant argues that 
the trial court erred when it denied the appellant’s motion for mistrial when it 
was discovered during trial that William Forest, a witness for the state, had 
been granted immunity and that the grant of immunity had not been disclosed 
to the defense.  Appellant argues that voir dire and opening statement would 
have been conducted differently had the defense known of the immunity. 
 
19 
 
Crim.R. 16(B)(1)(f) provides, in relevant part:  “Upon motion of the 
defendant before trial the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to disclose 
to counsel for the defendant all evidence, known or which may become known 
to the prosecuting attorney, favorable to the defendant and material either to 
guilt or punishment.”  In the present case, the state’s granting immunity to 
Forest affected his credibility as a prosecution witness.  Furthermore,  Forest 
was a crucial witness to the prosecution’s case.  Thus, we agree with appellant 
that this information was properly discoverable. 
 
Prosecutorial violations of Crim.R. 16 are reversible only when there is a 
showing that (1) the prosecution’s failure to disclose was a willful violation of 
the rule, (2) foreknowledge of the information would have benefited the 
accused in the preparation of his defense, and (3) the accused suffered some 
prejudicial effect.  State v. Parson (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 442,445, 6 OBR 485, 
488, 453 N.E.2d 689, 692.  See, also, State v. Moore (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 63, 
66, 531 N.E.2d 691, 694-695.  In the present case, there is no indication that 
the violation was willful.  Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to 
indicate that had the fact of immunity or even the substance of Forest’s 
 
20 
testimony been disclosed prior to trial, the result of the proceeding would have 
been different.  Moreover, while the evidence was not disclosed to the defense 
prior to trial, it was disclosed during trial.  The record reflects that the trial 
court took many remedial measures at that time to ensure the fairness of the 
proceedings, including notifying the jury of the immunity upon the defense’s 
cross-examination of Forest and, at the end of trial, admonishing the jury that 
the credibility of a witness to whom immunity had been granted must be 
examined with greater scrutiny.  Thus, since there is no evidence that appellant 
suffered any prejudice from the initial nondisclosure of the information, 
proposition of law number two is without merit. 
Sufficiency of Evidence 
 
Appellant was convicted of aggravated murder (R.C. 2903.01), which 
included a death specification for kidnapping, and was found to be the 
principal offender in the commission of the aggravated murder.  In proposition 
of law number eleven, appellant contends that the conviction was based on 
insufficient evidence.  For the following reasons, this argument is without 
merit. 
 
21 
 
“An appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the 
evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted 
at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the 
average mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  The relevant 
inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in the 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. 
 
The record demonstrates that appellant was jealous of Ryan’s 
relationship with Cara Wireman.  In one letter to his ex-girlfriend Cara, 
appellant admitted that he had been secretly watching Cara and Ryan.  
Appellant also told Cara that he wanted her to stop seeing Ryan so that they 
could renew their relationship.  Thus, appellant had a motive to kill the victim.  
On Tuesday, June 26, just prior to Ryan’s abduction, the white Cutlass often 
driven by appellant was seen near Cara’s home on Thayer Road as Ryan was 
about to leave.  Appellant later admitted that he and Bulerin were driving 
around in Forest’s white Cutlass on that night until about 2:30 a.m.  Cara’s 
 
22 
neighbor, Rose Fetter, observed a white car with two occupants in it drive up 
and down Thayer Road at about 11:15 p.m. that night.  Cara observed the car 
which matched the description of Forest’s car pass her home ten to twelve 
times just after Ryan left.  The vegetation across from Cara’s home was found 
to be trampled down as if someone had been recently sitting in the area.  
Ryan’s body was found buried on property owned by appellant’s grandparents 
and on land with which appellant was familiar.  The body was wrapped in 
Visqueen which matched Visqueen recovered from the job site at Indian Lake 
where appellant had been working.  Forest stated that appellant had a black 
mask, and a black ninja mask was found under the body of the victim. 
Furthermore, Ryan suffered two stab wounds, either of which could have been 
fatal, and the knife always kept in the car was missing the morning of the 
disappearance. 
 
Based on the above and all the other evidence in the record, we find that 
there was sufficient evidence adduced at trial to convince the trier of fact that 
appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the kidnapping and murder 
of Ryan Young and that he was the principal offender in the commission of the 
 
23 
aggravated murder.  While the evidence establishing appellant as a principal 
offender is circumstantial, circumstantial and direct evidence inherently 
possess the same probative value and, therefore, should be subject to the same 
standard of proof.  See Jenks at paragraph one of the syllabus.  The jury signed 
the verdict form containing the R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) specification that appellant 
was the principal offender in the commission of the aggravated murder.  We 
will not disturb this determination, as sufficient evidence existed for a rational 
trier of fact to find that appellant was the principal offender, i.e., actual killer, 
in the aggravated murder of Ryan Young beyond a reasonable doubt.  See State 
v. Jenks, supra; State v. Green (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 141, 609 N.E.2d 1253.  
Accordingly, this argument is without merit. 
Gruesome Photographs 
 
In proposition of law number twenty, appellant argues that the 
prosecution’s introduction of a videotape of the crime scene, photographs of 
the crime scene, and slides of the autopsy were so gruesome and repetitive that 
any probative value was outweighed by unfair prejudice to the accused.  This 
argument is without merit. 
 
24 
 
“Properly authenticated photographs, even if gruesome, are admissible in 
a capital prosecution if relevant and of probative value in assisting the trier of 
fact to determine the issues or are illustrative to testimony and other evidence, 
as long as the danger of material prejudice to a defendant is outweighed by 
their probative value and the photographs are not repetitive or cumulative in 
number.”  State v. Maurer (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 239, 15 OBR 379, 473 N.E.2d 
768, paragraph seven of the syllabus.  The trial court has broad discretion in the 
admission of evidence and unless it has clearly abused its discretion and the 
defendant has been materially prejudiced thereby, an appellate court should not 
disturb the decision of the trial court.  Id. at 265, 15 OBR at 401, 473 N.E.2d at 
791. 
 
In the present case, six photographs of the crime scene were admitted 
into evidence, all showing different views of the body.  These photographs 
were relevant, as they were used, in part, to corroborate the testimony of 
Inspector Daily concerning wounds inflicted on the victim.  A videotape of the 
crime scene was taken, but the camera stopped working before the victim’s 
body was unearthed.  Thus, this videotape did not unduly prejudice appellant.  
 
25 
In addition, nine autopsy slides were entered into evidence to corroborate the 
expert testimony of Dr. Amy Martin of the Hamilton County Coroner’s Office.  
While some of these photos are gruesome, their probative value outweighed 
any danger of material prejudice to appellant.  Accordingly, we find that the 
trial court did not abuse its discretion. 
III 
PENALTY PHASE 
Jury Instructions 
 
In proposition of law number seven, appellant argues that the cumulative 
effect of alleged erroneous instructions to the jury requires reversal of the death 
sentence.  For the following reasons, this argument is without merit. 
 
First, appellant asserts that his sentence must be reversed because an 
imperfect specification was read to the jury at the beginning of the penalty 
phase.  The trial court instructed the jury that the state charges in the 
specification that “‘*** the offenders were the principal offenders in the 
commission of the kidnapping.’”  Initially, we note that appellant did not object 
 
26 
to this instruction at trial and, thus, it is waived absent plain error.  State v. 
Moreland, supra; Crim.R. 52(B). 
 
In the present case, this error was cured, as the trial court subsequently 
read to the jury the correctly worded specification.  The court began by stating: 
“It is now my duty to instruct you on the law which applies to this proceeding.”  
The court then stated:  “In the single count the aggravating circumstance is 
precisely set out in the specification.  Completely stated, it is as follows:  ***.”  
The trial court subsequently read the correctly worded specification to the jury.  
This correctly worded instruction was read immediately before the jury began 
its penalty deliberations.  Thus, the jury was informed of the proper phrasing of 
the specification prior to undergoing its deliberations.  Accordingly, we cannot 
find that the trial court’s reading of the imperfect specification at the beginning 
of the penalty phase rises to the level of plain error, especially in light of the 
fact that the jury had already signed the verdict form which contained the 
correctly worded specification during the guilt phase. 
 
Second, appellant argues that the trial court placed the burden on 
appellant to prove that death was not the appropriate penalty when, in its 
 
27 
preliminary instruction, the trial court instructed:  “*** the defendant will have 
the opportunity to offer evidence of mitigating factors to attempt to offset the 
affect [sic] of the aggravating circumstance as set forth above and as found by 
you during the guilt determination phase.”  This instruction is not an incorrect 
statement of the law.  See R.C. 2929.03(D)(2).  Further, the jury was also 
instructed as follows:  “[Y]ou must determine whether the State of Ohio has 
proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstance of which 
the defendant is guilty outweighs the mitigating factors.”  Thus, it is clear from 
a review of the instructions as a whole that the state of Ohio was not relieved of 
its burden of proof.  This argument is meritless. 
 
Third, appellant argues that the trial court improperly used the word 
“blame” when it instructed the jury that “[m]itigating factors *** may be 
considered by you as *** reducing the degree of the defendant’s blame.”  
However, this argument is without merit, as use of the word “blame” alone did 
not constitute error where, as here, the jury instructions, taken as a whole, 
clearly indicate that the penalty phase was for punishment determination and 
 
28 
not for assessment of culpability.  See State v. Lawrence (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 
24, 29, 541 N.E.2d 451, 457. 
 
In conclusion, this court has reviewed all of appellant’s arguments 
regarding erroneous jury instructions, and we have found that they do not 
amount to error either individually or collectively.  Accordingly, proposition of 
law number seven is without merit. 
Independent Review 
 
In appellant’s proposition of law number three, appellant argues that the 
aggravating circumstance here does not outweigh the mitigating factors.  For 
the following reasons, we find that the trial judge properly determined that the 
aggravating circumstance outweighs the mitigating evidence presented. 
 
Pursuant to R.C. 2929.05(A), we must independently determine whether 
the aggravating circumstance outweighs any mitigating factors that have been 
established and whether the sentence of death is appropriate. 
 
The sole statutory aggravating circumstance in this case is that appellant 
murdered the victim while committing kidnapping.  See R.C. 2929.04(A)(7). 
 
29 
 
Against the aggravating circumstance we weigh all mitigating factors 
drawn from the nature and circumstances of the offense; the history, 
background and character of appellant, and any other factors listed in R.C. 
2929.04(B)(1) through (7) which exist in this case.  The statutory mitigating 
factors include the youth of the offender (age nineteen at the time of the 
murder) and his lack of a prior criminal history or delinquency adjudications.  
The mitigating factors of R.C. 2929.04(B)(1),(2),(3), and (6) were not 
established.  While appellant went to live with co-defendant Bulerin at the age 
of sixteen, we find no evidence to establish a showing of duress, coercion, or 
strong provocation impacting on the appellant sufficient to establish this as a 
mitigating factor.  Also, appellant was not shown to lack the substantial 
capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct 
to the requirements of the law.  
 
Under R.C. 2929.04(B)(7), the catchall category, appellant claims as 
mitigating factors that he had a difficult homelife and a learning disability. 
 
When appellant was young his father spent time in prison and his parents 
divorced.  His mother remarried but his stepfather was abusive to him.  This 
 
30 
evidence is entitled to little or no weight as a mitigating factor.  See State v. 
Seiber (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 4, 9, 564 N.E.2d 408, 415-416. 
 
Appellant’s learning disability involved a difficulty with reading and 
writing in school, but appellant had a normal I.Q. and was permitted to 
graduate with his class.  The psychologist, Dr. Wayne Graves, testified that 
appellant was shy and nonverbal and internalized his feelings and emotions.  
Dr. Graves also indicated that appellant had a good potential for rehabilitation.  
This evidence is subject to little or no weight as a mitigating factor.  See State 
v. Scudder, supra, 71 Ohio St.3d at 275, 643 N.E.2d at 534. 
 
The facts and circumstances of this case are that appellant, motivated by 
jealousy, lay in wait outside his former girlfriend’s residence, where the 
sixteen-year-old victim was then kidnapped after visiting the girlfriend.  The 
victim was then subjected to cuts across his throat and fatally stabbed twice 
with a knife.  Thus, the evidence is compelling that appellant committed 
kidnapping during the murder of Ryan Young. 
 
31 
 
In weighing the aggravating circumstance against the mitigating factors, 
we conclude that the aggravating circumstance outweighs the mitigating factors 
beyond a reasonable doubt. 
Proportionality Review 
 
In proposition of law number four, appellant argues that the sentence of 
death is not appropriate in this case.  In carrying out the analysis of whether the 
sentence of death is appropriate, we find that the sentence of death in this case 
is neither excessive nor disproportionate, but is appropriate, when compared 
with other felony-murder cases which involved kidnapping.  See State v. Simko 
(1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 483, 644 N.E.2d 345; State v. Fox (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 
183, 631 N.E.2d 124; State v. Spirko (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 1, 570 N.E.2d 229; 
State v. Roe (1989), 41 Ohio St.3d 18, 535 N.E.2d 1351. 
 
Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DESHLER and COOK, JJ., concur in part and dissen tin part. 
 
32 
 
DANA A. DESHLER, JR., J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for 
Wright, J. 
 
Footnote: 
1   The relevant language of current Crim.R. 7(B) is essentially the same as that 
in the former provision. 
 
Moyer, C.J., dissenting in part and concurring in part.   Richard 
Joseph was convicted of the crime of aggravated murder beyond a 
reasonable doubt.  No prejudicial error occurred in the guilt phase of his 
trial.  I partially dissent, however, because I am unable to reach a similar 
conclusion with respect to the death penalty specification.  In my view, 
the indictment issued against Joseph by the grand jury did not contain a 
specification upon which a death sentence could legally be based.  I 
similarly do not find evidence in this record sufficient to support a finding 
beyond a reasonable doubt that Joseph was a "principal offender" in the 
death of Ryan Young, as that term has consistently been interpreted by 
this court.  I therefore dissent from the majority's affirmation of Joseph's 
 
33 
death sentence.  I would remand this case to the trial court with 
instructions that Joseph be resentenced, in accordance with R.C. 
2929.03(A),2 to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving 
twenty years of imprisonment. 
 
The state concedes that the specification included in the indictment 
was flawed.  The indictment3 charged Joseph and Jose Bulerin (who was 
tried separately and sentenced to twenty years to life imprisonment) with 
aggravated murder (R.C. 2903.01[B]).  The specification charged both 
Joseph and Bulerin as principal offenders in the commission of the 
kidnapping of Young rather than the principal offenders in the 
commission of Young's aggravated murder.  However, where prior 
calculation and design has not been alleged, as it was not here, Ohio's 
statutorily defined aggravating circumstance of felony-murder requires 
that the defendant be "the principal offender in the commission of the 
aggravated murder."  R.C. 2929.04(A)(7).4  The specification included in 
the Joseph-Bulerin indictment simply did not give notice of that element, 
either by setting it forth in the words of the statute, or by including a 
reference to the statutory number of the felony-murder specification.  I do 
 
34 
not believe that the Ohio Constitution, governing statutes, or rules of 
procedure, nor this court's prior precedent allows this flaw to be 
dismissed as harmless.   
 
The majority opinion asserts that Joseph's death sentence may be 
upheld because defense counsel never challenged the sufficiency of the 
specification in the indictment, and imputes to the defense knowledge of 
the elements of the felony-murder death specification.  Our established 
precedent is clear that the "principal offender" requirement of the felony-
murder specification set forth in R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) equates to a finding 
of "actual killer."  State v. Penix (1987), 32 Ohio St. 3d 369, 513 N.E.2d 
744; State v. Wiles (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 71, 92, 571 N.E.2d 97, 122; 
State v. Taylor (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 295, 308, 612 N.E.2d 316, 325.  
See, also, State v. Doty (1916), 94 Ohio St. 258, 113 N.E.811; State v. 
Rogers (1938), 64 Ohio App. 39, 55, 27 N.E.2d 791, 799 ("Adams was 
the principal offender as the evidence discloses that he, Adams, was the 
one who fired the shot that killed the Dickey boy.").   My review of the 
record supports the conclusion that inclusion in the indictment of the 
phrase "principal offenders in the commission of the kidnapping” of Ryan 
 
35 
Young was more than a mere clerical or typographical error.  The error 
indicates that this case was tried upon the mistaken theory that a death 
sentence based upon the statutory aggravating circumstance of felony-
murder (R.C. 2929.04[A][7]) could be imposed upon Joseph irrespective 
of whether Joseph actually inflicted knife wounds on Young.   
 
This conclusion is evidenced most strongly by the prosecutor's own 
words.  During his closing argument made to the jury at the conclusion of 
the guilt phase, the prosecutor stated:  
 
"We have to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that this 
crime, or crimes, was committed between the 26th day of June of this 
year and the 4th day of July.  We've got a time frame.  Frankly, the State 
of Ohio can't prove to you exactly when the death occurred.  We can tell 
you when [the victim] was last seen.  We can tell you when the car was 
seen out there.  We can tell you where the car was found.  The State of 
Ohio doesn't know. 
 
"Another thing the State of Ohio doesn't know and can't tell you, 
and it doesn't make any difference as long as you find the two people, 
Jose Bulerin and Richard E. Joseph, jointly committed these crimes, or 
 
36 
this crime, the law is very clear in Ohio that if one person is an aider and 
abettor, no matter what part he has in it, if he plays a part in the 
commission of that crime then he's as guilty as the other guy.  The State 
of Ohio can't tell you.  I wish I could.  I wish I could tell you exactly what 
happened.  I don't know who struck the death blow.  But, I believe the 
evidence is very clear that it was one of the two that's charged here.  If 
you find one of them did it, or the other one did it, they're both just as 
guilty as if each of them had their hands around the hilt of that knife when 
it was stuck in Ryan Young." (Emphasis added.) 
 
Later in closing argument, the prosecutor argued to the jury:  "You'll 
find that they took Ryan Young to some area.  Here again, it doesn't 
make any difference who did what; who did the cutting."  (Emphasis 
added.)  
 
During his rebuttal argument the prosecutor stated: 
 
"[Defense counsel] wants you to infer or surmise that this defendant 
was not there and it was somebody else.  We don't have to show that this 
defendant was the one who administered the fatal blows.  He was with 
 
37 
him.  We don't know which one did it.  We don't have to prove that."  
(Emphasis added.) 
 
These comments did not materially misstate the law in regard to 
obtaining a guilty verdict as to the aggravated murder charge against 
Joseph.  An aider and abettor may be found guilty of aggravated murder 
even though he is not himself the actual killer.  However, "[t]he fact that, 
pursuant to R.C. 2923.03(F), a defendant who aids and abets another in 
committing an offense 'shall be prosecuted and punished as if he were a 
principal offender' and so may be convicted of aggravated murder under 
R.C. 2903.01(B) does not make the defendant ‘the principal offender’ for 
purposes of imposing the death penalty under R.C. 2929.04(A)(7)."  State 
v. Taylor, syllabus. 
 
It seems unlikely that the prosecutor in this case would have 
admitted the state's failure to prove the identity of the actual killer had he 
realized that such an admission precluded a guilty verdict as to the 
felony-murder death specification.  Similarly, the fact that trial defense 
counsel never raised the issue of the indictment's flaw, and did not 
address, let alone focus, its defense on the absence of proof of Joseph's 
 
38 
"principal offender" status, leads to the conclusion that the defense 
accepted the prosecutor's legal interpretation.  In affirming Joseph's 
death sentence, this court enters dangerous grounds, by effectively 
holding that the state may obtain a death sentence based not upon what 
was actually charged in the indictment, but upon what the state meant to 
charge, or should have charged in the indictment.  
 
The framers of the Ohio Constitution clearly were aware of the 
importance of grand jury review in criminal matters, and thus included 
Section 10, Article I, which provides in part: "[N]o person shall be held to 
answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous, crime, unless on 
presentment or indictment of a grand jury."  I find the majority's 
willingness to excuse the defect in this indictment to significantly undercut 
the protection against unjust prosecution this constitutional provision was 
intended to guarantee.  In that the prosecutor conceded at trial that it 
could not prove who actually killed Young, it seems more than simply 
academic to question whether the grand jury would have ever issued an 
indictment with a felony-murder specification in the first place had its 
members been aware that such a specification required proof that 
 
39 
Bulerin, Joseph, or both, were "principal offenders in the aggravated 
murder" of White rather than proof that they both were principal offenders 
in his kidnapping.   This being the case,  it is of little significance that the 
trial court prepared verdict forms consistent with the statutory 
specification language.5  Cf. State v. Headley (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 475, 
478-479, 6 OBR 526, 529, 453 N.E.2d 716, 720 (in light of Section 10 of 
Article I of the Ohio Constitution, "where one of the vital elements 
identifying the crime is omitted from the indictment, it is defective and 
cannot be cured by the court as such a procedure would permit the court 
to convict the accused on a charge essentially different from that found 
by the grand jury”).  See, also,  State v. O'Brien (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 
122, 30 OBR 436, 508 N.E.2d 144; State v. Dilley (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 
20, 546 N.E.2d 937.   
 
In addition, in my view Ohio's statutes governing capital punishment 
preclude imposition of the death penalty in this case.  Pursuant to R.C. 
2929.03(A), where an indictment fails to contain one or more 
specifications of aggravating circumstances listed in division (A) of 
section R.C. 2929.04, a sentence of life imprisonment with parole 
 
40 
eligibility after serving twenty years of imprisonment must be imposed 
where a defendant is found guilty of aggravated murder.  R.C. 2929.04 
provides that "[i]mposition of the death penalty for aggravated murder is 
precluded" unless one of the specifications set forth in subsections (A)(1) 
through (7) is specified in the indictment.  R.C. 2941.14(B) precludes 
imposition of the death penalty for aggravated murder "unless the 
indictment *** specifies one or more of the aggravating circumstances 
listed in division (A)" of R.C. 2929.04.   Although R.C. 2941.14(C) 
provides for specifications to be stated "in the words of the subdivision in 
which it appears, or in words sufficient to give the accused notice of the 
same," I do not believe that the specification included in the indictment 
issued against Joseph does either.  
  
Similarly, the majority's reliance on Crim.R. 7(D),6 which authorizes 
amendment of indictments in certain circumstances, is misplaced. The 
fact is that no Crim.R. 7(D) motion was ever made in this case.  
Assuming, arguendo, that the defect in the amendment was of a nature 
capable of correction by amendment, had that deficiency been noticed 
earlier and the provisions of Crim.R. 7(D) been invoked, the defendant 
 
41 
would have been entitled by the express terms of the rule to ask for 
discharge of the sitting jury, and a reasonable continuance.  In my view, 
an appellate court improperly precludes a defendant from invoking that 
right where the provisions of Crim.R. 7 are first asserted upon appeal.  
Nor is it our role, as a reviewing court, to determine in the first instance 
that it "clearly appears from the whole proceedings that the defendant 
[was not] misled or prejudiced by the defect or variance in respect to 
which the amendment [was] made," or that the defendant's rights were 
otherwise fully protected.    
 
The simple facts remain that the grand jury in this case issued an 
indictment which did not make factual allegations falling within the scope 
of a statutorily defined aggravating circumstance, nor did it reference R.C. 
2929.04(A)(7) by statutory number.  This deficiency was never corrected 
by amendment pursuant to Crim.R. 7 or otherwise.  I believe that these 
factual circumstances, combined with a record which shows the case to 
have been tried pursuant to a misunderstanding of the law's 
requirements, constituted plain error, which, had it not occurred, might 
well have resulted in a different verdict as to the death specification.  I 
 
42 
therefore believe that this error precludes imposition of a death sentence 
upon Joseph.   
Insufficiency of the Evidence Related to the Death Penalty 
 
I agree with the majority to the extent that significant circumstantial 
evidence was produced by the state to support a finding that Joseph was 
involved in the murder of Young and that he was either himself the killer 
or was an aider and abettor in the murder, and that either finding would 
support a conviction of aggravated felony-murder.  R. C. 2903.01(B); 
Taylor, supra.  However, this record contains no evidence, either direct or 
circumstantial, as to who held the knife (or knives) that were thrust into 
Young causing his death.  The state simply did not prove Joseph guilty of 
a felony-murder death specification beyond a reasonable doubt.  It 
instead conceded that it knew virtually nothing as to the precise 
circumstances by which Young was murdered, including the facts as to 
who was his actual killer (or killers). 
 
This court has decided past cases in which more than one individual 
have been deemed to be a "principal offender" in one murder.  In those 
cases, however, there has been evidence supporting a finding that the 
 
43 
physical acts of more than one defendant together contributed to cause 
death.  In other cases the evidence supports the conclusion that only one 
actor was involved in an aggravated murder.  See, e.g., State v. Murphy 
(1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 554, 584, 605 N.E.2d 884, 908.  In those cases, 
the actor has been recognized to be death-eligible as the "principal 
offender" because, in the absence of an aider or abettor, a finding of guilt 
of aggravated murder necessarily requires a finding that the guilty party 
was also the "principal offender."   
 
The evidence produced by the state at this trial is unlike the 
evidence in these categories of cases.  In this case only two people 
(Joseph and his co-indictee Jose Bulerin) know which of them "actually 
killed" Young, or whether they both did.  Neither of them testified in this 
trial, nor did the state produce confessions to disclose those facts.  The 
state never found the murder weapon; hence, the weapon could not be 
traced to one or both of the defendants through fingerprints or other 
circumstantial evidence.  We do not know exactly where Young was killed 
(no evidence was presented of blood in either Young's car or the Forest 
car) or any other circumstances surrounding his stabbing.  Perhaps most 
 
44 
significantly, the state conceded in its arguments to the jury that it did not 
know who stabbed Young ("I don't know who struck the death blow. *** 
[I]t was one of the two that's charged here.”  “[I]t doesn't make any 
difference who did what; who did the cutting.") 
 
In short, the record is sufficient to support speculation as to who 
actually killed Young.  Clearly this defendant had a motive.  However, 
proof of a motive is not proof of guilty conduct.  On the other hand, 
testimony was presented that the co-defendant Bulerin (age late thirties) 
was highly involved with martial arts, and protective of “his kid” (Joseph). 
Forest confirmed that Bulerin had indicated that he would “either snap 
your neck or put a bullet through your head and throw you out alongside 
the road” if you ever “screwed with or messed with” him or Joseph.  
Joseph’s mother testified that, on one occasion when her son was ill, 
Bulerin told her not to “waste [her] time” in attempting to take Joseph 
home with her because she “wasn’t going to get [her] son.”  She testified 
that Bulerin had threatened to break into her home and take something, 
or kill her dogs.  At Joseph’s mitigation hearing, Bulerin’s ex-wife testified 
 
45 
that, while she could not believe Joseph actually killed Young, she could 
believe that behavior of Bulerin. 
 
Unfortunately, however, the evidence produced by the state does 
not confirm either speculation.   We simply do not know, on the basis of 
this record, who killed Young.  Having complied with our statutory 
responsibility pursuant to R.C. 2929.05 to make an independent review of 
the record to "determine if the evidence supports the finding of the 
aggravating circumstances the trial jury *** found the offender guilty of 
committing," I do not find that this record supports a finding that Joseph 
was proven guilty of being a principal offender, i.e., actual killer, in the 
felony-murder of Young.  I therefore believe it is the duty of this court to 
disaffirm the sentence of death imposed upon Richard Joseph.  
 
DESHLER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
FOOTNOTES: 
 
2R.C. 2929.03 provides in part: 
 
"(A) If the indictment or count in the indictment charging aggravated 
murder does not contain one or more specifications of aggravating 
circumstances listed in division (A) of section 2929.04 of the Revised 
 
46 
Code, then, following a verdict of guilty of the charge of aggravated 
murder, the trial court shall impose a sentence of life imprisonment with 
parole eligibility after serving twenty years of imprisonment on the 
offender."  
 
3The indictment states: 
 
"THE JURORS OF THE GRAND JURY of the State of Ohio, *  *  *  
do find and present that from on or about the 26th day of June, 1990 to 
on or about the 4th day of July, 1990, at Allen County, Ohio, 
 
"JOSE E. BULERIN AND RICHARD E. JOSEPH, whose real and 
true names are to the Grand Jury unknown did jointly purposely cause 
the death of another, to wit:  Ryan R. Young, while committing or while 
fleeing immediately after committing kidnapping; 
 
"SPECIFICATION 
 
"The Grand Jurors further find and specify that the offense was 
committed while the offenders were committing, attempting to commit, or 
fleeing immediately after committing or attempting to commit kidnapping, 
and the offenders were the principal offenders in the commission of the 
kidnapping;  in violation of the Ohio Revised Code, Section 2903.01(B) 
 
47 
and against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio.  [Emphasis 
added.] 
“     [s/ David E. Bowers]      
 “Prosecuting Attorney"  
 
4R.C. 2929.04 provides in relevant part: 
 
"(A) Imposition of the death penalty for aggravated murder is 
precluded, unless one or more of the following is specified in the 
indictment or count in the indictment pursuant to section 2941.14 of the 
Revised Code and proved beyond a reasonable doubt: 
 
“*** 
 
"(7) The offense was committed while the offender was committing, 
attempting to commit, or fleeing immediately after committing or 
attempting to commit kidnapping, rape, aggravated arson, aggravated 
robbery, or aggravated burglary, and either the offender was 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.) 
 
5The verdict form signed and returned by the jury read as follows:  
 
48 
 
"SPECIFICATION 
 
"The offense charge [sic]        [was]       committed while the 
offender was committing, attempting to commit, or fleeing immediately 
after committing or attempting to commit Kidnapping, and the offender 
was the principal offender in the commission of the Aggravated Murder. 
 
“[dated and signed  by 12 jurors]." (Emphasis added.) 
 
6Crim.R. 7 provides: 
 
"(A)  Use of indictment or information.  A felony that may be 
punished by death or life imprisonment shall be prosecuted by indictment.  
All other felonies shall be prosecuted by indictment, except that after a 
defendant has been advised by the court of the nature of the charge 
against the defendant and of the defendant's right to indictment, the 
defendant may waive that right in writing and in open court. 
 
“*** 
 
“(B) Nature and contents. The indictment shall be signed, in 
accordance with Crim. R. 6 (C) and (F) and contain a statement that the 
defendant has committed a public offense specified in the indictment.  
The information shall be signed by the prosecuting attorney or in the 
 
49 
name of the prosecuting attorney by an assistant prosecuting attorney 
and shall contain a statement that the defendant has committed a public 
offense specified in the information.  The statement may be made in 
ordinary and concise language without technical averments or allegations 
not essential to be proved. The statement may be in the words of the 
applicable section of the statute, provided the words of that statute 
charge an offense, or in words sufficient to give the defendant notice of 
all the elements of the offense with which the defendant is charged.  It 
may be alleged in a single count that the means by which the defendant 
committed the offense are unknown or that the defendant committed it by 
one or more specified means. Each count of the indictment or information 
shall state the numerical designation of the statute that the defendant is 
alleged to have violated. Error in the numerical designation or omission of 
the numerical designation shall not be ground for dismissal of the 
indictment or information, or for reversal of a conviction, if the error or 
omission did not prejudicially mislead the defendant. 
 
“*** 
 
50 
 
“(D) Amendment of indictment, information, or complaint. The court 
may at any time before, during, or after a trial amend the indictment, 
information, complaint, or bill of particulars, in respect to any defect, 
imperfection, or omission in form or substance, or of any variance with 
the evidence, provided no change is made in the name or identity of the 
crime charged. If any amendment is made to the substance of the 
indictment, information, or complaint, or to cure a variance between the 
indictment, information, or complaint and the proof, the defendant is 
entitled to a discharge of the jury on the defendant's motion, if a jury has 
been impanelled, and to a reasonable continuance, unless it clearly 
appears from the whole proceedings that the defendant has not been 
misled or prejudiced by the defect or variance in respect to which the 
amendment is made, or that the defendant's rights will be fully protected 
by proceeding with the trial, or by a postponement thereof to a later day 
with the same or another jury. Where a jury is discharged under this 
division, jeopardy shall not attach to the offense charged in the amended 
indictment, information, or complaint. No action of the court in refusing a 
continuance or postponement under this division is reviewable except 
 
51 
after motion to grant a new trial therefor is refused by the trial court, and 
no appeal based upon such action of the court shall be sustained nor 
reversal had unless, from consideration of the whole proceedings, the 
reviewing court finds that a failure of justice resulted."   (Emphasis 
added.) 
 
COOK, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.  Like Chief Justice 
Moyer and Judge Deshler, I dissent from the majority opinion as to the 
sentence of death.  I write separately because, unlike them, I find the flawed 
indictment to be harmless error.  I do agree, however, with Chief Justice 
Moyer’s dissent on the sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue. Given that the 
decisional law defines “principal offender” with respect to the penalty phase as 
an “actual killer,” and that this jury was misled throughout the proceedings that 
to reach a sentence recommendation it need not resolve the issue of whether 
Joseph or Bulerin was the actual killer (or that they both were), I cannot concur 
in the imposition of the death penalty.  
  
Future cases with similar evidence -- with two potential killers present at 
a murder and no witness as to which one killed the victim or whether it was a 
 
52 
joint effort -- ought to merit further instruction beyond what was given here.  
The trial court should instruct in such a case that “principal offender,” as used 
in the death-penalty specification, means one who actually kills the victim; not 
one who just aids and abets in the commission of the aggravated murder.    
APPENDIX 
 
“Proposition of Law No. I[:]  An indictment that fails to set forth an 
offense for which the sentence of death may be imposed is invalid as to the 
capital offense and the death sentence which resulted is void. 
 
“Proposition of Law No. II[:]  The proper remedy for the state’s willful 
failure to disclose that its chief witness has been granted immunity is a mistrial 
or the striking of the witnesses [sic] testimony. 
 
“Proposition of Law III[:]  When a death sentence is both unreliable and 
inappropriate it must be vacated and a life sentence imposed. 
 
“Proposition of Law IV[:]  When the death sentence is excessive and 
disproportionate to the sentence in similar cases, the death sentence must be 
vacated and a life sentence imposed. 
 
53 
 
“Proposition of Law V[:]  When every single potential juror in a capital 
trial has been exposed to pre-trial publicity and victim impact evidence, it is an 
abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny the defendant’s motion for change 
of venue. 
 
“Proposition of Law VI[:]  A trial court denies a capital defendant the 
right to a fair trial and to due process of law [when] it erroneously instructs the 
jury during the guilt-innocence phase of a capital case. 
 
“Proposition of Law VII[:]  Erroneous instructions at the penalty phase 
of a capital case result in an unreliable determination of the proper penalty in a 
capital trial. 
 
“Proposition of Law VIII[:]  When a trial court fails to consider 
mitigating evidence presented during the penalty phase of a capital case and 
considers erroneous aggravating circumstances in making its determination to 
impose the death sentence the death sentence must be vacated. 
 
“Proposition of Law IX[:]  When a prosecutor’s pattern of misconduct 
throughout both phases of a capital trial and closing argument deprive a capital 
defendant of a fair trial the appropriate remedy is a new trial. 
 
54 
 
“Proposition of Law X[:]  A reviewing court may not apply a new rule of 
law in an ex post fact [sic] manner when the new rule reduces the state’s burden 
of supporting a capital conviction. 
 
“Proposition of Law XI[:]  A conviction for aggravated murder may not 
be sustained when the evidence presented does not meet the legal requirements 
to prove the elements of the crime. 
 
“Proposition of Law XII[:]  When the trial court allows a capital jury to 
hear prejudicial irrelevant evidence, a mistrial should be declared. 
 
“Proposition of Law XIII[:]  The failure to object to numerous errors at 
trial, to adequately address substantial capital issues, and to prepare a 
meaningful penalty phase case deprives a capital defendant of the effective 
assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to 
the United States Constitution, Article I, Sections 10 and 16 of the Ohio 
Constitution. 
 
“Proposition of Law XIV[:]  When the trial court refuses to instruct a 
jury to select one of the available life sentences after the jury informs the court 
that it is deadlocked on the death penalty, a capital defendant is denied the right 
 
55 
to a fair trial and a reliable sentencing determination in violation of the Sixth, 
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 
Sections 5, 6 and 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. 
 
“Proposition of Law XV[:]  When a trial court in a capital trial 
erroneously denies a challenge for cause against a juror who is biased, 
reversible error occurs when the defendant is forced to use a peremptory 
challenge to remove the juror. 
 
“Proposition of Law XVI[:]  Exhibits that have been admitted into 
evidence in the guilt-innocence phase of a capital case can only be readmitted 
in the penalty phase if they are relevant to the aggravating circumstances 
proved in the guilt-innocence phase or to mitigating factors presented in the 
penalty phase. 
 
“Proposition of Law XVII[:]  A criminal defendant has a right to be 
present at all proceedings, including in-chambers conferences, unless he 
voluntarily absents himself from the proceeding. 
 
“Proposition of Law XVIII[:]  When a trial court permits the admission 
of expert opinion testimony that is not properly qualified or based on 
 
56 
reasonable scientific certainty, a capital defendant is denied his right to a fair 
trial and to due process of law in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth 
Amendments to the United States Constitution. and Section 16, Article I of the 
Ohio Constitution. 
 
“Proposition of Law XIX[:]  When a trial court admits into evidence 
statements by a defendant which were not knowingly, voluntarily and 
intelligently given, the defendant is denied his rights to a fair trial and against 
self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments 
to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 2, 9, 10 and 16 of the 
Ohio Constitution. 
 
“Proposition of Law XX[:]  When gruesome and prejudicial photographs 
are admitted into evidence even though their prejudicial effect outweighs their 
probative value, a capital defendant is denied his rights to a fair trial, due 
process of law and a reliable sentencing determination as guaranteed by the 
Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States 
Constitution, Article I, Sections 10 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution. 
 
57 
 
Proposition of Law XXI[:]  A trial court should refuse to allow the 
introduction or admission of evidence unless the state can clearly show that the 
evidence it seeks to introduce is related to the defendant or the crime with 
which he is charged. 
 
“Proposition of Law XXII[:]  A witness may testify as an expert if the 
witnesses [sic] testimony is based on reliable scientific, technical, or other 
specialized information to the extent that the testimony reports the result of a 
procedure, test, or experiment and the testimony is reliable. 
 
“Proposition of Law XXIII[:]  Evidence is not admissible against a 
defendant unless the state first establishes that a foundation exists to tie the 
evidence to the defendant. 
 
“Proposition of Law XXIV[:]  Absent any indication that a witness is 
hostile, an adverse witness or a witness identified with an adverse party, 
questioning by use of leading questions on direct examination is prohibited. 
 
“Proposition of Law XXV[:]  Hearsay evidence which lacks any 
indication of trustworthiness is inadmissible. 
 
58 
 
“Proposition of Law XXVI[:]  A capital defendant is denied a fair trial 
when the trial court refuses to permit the voir dire to be video taped. 
 
“Proposition of Law XXVII[:]  When a trial court unduly restricts voir 
dire related to mitigation and sentencing issues, a capital defendant is denied a 
fair trial and reliable sentencing determination. 
 
“Proposition of Law XXVIII[:]  The statements from the prosecutor that 
the jury’s verdict at the penalty phase was only a recommendation violated the 
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well 
as Article I, Sections 2, 9, 10 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution. 
 
“Proposition of Law XXIX[:]  A trial court deprives a capital defendant 
the right to a fair and impartial jury when it asks questions during an individual 
sequestered voir dire which tend to ‘death qualify’ the jury. 
 
“Proposition of Law XXX[:]  The trial court erred to the prejudice of 
appellant Joseph in allowing the prosecutor to perempt jurors with reservations 
about the death penalty. 
 
59 
 
“Proposition of Law XXXI[:]  A capital defendant is denied the right to a 
fair trial and to due process of law when the trial court refuses to allow 
alternating voir dire. 
 
“Proposition of Law XXXII[:]  After a witness testifies, the trial court 
should conduct an in camera inspection of the witness’s written statement with 
the defense counsel and the prosecuting attorney present and participating to 
determine any inconsistencies between the witness’s testimony and any prior 
statement.  (Ohio R.Crim.P. 16(B)(1)(g) applied.) 
 
“Proposition of Law XXXIII[:]  When a trial court, on its own, orders the 
Grand Jury transcripts to be transcribed and then treats the transcripts as if they 
were witness statements pursuant to Ohio R.Crim.P. 16(B)(1)(g), the Grand 
Jury transcripts should be turned over to defense counsel for inspection. 
 
“Proposition of Law XXXIV[:]  On direct appeal as of right to the court 
of appeals in a capital case, a capital appellant is entitled to the review of his 
entire record by the court of appeals. 
 
“Proposition of Law XXXV[:]  The state has an obligation to preserve 
evidence used to secure a conviction in a capital case. 
 
60 
 
“Proposition of Law XXXVI[:]  The Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth 
Amendments to the United States Constitution and Sections 2, 9, 10 and 16, 
Article I of the Ohio Constitution establish the requirements for a valid death 
penalty scheme.  Ohio Revised Code, Section[s] 2903.01, 2929.02, 2929.021, 
2929.022, 2929.023, 2929.03, 2929.04 and 2929.05, Ohio’s statutory 
provisions governing the imposition of the death penalty, do not meet the 
prescribed requirements and thus are unconstitutional, both on their face and as 
applied.”