[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

v. Ford, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-4539.] 

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. 2019-OHIO-4539

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. FORD, APPELLANT.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State v. Ford, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-4539.] 

Criminal Law—Aggravated murder—Conviction affirmed—Death sentence 

vacated and cause remanded to trial court to properly determine whether 

defendant is intellectually disabled after considering the following three 

core elements: (1) intellectual-functioning deficits (indicated by an IQ score 

approximately two standard deviations below the mean—i.e., a score of 

roughly 70 or lower when adjusted for the standard error of measurement), 

(2) significant adaptive deficits in any of the three adaptive-skill sets 

(conceptual, social, and practical), and (3) the onset of these deficits while 

the defendant was a minor. 

(No. 2015-1309—Submitted January 8, 2019—Decided November 7, 2019.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Common Pleas of Summit County, No. 13-04-1008(A). 

__________________ 

 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 2

STEWART, J. 

{¶ 1} This is an appeal of right from aggravated-murder convictions and a 

death sentence. A Summit County Common Pleas Court jury found appellant, 

Shawn Ford Jr., guilty of the aggravated murders of Jeffrey and Margaret Schobert 

and unanimously recommended a death sentence for Margaret’s murder. The trial 

court accepted the recommendation and sentenced Ford accordingly. 

{¶ 2} We affirm Ford’s convictions. However, we remand this case to the 

trial court to evaluate whether Ford is intellectually disabled in accordance with the 

criteria set forth in this opinion. 

I. Trial Evidence 

{¶ 3} Evidence introduced at trial showed that on March 23, 2013, Ford 

stabbed his girlfriend, Chelsea Schobert, after hitting her in the head with a brick. 

While Chelsea was in the hospital, her parents, Jeffrey and Margaret, were 

concerned for Chelsea’s safety and did not permit Ford to visit her. On April 2, 

Ford broke into the Schoberts’ home with Jamall Vaughn. Jeffrey was home and 

in bed. Margaret was at the hospital with Chelsea. Ford killed Jeffrey and then 

waited for Margaret to return home from the hospital. Margaret was killed when 

she came home. Ford stole Jeffrey’s car and other valuables from the Schoberts’ 

home. 

A. Chelsea’s Assault

{¶ 4} Chelsea started dating Ford in August or September 2012. On Friday, 

March 22, 2013, Chelsea celebrated her 18th birthday with Ford, Zachary Keys, 

and Joshua Greathouse at Zachary’s Akron residence. They started drinking around 

11:00 p.m., and everyone became highly intoxicated. 

{¶ 5} At some point, Ford and Chelsea went to a bedroom. According to 

Chelsea, Ford wanted to have sex, but she was not feeling well and asked him to 

wait. Ford pushed her onto the bed. Chelsea said “no” and got up. She told Ford, 

“I hate you.” Ford then hit Chelsea in the head. 
January Term, 2019 

3

{¶ 6} Zachary and Joshua were in the living room watching TV when Ford 

and Chelsea went into the bedroom. After 10 to 15 minutes, Zachary went to the 

bedroom after hearing a “thud.” He found Chelsea halfway off the bed with a 

gashed head. A brick with blood on it was nearby. Zachary asked Ford, “What the 

hell is going on here?” Ford left the bedroom. He returned with a knife and stabbed 

Chelsea in the neck and back. 

{¶ 7} Zachary stopped Ford from stabbing Chelsea again and told him to 

take her to the hospital. They took Chelsea to the car, and Ford drove her to the 

hospital. Chelsea suffered a spinal injury that left lasting effects. 

1. Cover-up of the Assault 

{¶ 8} On Saturday, March 23, Ford told Zachary to tell the police that 

Chelsea had been assaulted by some guys at a party in Kent. He also told Joshua, 

“I want to make sure that you don’t talk about this.” 

{¶ 9} On March 25, Akron Detectives Bertina King and Richard Morrison

went to the hospital to speak to Chelsea. Chelsea indicated that she did not know 

her attacker. The detectives also learned that there was a Global Positioning System 

(“GPS”) tracker on Chelsea’s car. The GPS showed that the car had been at 

Zachary’s residence on the night of March 22 and not in Kent. 

{¶ 10} Later on March 25, the detectives conducted a recorded interview 

with Ford. Ford stated that Chelsea indicated she had been attacked at a party in 

Kent. After being told about the GPS tracker, Ford told police that they were at 

Zachary’s house when Chelsea was attacked. Ford claimed that they were assaulted 

by someone Zachary owed money to and that the person hit Chelsea with a gun 

when she started cursing at him. 

{¶ 11} Ford, Zachary, and Chelsea each identified the same person, a man 

known as Ruiz, in a photo array. On March 27, the police arrested Ruiz and charged 

him with Chelsea’s assault. Ruiz denied his involvement and provided a good alibi. 

The police later determined that he was telling the truth. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 4

2. Ford Prohibited from Visiting Chelsea at the Hospital 

{¶ 12} Chelsea’s room was in a secured part of Akron Children’s Hospital, 

and she did not have a phone in her room. 

{¶ 13} Even though Ruiz had been arrested, the Schoberts did not permit 

Ford to visit Chelsea in the hospital. The Schoberts and law enforcement thought 

this was best for her safety. 

B. The Discovery of Jeffrey and Margaret Schobert 

{¶ 14} Around 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. on April 1, Jeffrey went home from the

hospital while Margaret remained with Chelsea. Margaret left the hospital and went 

home at about 6:00 a.m. on April 2. Around 1:30 p.m. on April 2, Nickolas Gerring, 

a building contractor working on the Schoberts’ home, found Jeffrey’s and 

Margaret’s bodies in their bedroom. Gerring called 9-1-1. A New Franklin police 

officer responding to the scene found Jeffrey on the bed and Margaret on the floor 

next to it. Both of them had multiple, massive head wounds. A sledgehammer was 

lying on the bed next to Jeffrey. Jeffrey’s car was missing. 

C. The Murder Investigation Begins 

{¶ 15} George Staley from the Crime Scene Unit at the Ohio Bureau of 

Criminal Investigation (“BCI”) processed the crime scene. He found reddish 

stains—which later yielded positive results in a presumptive blood test—in the 

ground level of the house, near the doorway leading to the room between the 

kitchen and the garage. 

{¶ 16} Staley collected a knife that was lying on a living-room chair and a 

piece of what appeared to be part of a surgical glove that had a reddish stain on it. 

Other reddish stains were found on pieces of paper inside Margaret’s purse, which 

was on the dining-room table. 

{¶ 17} Police found blood spatter on the master-bedroom ceiling and on the 

dresser near the bed. The sledgehammer and a small piece of plastic on the bed 

were also collected. 
January Term, 2019 

5

{¶ 18} At the outset of the investigation, Detective Michael Hitchings, the 

lead investigator, learned that Chelsea had been attacked and that the Schoberts had 

been keeping Ford from seeing her in the hospital. 

{¶ 19} On the evening of April 2, Hitchings questioned Ford. Hitchings 

told Ford that the Schoberts had been killed. According to Hitchings, Ford reacted 

to the news with “a blank look.” Ford said he was not involved and did not know 

anything about the murders. But the police collected Ford’s Air Jordan shoes, 

because there appeared to be “some spots” on them. Ford was then taken to the 

Portage County jail where he was held on a warrant for lying about Chelsea’s 

assault. 

1. Jeffrey’s Car and Other Evidence Found 

{¶ 20} On April 3, Hitchings learned that Ford had provided George Beech, 

a fellow inmate, with information about the murders, which Beech had passed on 

to the Portage County Sheriff. As a result of that information, Jeffrey’s car was 

found in Akron. Police officers searched the area around the car and found gloves, 

a knife, and a knit hat inside the storm drain in front of a home on Fried Street. 

{¶ 21} Hitchings spoke to a woman who lived at the house. He learned that 

her son was Ford’s friend. She let them search the house. The police encountered 

Jamall Vaughn in an upstairs bedroom. Hitchings also found a ceramic watch, later 

identified as Margaret’s, on the bedroom floor. 

2. Ford Admits Killing the Schoberts 

{¶ 22} On the afternoon of April 3, Hitchings interviewed Ford again. Ford 

continued to deny involvement in the murders. Hitchings testified that Ford 

claimed he walked halfway there with Zachary and someone named Malik but 

turned around. Hitchings told Ford that the Schoberts’ and Chelsea’s blood was 

found on his Air Jordan shoes. Ford claimed that he had loaned his shoes to 

Zachary and then later got them back. According to Hitchings, Ford then admitted 

being at the Schoberts “one time and it was for the dad” but said he got upset and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 6

left. Hitchings testified that Ford then said he was there for part of it but blamed 

the murders on Zachary and Malik, because they had the weapons.

{¶ 23} That evening, Hitchings interviewed Vaughn. Following that 

interview, the police recovered cloth and latex gloves from a sewer drain on City 

View Avenue. 

{¶ 24} On April 4, Hitchings interviewed Ford again. He told Ford that 

Vaughn had been interviewed and discussed the evidence against Ford. According 

to Hitchings, Ford stated that it was Vaughn’s idea to do a “lick” at the Schoberts 

and that they walked from Akron to the Schoberts’ house. Hitchings testified that 

Ford blamed Vaughn for the murders at first. However, as the interview continued, 

Ford said that he was the only one that used the sledgehammer on Jeffrey and 

Margaret. But he said that Vaughn stabbed Jeffrey in the back. Ford also said that 

they took Jeffrey’s car. 

{¶ 25} On the evening of April 5, Ford made a recorded phone call from the 

Summit County jail to his brother. Hitchings testified that Ford discussed the 

murders during that call and indicated that he and Vaughn were the only two 

individuals involved in committing them. 

3. Ford’s Statements to Heather Greathouse and Other Evidence 

{¶ 26} Heather Greathouse lived at her mother’s home in Akron with her

brother, her boyfriend, and Ford. At trial, Heather testified that on the night before 

the murders, Ford told her he was going to “hit a lick,” which she said meant to 

break into a house and rob it. The next day, she found a pair of bloody pants on the 

floor and told her boyfriend to burn them. She testified that Ford brought back two 

rings and some money. Heather’s aunt threw one of the rings in a dumpster at the 

Family Dollar store. The police later recovered the burned jeans from Heather’s 

home and found the ring in the dumpster. 

{¶ 27} Heather also testified that Ford admitted stabbing Chelsea and 

hitting her in the head with a brick. Ford said he did it because “she wasn’t paying 
January Term, 2019 

7

attention to him.” According to Heather, Ford also said he would have killed 

Chelsea if Zachary had not stopped him. 

4. Autopsy Results 

{¶ 28} Dr. Dorothy Dean, deputy medical examiner for Summit County, 

conducted the autopsies of Jeffrey and Margaret. She concluded that Jeffrey died 

from numerous blunt impacts to the head, having been struck at least 14 times. He 

was also stabbed three times, but none of those wounds were life-threatening. 

Margaret died from blunt impacts to the head, having been struck at least 19 times. 

Both victims’ injuries were consistent with being hit by a sledgehammer. 

5. DNA and Forensic Evidence 

{¶ 29} Martin Lewis, a forensic scientist at BCI, testified that the small 

piece of plastic found on the Schoberts’ bed fit perfectly into the handle of the knife 

recovered from the storm drain on Fried Street. Lewis concluded that the plastic 

was at one time a piece of the larger knife handle. 

{¶ 30} Lindsey Pruneski, a forensic scientist at BCI, testified that stains on 

the sledgehammer, Ford’s shoes, the cloth and latex gloves found in the City View 

Avenue drain, and the knife and stocking cap found in the Fried Street drain tested 

positive in a presumptive blood test. A stain on the burned jeans also tested 

positive. 

{¶ 31} A forensic scientist in the DNA section at BCI stated that the DNA 

profiles from stains on Ford’s right shoe, the gloves found in the City View Avenue 

drain, the stocking cap, the knife blade and handle found in the Fried Street drain, 

and the burnt jeans were consistent with Jeffrey’s DNA profile. The forensic 

scientist determined that the expected frequency of occurrence of that DNA profile 

was 1 in 103.3 sextillion unrelated individuals. 

{¶ 32} The forensic scientist stated that the DNA profile from one of the 

stains on Ford’s left shoe was a mixture. The major DNA profile was consistent 

with Margaret’s, and the minor DNA profile was consistent with Ford’s. The 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 8

expected frequency of occurrence of Margaret’s DNA profile on Ford’s shoe was 

1 in 3.163 quadrillion unrelated individuals. 

{¶ 33} The DNA profile on another stain on Ford’s left shoe was also a

mixture. The major profile was consistent with Chelsea’s. The partial minor profile 

was consistent with Ford’s. The expected frequency of occurrence of Chelsea’s 

profile on Ford’s shoe was 1 in 1.712 quintillion unrelated individuals. 

{¶ 34} BCI’s forensic scientist stated that the DNA profiles from the 

stocking cap and the waistband of the burnt jeans were both mixtures consistent 

with contributions from Ford and two unknown individuals. The DNA profile on 

the outside of a light purple latex glove was also a mixture. The major profile was 

consistent with Ford. The expected frequency of occurrence of Ford’s DNA profile 

on the glove was 1 in 3.134 quintillion unrelated individuals. 

{¶ 35} Finally, the forensic scientist determined that Vaughn could not be 

excluded as the major source of DNA obtained from inside another latex glove. 

The expected frequency of occurrence of Vaughn’s partial major DNA profile 

inside the glove was 1 in 124.2 quintillion unrelated individuals. 

II. Procedural History 

{¶ 36} The state charged Ford with five counts of aggravated murder. In 

Count 1, he was charged with the aggravated murder of Jeffrey with prior 

calculation and design. In Count 2, he was charged with the aggravated murder of 

Jeffrey while committing an aggravated robbery. In Count 4, he was charged with 

the aggravated murder of Margaret with prior calculation and design, and in Count 

5, with the aggravated murder of Margaret while committing an aggravated 

robbery. In Count 3, he was charged with the aggravated murder of Jeffrey or 

Margaret while committing aggravated burglary. 

{¶ 37} Each aggravated-murder count contained three death-penalty 

specifications: (1) committing or attempting to commit aggravated robbery as the 

principal offender in the commission of the aggravated murder or, if not the 
January Term, 2019 

9

principal offender, committing the aggravated murder with prior calculation and 

design, R.C. 2929.04(A)(7), (2) committing or attempting to commit aggravated 

burglary as the principal offender in the commission of the aggravated murder or, 

if not the principal offender, committing the aggravated murder with prior 

calculation and design, R.C. 2929.04(A)(7), and (3) a course of conduct involving 

multiple murders, R.C. 2929.04(A)(5). 

{¶ 38} In Counts 6 through 11, Ford was also charged with aggravated 

robbery, aggravated burglary, grand theft of a motor vehicle, petty theft, and the 

felonious assault of Chelsea. 

{¶ 39} Ford pled not guilty to all charges. The jury found Ford guilty of all 

counts and specifications. He was found guilty of the felony-murder specifications 

as to Counts 1, 2, 3, and 5 with a determination that he was the principal offender. 

And he was found guilty of the felony-murder specifications as to Count 4 with a 

determination that he committed the aggravated murder of Margaret with prior 

calculation and design. 

{¶ 40} The trial court merged for sentencing the aggravated-murder counts 

for Jeffrey’s death, and the jury returned a verdict of life imprisonment without the 

possibility of parole on Count 2. The trial court likewise merged for sentencing the 

aggravated-murder counts for Margaret’s death, and the jury returned a death 

sentence on Count 4. The trial judge sentenced Ford accordingly. Counts 6 through 

10 were merged with the aggravated-murder counts. Ford was sentenced on Count 

11 to eight years for the felonious assault of Chelsea. 

{¶ 41} Ford appeals his convictions and sentence and raises 23 propositions 

of law. We will address the issues in the approximate order that they arose during 

trial; however, we will first address the issue of whether the trial court properly 

determined that Ford is not intellectually disabled. 

 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 10 

III. Intellectual Disability 

{¶ 42} In proposition of law No. III, Ford argues that the trial court erred in 

ruling that he is not intellectually disabled. This claim has merit, and we remand 

the matter to the trial court for further review to determine whether Ford is 

intellectually disabled. 

A. Standards for Assessing Intellectual Disability 

1. Atkins and Lott 

{¶ 43} In Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 

(2002), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the execution of 

intellectually disabled individuals violates the ban on cruel and unusual punishment 

found in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

{¶ 44} Atkins defined “mental retardation,” i.e. “intellectual disability,”1

 by 

reference to two clinical definitions: one from the American Association on Mental 

Retardation’s Mental Retardation: Definition, Classification, and Systems of 

Support (9th Ed.1992) and the second from the American Psychiatric Association’s 

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th Ed.2000). But the 

Supreme Court left to the states “ ‘the task of developing appropriate ways to 

enforce’ ” the restriction on executing the intellectually disabled. Atkins at 317, 

quoting Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 416, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 91 L.Ed.2d 335 

(1986). 

{¶ 45} In State v. Lott, 97 Ohio St.3d 303, 2002-Ohio-6625, 779 N.E.2d 

1011, we set forth a definition of intellectual disability for courts to follow. Lott 

required “(1) significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, (2) significant 

limitations in two or more adaptive skills, such as communication, self-care, and 

self-direction, and (3) onset before the age of 18.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 12. 

 

1. The phrase “intellectual disability” will be used throughout this opinion including in place of 

the term “mental retardation.” 
January Term, 2019 

11 

Lott also held that there is “a rebuttable presumption” that a defendant is not 

intellectually disabled if “his or her [intelligence quotient (“IQ”)] is above 70.” Id. 

2. Diagnostic Standards

{¶ 46} In 2010, the American Association on Intellectual and 

Developmental Disabilities (“AAIDD”) updated its medical diagnostic standards 

for defining intellectual disability in the 11th edition of its clinical manual, 

Intellectual Disability: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports

(“AAIDD-11”). In 2013, the American Psychiatric Association updated its 

definition of intellectual disability in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of 

Mental Disorders (5th Ed.2013) (“DSM-5”). Both updated definitions identified 

three core elements: (1) “intellectual-functioning deficits (indicated by an IQ score 

‘approximately two standard deviations below the mean,’—i.e., a score of roughly 

70—adjusted for ‘the standard error of measurement,’ AAIDD-11, at 27),” Moore 

v. Texas, __ U.S. __, 137 S.Ct. 1039, 1045, 197 L.Ed.2d 416 (2017) (“Moore I”), 

(2) significant adaptive-skill deficits in one or more activities of daily life, and (3) 

the onset of these deficits before the age of 18. AAIDD-11 at 27, DSM-5 at 33; see

Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701, 710, 134 S.Ct. 1986, 188 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2014). 

{¶ 47} In Hall and Moore I, the United States Supreme Court applied the 

updated medical diagnostic standards in striking down state-court decisions on 

intellectual disability. 

3. Hall v. Florida

{¶ 48} In Hall, the Supreme Court applied Atkins to invalidate a Florida law 

that precluded the presentation of additional evidence of intellectual disability when 

the offender scored above 70 on IQ tests. Hall at 723-724. Hall held that courts 

must consider the standard error of measurement (“SEM”), id. at 723, which 

reflects the imprecise nature of the IQ test and the fact that an individual’s IQ score 

may fluctuate for a variety of reasons, id. at 712-713. The Supreme Court instructed 

that states must “understand that an IQ test score represents a range rather than a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 12 

fixed number.” Id. at 723. Therefore, “when a defendant’s IQ test score falls within 

the test’s acknowledged and inherent margin of error, the defendant must be able 

to present additional evidence of intellectual disability, including testimony 

regarding adaptive deficits.” Id. 

4. Moore v. Texas 

{¶ 49} In Moore I, __ U.S. at ___, 137 S.Ct. at 1053, 197 L.Ed.2d 416, the 

Supreme Court struck down a Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision that relied 

on an outdated definition in assessing whether the defendant was intellectually 

disabled. 

{¶ 50} Moore claimed that he was intellectually disabled and therefore 

ineligible for the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment. Id. at __, 137 S.Ct. 

at 1045. A state habeas court agreed with him, applying a definition of “intellectual 

disability” based on then-current medical standards, including those for evaluating 

both IQ scores and adaptive-functioning measures. Id. at __, 137 S.Ct. at 1046. 

But the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that Moore failed to 

prove significantly subaverage intellectual functioning because he had achieved IQ 

test scores of 74 and 78. Id. at __, 137 S.Ct. at 1047. Further, the Texas court 

concluded, Moore failed to prove “ ‘significant and related limitations in adaptive 

functioning’ ” based on additional restrictions imposed by Texas case law. Id. 

{¶ 51} The United States Supreme Court vacated the judgment and 

remanded the case. Moore I held that the Texas high court had “fastened” its 

intellectual-disability determination to an outdated definition of intellectual

disability adopted in that state’s earlier court rulings and that this archaic definition 

“pervasively infected” the state-court analysis such that the decision of the state 

court could not stand. Id. at __, 137 S.Ct. at 1053. Moore I explained that the 

Texas court’s analysis of Moore’s IQ scores was “irreconcilable with Hall” because 

it failed to account for the SEM. Id. at ___, 137 S.Ct. at 1049. Moore had a score 

of 74 on one test, but when adjusted for the SEM, he had a range of 69 to 79. Id. 
January Term, 2019 

13 

This meant that the lower end of the range fell below 70, and therefore, the Texas

court was required under Hall to consider Moore’s adaptive functioning. Id. 

{¶ 52} Then, addressing the Texas court’s rejection of adaptive-functioning 

criteria, the Supreme Court expanded on Hall’s analysis, noting: “By rejecting the 

habeas court’s application of medical guidance and clinging to the standard it laid 

out in [an earlier case], the [Texas court] failed adequately to inform itself of the 

‘medical community’s diagnostic framework * * *.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Moore 

I, __ U.S. at __, 137 S.Ct. at 1053, 197 L.Ed.2d 416, quoting Hall, 572 U.S. at 703, 

134 S.Ct. 1986, 188 L.Ed.2d 1007. The Supreme Court remanded Moore’s case, 

and the Texas court was required to reconsider its decision in light of the new 

framework. Id. 

{¶ 53} In Moore I, the court noted that the DSM-5 stated that “deficits in 

only one of the three adaptive-skills domains suffice to show adaptive deficits.” 

(Emphasis added.) Id. at ___, 137 S.Ct. at 1050; see DSM-5 at 33, 38. The court 

also noted that “[i]n determining the significance of adaptive deficits, clinicians 

look to whether an individual’s adaptive performance falls two or more standard 

deviations below the mean in any of the three adaptive skill sets (conceptual, social, 

and practical).” (Emphasis added.) Id. at ___, 137 S.Ct. at 1046; see AAIDD-11 at 

43. 

{¶ 54} On remand, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reconsidered its

decision that Moore did not have an intellectual disability but reached the same 

conclusion. The Supreme Court again reviewed the state court’s decision and 

reversed. See Moore v. Texas, __ U.S. __, 139 S.Ct. 666, __ L.Ed.2d __ (2019) 

(“Moore II”). 

{¶ 55} The Supreme Court emphasized that “the court of appeals again 

relied less upon adaptive deficits to which the trial court had referred than upon 

Moore’s apparent adaptive strengths.” (Emphasis sic.) Id. at __, 139 S.Ct. at 670. 

The Supreme Court faulted the state court for (1) emphasizing Moore’s capacity to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 14 

communicate, read, and write based in part on pro se papers Moore had filed in 

court without determining that Moore wrote the papers on his own, (2) relying upon 

adaptive improvements Moore made in prison, (3) concluding that Moore failed to 

show that his deficient social behavior was related to his mental disabilities rather 

than emotional problems, and (4) relying on “ ‘lay stereotypes of the intellectually 

disabled.’ ” Id. at ___, 139 S.Ct. at 670-672, quoting Moore I, __ U.S. __, 137 

S.Ct. at 1052, 197 L.Ed.2d 416. Rather than remanding Moore’s case, the Supreme 

Court found that on the basis of the trial-court record, Moore had established that 

he is a person with intellectual disability. Id. at ___, 139 S.Ct. at 672. 

B. Relevant Factual Background 

1. Pretrial Evaluations 

{¶ 56} Before trial, Dr. Robert Byrnes, a psychologist, examined Ford to 

determine whether he was competent to stand trial and whether he was 

intellectually disabled. 

{¶ 57} In his report, Dr. Byrnes stated that no records suggested that Ford 

has ever been diagnosed as intellectually disabled. In the summer of 2013, he 

administered the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (“WASI”), and the 

results showed that Ford had a full-scale IQ score of 64. But Dr. Byrnes stated that 

“[t]hese results probably underestimate Mr. Ford’s intellectual ability because of 

variable attention and impulsive behavior during the testing.” Dr. Byrnes 

concluded that Ford was not intellectually disabled. 

{¶ 58} Dr. Arcangela Wood, a psychologist and director of a state-certified 

forensic center, also conducted a pretrial evaluation of Ford. She determined that 

Ford was sane at the time of the crimes. Dr. Wood administered the Wechsler Adult 

Intelligence Scale, Fourth Edition (“WAIS-IV”). Ford scored a full-scale IQ of 80 

(95 percent confidence interval [“CI”] = 76-84), which placed his overall 

intellectual functioning in the “low average range of intelligence.” 

 
January Term, 2019 

15 

2. Mitigation Testimony as to Ford’s Mental State 

{¶ 59} The defense hired Dr. Joy Stankowski, a psychiatrist, as a mitigation 

specialist. She interviewed Ford and examined his prior IQ test results but did not 

administer any new ones or determine whether he was intellectually disabled. 

During mitigation, she testified that “Shawn’s IQ over the years tested to be 

anywhere between 62 and 80.” 

{¶ 60} Following Dr. Stankowski’s mitigation testimony, defense counsel 

moved to dismiss the death specifications because Ford’s IQ scores ranged between 

62 and 80. The trial court overruled the motion, but held a hearing to determine 

whether Ford was intellectually disabled, see Atkins, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 

153 L.Ed.2d 335, after the jury returned the death verdict. 

3. Atkins Hearing

{¶ 61} In preparation for the Atkins hearing, three experts evaluated 

whether Ford was intellectually disabled. Dr. Katie Connell, a forensic 

psychologist, was the court’s expert; Dr. James Karpawich, a clinical psychologist, 

was the defense expert; and Dr. Sylvia O’Bradovich, a forensic psychologist, was 

the state’s expert. 

a. Dr. Connell’s evaluation 

{¶ 62} Dr. Connell conducted a detailed evaluation of Ford’s school 

records. She reported that an evaluation conducted when Ford was six years old 

indicated that he did “not meet the mental retardation criteria.” The childhood 

evaluation attributed Ford’s learning difficulties to linguistic factors, found that he 

had a specific learning disability, and identified a speech or language impairment. 

{¶ 63} Dr. Connell reviewed Ford’s scores on five IQ tests: (1) Mental

Processing Composite score of 78 on the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children 

(“K-ABC”) in 2001 at age 6 or 7, (2) full-scale IQ score of 62 on the Wechsler 

Intelligence Scale for Children, Third Edition (“WISC-III”) in 2003 at age 9, (3) 

IQ composite score of 75 on the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, Second Edition 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 16 

(“K-BIT2”) in 2006 at age 12, (4) full-scale IQ score of 64 on the WASI in 2013 at 

age 18, and (5) full-scale IQ score of 80 on the WAIS-IV in 2013 at age 19.2

{¶ 64} Dr. Connell did not deem the IQ score of 62 to be a reliable 

assessment of Ford’s intellectual functioning because the evaluator stated that he 

was extremely fidgety and distracted at the time of the test. Dr. Connell also 

discounted the IQ score of 64 because Dr. Byrnes had reported that “these results 

probably underestimate[d]” Ford’s intellectual ability. Dr. Connell also noted that 

Ford told her that during previous testing with Dr. Byrnes, “I don’t know if I tried 

or not. Very possible I didn’t try.” 

{¶ 65} Dr. Connell did not conduct additional IQ testing. She stated,

“Available records provided three prior IQ test results, and even when considering 

measurement error and that one was an abbreviated measure, all were clearly above 

the range of scores found in individuals diagnosed with an intellectual disability.” 

(Emphasis added.) 

{¶ 66} Dr. Connell also discussed the “Flynn Effect.” She explained that 

“Flynn reported that mean IQ increases about .33 points per year and some 

researchers have suggested that any obtained IQ score should be adjusted [down] 

.33 points for each year the test was administered after the standardization was 

completed.” She stated that there continues to be debate about the Flynn Effect. 

Dr. Connell stated, “The Flynn effect would have the most relevance in terms of 

the K-ABC as this test was published in 1983 and administered to Mr. Ford in 2001. 

If a Flynn adjustment was applied to Mr. Ford’s prior K-ABC test results, his 

mental processing composite score would be approximately 72.” She added, “The 

Flynn effect would have little impact on his K-BIT2 score as this was published in 

2004 and administered to Mr. Ford in 2006 or on his WAIS-IV score as this test 

 

2. Dr. Connell rescored the WAIS-IV test results after noticing several errors in the raw test data. 

She stated that the corrected full-scale IQ score was 82. Dr. Connell added, “These obtained scores 

are consistent with Dr. Woods’s prior opinion that they fall in the low average range and are not 

consistent with an intellectual disability.” 
January Term, 2019 

17 

was published in 2008 and administered to him in 2013.” Dr. Connell concluded 

that “even with considering the Flynn Effect, * * * none of Mr. Ford’s IQ test 

results are consistent with a diagnosis of intellectual disability.” 

{¶ 67} As to adaptive functioning, Dr. Connell reported that a formal 

adaptive-functioning measure was completed when Ford was administered the 

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (“VBS”) in December 2003 when he was in 

third grade. Dr. Connell stated that these test results identified deficits in adaptive 

functioning. However, she noted that “the special education team determined that 

this was due to a specific learning disability and did not find that intellectual 

disability was the cause of his adaptive functioning limitations.” 

{¶ 68} Dr. Connell conducted the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales–II 

(“VBS-II”) test. She relied on information from her interviews and observations of 

Ford, an interview with his mother, and scores from his school achievement tests. 

Dr. Connell stated that none of the VBS-II scores indicated a significant deficit. 

{¶ 69} Dr. Connell used the standards set forth in the DSM-5 and the 

AAIDD-11 and concluded that Ford did not meet the diagnostic criteria for 

intellectual disability. 

b. Dr. Karpawich’s evaluation 

{¶ 70} Ford refused to participate in a psychological evaluation by Dr. 

Karpawich. Thus, his evaluation was based on a review of records and a meeting 

with Ford’s mother. 

{¶ 71} Dr. Karpawich reviewed Ford’s IQ test results, including his 2006 

score of 75 on the K-BIT2. As to this score, Dr. Karpawich testified: 

With an IQ of 75, if you take into consideration the standard error 

of measurement to be a 90 percent confidence level, that is—actual 

IQ is between 69 and 83. So that would be a range rather than just 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 18 

an IQ score by itself you need to take into consideration what is the 

range. 

Dr. Karpawich discounted the two IQ scores that fell below 70 because of Ford’s 

impulsive behavior and poor attention during both tests. 

{¶ 72} In summarizing his opinion as to a possible intellectual disability, 

Dr. Karpawich stated: “All [of Ford’s] IQ test results placed his intellectual 

functioning below average. However, he was not given the diagnosis of mental 

retardation/intellectual disability prior to the age of 18. His lowest IQ was 62 in 

2003, but that evaluator noted that these results may ‘underestimate’ his ability.” 

He added that “[o]ther test scores during his childhood placed his intellectual 

function in the borderline range (although the standard error of measurement on 

some tests cautioned that his actual IQ could be at 70 or below).” 

{¶ 73} As to adaptive skills, Dr. Karpawich testified that Ford’s 2003

results on the VBS test were at “the cutoff between mild mental retardation and 

borderline intelligence.” During Dr. Karpawich’s evaluation, Ford’s mother 

completed an adaptive-behavior assessment. This standardized assessment of a 

person’s adaptive functioning is conducted by asking questions of an informant. 

Dr. Karpawich stated that Ford’s scores were below average in the areas of social 

behavior and social engagement and very poor for the social-adjustment factor. Dr. 

Karpawich testified: “[h]is scores were poor in the domains of conformity, 

trustworthiness, and disturbing interpersonal behavior” and “he’s always had 

significant issues and still in the area of what we call social behavior. * * * [T]hese 

things have been increasingly evident over the years with Shawn, and these would 

all be considered adaptive behaviors.” As to other adaptive behaviors, Ford tested 

“in the average range or above.” 
January Term, 2019 

19 

{¶ 74} Dr. Karpawich stated that he applied the legal standard set forth in 

R.C. 5123.01(N)3

 and Lott, 97 Ohio St.3d 303, 2002-Ohio-6625, 779 N.E.2d 1011,

in diagnosing intellectual disability. He did not use the DSM standard, because “it 

has a lot of difficulties.” Dr. Karpawich concluded: “Based upon the available 

information, it is my opinion with reasonable scientific certainty, that there is 

insufficient information to conclude that the defendant fulfills the criteria for mental 

retardation/intellectual disability.” 

c. Dr. O’Bradovich’s evaluation 

{¶ 75} Dr. O’Bradovich’s office administered the WAIS-IV and Ford 

received an overall score of 79. He also received an overall composite score of 87 

on the VBS-II, which is in the adequate range. Dr. O’Bradovich stated that Ford’s 

overall adaptive-behavior skills and his communication and socialization skills fell 

in the adequate range but his daily-living skills fell in the moderately low range. 

Dr. O’Bradovich determined that “[t]hese results are not indicative of significant 

deficits in adaptive functioning.” She concluded that Ford is not intellectually 

disabled. 

d. Decision and findings of the trial court 

{¶ 76} The trial court used the Lott test to determine whether Ford was 

intellectually disabled. Specifically, it evaluated whether the preponderance of the 

evidence demonstrates that Ford had “(1) significantly subaverage intellectual 

functioning, (2) significant limitations in two or more adaptive skills, and (3) onset 

of these conditions before the age of 18.” (Emphasis added.) See Lott, 97 Ohio 

St.3d 303, 2002-Ohio-6625, 779 N.E.2d 1011, at ¶ 12. 

{¶ 77} The trial court determined that Ford’s IQ scores did not show that he 

had significantly subaverage intellectual functioning. The trial court agreed with 

 

3. R.C. 5123.01(N) provides: “ ‘Intellectual disability’ means a disability characterized by having 

significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficiencies in 

adaptive behavior, manifested during the developmental period.”
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 20 

Dr. Connell’s findings that Ford’s IQ scores of 62 and 64 were not reliable measures 

of Ford’s intellectual functioning. 

{¶ 78} The trial court mentioned Dr. Karpawich’s finding that Ford’s IQ 

score of 75, when taking the SEM into consideration, resulted in an actual IQ score 

within a range between 69 and 83. However, the trial court did not discuss the 

significance of Dr. Karpawich’s finding that the low range of the IQ scores fell 

below 70. 

{¶ 79} As for adaptive deficits, the trial court stated: “All three experts who 

specifically evaluated defendant’s adaptive skills and functioning testified that 

while Mr. Ford had limits in certain areas of adaptive skills, he could not be 

characterized as having ‘significant limitations in two or more adaptive skills.’ ” 

(Emphasis added.) 

{¶ 80} The trial court concluded that Ford is not intellectually disabled, 

stating: “All of the evidence adduced at the Atkins hearing was consistent. None of 

the three experts was of the opinion that Mr. Ford has ever been intellectually 

disabled within the standards recognized by the American Psychiatric Association, 

the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, or State 

v. Lott [97 Ohio St.3d 303, 2002-Ohio-6625, 779 N.E.2d 1011].” 

C. Analysis 

1. SEM 

{¶ 81} Ford argues that the trial court failed to account for the SEM when 

considering his IQ scores. Hall and Moore I require a trial court to consider the 

SEM when evaluating a defendant’s IQ scores. As Hall explains, “The SEM 

reflects the reality that an individual’s intellectual functioning cannot be reduced to 

a single numerical score.” Hall, 572 U.S. at 713, 134 S.Ct. 1986, 188 L.Ed.2d 

1007. “[T]he SEM means that an individual’s score is best understood as a range 

of scores on either side of the recorded score.” Id. 
January Term, 2019 

21 

{¶ 82} The trial court reviewed Ford’s reported IQ scores on the WISC-III, 

the K-BIT2, two WAIS-IV tests, and the WASI. These scores included a CI range. 

Its significance is that the SEM, “which varies by test, subgroup or age group, is 

used to quantify the variability that is attributable to the test itself and provides the 

basis for establishing a statistical CI within which the person’s true score is likely 

to fall.” (Emphasis sic.) AAIDD, User’s Guide to Accompany the 11th Edition of 

Intellectual Disability: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports 22 (11th 

Ed.2012). 

{¶ 83} Dr. Karpawich reported that Ford’s IQ score of 75 on the K-BIT2

had a 90 percent CI range of 69 to 83. As to these scores, the trial court stated, “Dr. 

Karpawich noted that although all of Mr. Ford’s IQ tests generated below average 

scores, his tests had never placed him in the intellectually disabled range.” 

(Footnote omitted.) 

{¶ 84} However, as discussed above, the United States Supreme Court has 

ruled that when test scores, adjusted for the test’s SEM, are below average, the 

scores are not enough to determine the question of disability. Moore I emphasizes 

additional scrutiny and “require[s] that courts continue the inquiry and consider 

other evidence of intellectual disability where an individual’s IQ score, adjusted for 

the test’s standard error, falls within the clinically established range for intellectualfunctioning deficits.” Moore I, __ U.S. at __, 137 S.Ct. at 1050, 197 L.Ed.2d 416. 

The Supreme Court held that because Moore’s score yielded a range of 69 to 79, 

the state court “had to move on to consider Moore’s adaptive functioning.” Id. at 

___, 137 S.Ct. at 1049. Here, the trial court erred in disregarding the SEM, thus 

failing to recognize the lower end of the range in determining whether Ford’s 

intellectual functioning was below average. 

{¶ 85} The concurring-dissenting opinion discounts Ford’s IQ scores 

because only one score established an IQ range of 69 to 83. It adds that this IQ test 

is “substantially outweighed” by the other tests and the unanimous view of all three 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 22 

experts who determined that Ford is not intellectually disabled. Opinion concurring 

in part and dissenting in part at ¶ 452. However, Ford’s higher performance on 

other IQ tests did not allow the trial court to ignore an IQ score that falls at or below 

70. See Moore at __, 137 S.Ct. at 1048, citing Hall, 572 U.S. at 721-724, 134 S.Ct. 

1986, 188 L.Ed.2d 1007. As for the unanimity of expert opinion, the legal 

determination of intellectual disability is distinct from a medical diagnosis. “[T]his 

determination is informed by the views of medical experts,” but “[t]hese views do 

not dictate the court’s decision.” Hall at 721. 

2. The Flynn Effect 

{¶ 86} Ford argues that the trial court erred when it failed to take the Flynn 

Effect into account when evaluating his IQ scores. 

{¶ 87} “The Flynn Effect * * * is a ‘ “generally recognized phenomenon” ’ 

in which the average IQ scores produced by any given IQ test tend to rise over time, 

often by approximately three points per ten years from the date the IQ test is initially 

standardized.” Black v. Carpenter, 866 F.3d 734, 738 (6th Cir.2017), fn. 1, quoting 

Ledford v. Head, N.D.Ga. No. 1:02-CV-1515-JEC 2008, WL 754486, *7, quoting 

testimony. Thus, “[t]he SEM is distinct from the Flynn Effect.” Id. at 739, fn. 2. 

{¶ 88} In discussing the Flynn Effect, Dr. Connell explained that it would 

have little impact on Ford’s IQ scores on the K-BIT2 and the WAIS-IV because 

these were newer versions of the test when Ford took them. Dr. Connell stated that 

the Flynn Effect would be most relevant to the K-ABC, because that test was 

published in 1983 and administered to Ford in 2001. She stated that his IQ score 

of 78 on the K-ABC would be approximately an IQ score of 72 if the Flynn Effect 

was applied. Dr. Connell concluded that “even with considering the Flynn Effect, 

* * * none of Mr. Ford’s IQ test results are consistent with a diagnosis of intellectual 

disability.” However, as stated above, there is no indication that Dr. Connell 

considered the SEM, which would have extended Ford’s IQ score on the K-ABC 

into a lower range. 
January Term, 2019 

23 

{¶ 89} The trial court did not discuss the Flynn Effect when evaluating 

Ford’s IQ scores. Neither the Hall nor the Moore decisions mention the Flynn 

Effect or require its application. There is also no legal or scientific consensus that 

requires an across-the-board downward adjustment to offset the Flynn Effect. See 

Black at 746 (noting that Hall does not require that IQ scores be adjusted for the 

Flynn Effect); McManus v. Neal, 779 F.3d 634, 653 (7th Cir.2015) (nothing in 

Atkins, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335, suggests that IQ scores 

must be adjusted by the Flynn Effect); Smith v. Duckworth, 824 F.3d 1233, 1246 

(10th Cir.2016) (“Hall says nothing about the application of the Flynn Effect to IQ 

scores in evaluating a defendant’s intellectual disability”); but see Walker v. True, 

399 F.3d 315, 322-323 (4th Cir.2005) (stating that on remand, the district court 

should consider the Flynn Effect evidence). 

{¶ 90} The AAIDD recommends that in “cases in which a test with aging 

norms is used as part of a diagnosis of [intellectual disability], a corrected Full Scale 

IQ upward of 3 points per decade for age of the norms is warranted.” AAIDD, 

User’s Guide at 23. Despite this recommendation, “Hall indicated that being 

informed by the medical community does not demand adherence to everything 

stated in the latest medical guide. But neither does our precedent license disregard 

of current medical standards.” Moore I, __ U.S. at __, 137 S.Ct. at 1049, 197 

L.Ed.2d 416. 

{¶ 91} We have not held that trial courts must apply the Flynn Effect to 

adjust a defendant’s IQ score. But the Tenth District Court of Appeals has stated 

that “a trial court must consider evidence presented on the Flynn effect, but, 

consistent with its prerogative to determine the persuasiveness of the evidence, the 

trial court is not bound to, but may, conclude the Flynn effect is a factor in a 

defendant’s IQ score.” State v. Burke, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP-1234, 2005-

Ohio-7020, ¶ 51; see also State v. Jackson, 141 Ohio St.3d 171, 2014-Ohio-3707, 

23 N.E.3d 1023, ¶ 100 (based upon IQ scores and the Flynn Effect, trial court was 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 24 

justified in inquiring into whether an evaluation of the defendant’s mental abilities 

was appropriate). 

{¶ 92} We hold that the trial court should have discussed evidence 

presented on the Flynn Effect, although it was in the trial court’s discretion whether 

to include it as a factor in the IQ scores. 

3. The Currency of Lott 

{¶ 93} Finally, Ford argues that the trial court used an outdated test in 

finding that he did not have significant limitations in two or more adaptive skills. 

{¶ 94} In reviewing adaptive skills, the trial court stated that Dr. Karpawich 

noted that Ford has “always had ‘significant issues’ in the area of social behavior.” 

The trial court added: 

[Dr. Karpawich] indicated this area includes things like “being

impulsive, not assuming responsibility, poor social judgment, not 

considering long-term consequences of his actions, reacting poorly 

when he becomes frustrated, not able to cope with stress, disrupting 

other people, acting out in the community. All these things have 

been increasingly evident over the years with Shawn, and these 

would all be considered adaptive behaviors.” 

Despite these findings, the trial court applied the test developed in Lott, 97 Ohio 

St.3d 303, 2002-Ohio-6625, 779 N.E.2d 1011, and determined that Ford “could not 

be characterized as having ‘significant limitations in two or more adaptive skills.’ ” 

{¶ 95} As discussed earlier, the current diagnostic standards require 

significant deficits in any of the three adaptive-skill sets (conceptual, social, and 

practical) in determining whether a defendant is intellectually disabled. See Moore 

I, __ U.S. at __, 137 S.Ct. at 1046, 197 L.Ed.2d 416; AAIDD-11 at 43; DSM-5 at 
January Term, 2019 

25 

37. Thus, the trial court used the wrong standard in finding that Ford did have not 

significant limitations in his adaptive skills. 

{¶ 96} The concurring-dissenting opinion seeks to tweak Lott rather than 

overrule what is an improper standard for assessing intellectual disability. The 

opinion says that the evidence reflected the experts’ application of the current 

standards and that any problem with Lott was not prejudicial to Ford. Opinion 

concurring in part and dissenting in part at ¶ 450. In the context of a capital case, 

we decline to glean this finding from the record. Lott requires a finding of 

significant deficits in two or more adaptive-skill sets, but the current diagnostic 

standards require significant deficits in any of the three adaptive-skill sets. Dr. 

Karpawich applied the Lott test in conducting his diagnosis, and the trial court 

applied the Lott test in determining that Ford was not intellectually disabled. Under 

these circumstances, we have no confidence in the trial court’s determination based 

on its application of an improper standard. 

{¶ 97} Lott is outdated in requiring a finding of “significant limitations in 

two or more adaptive skills.” 97 Ohio St.3d 303, 2003-Ohio-6625, 779 N.E.2d 611, 

¶ 12. Moreover, Lott’s holding that there is a rebuttable presumption that a 

defendant is not intellectually disabled if his or her IQ score is above 70 is no longer 

valid. IQ scores are imprecise and “should be read not as a single fixed number but 

as a range.” Hall, 572 U.S. at 712, 134 S.Ct. 1986, 188 L.Ed.2d 1007. 

{¶ 98} As it did in Lott, it is appropriate for this court to provide guidance 

to the trial court and other courts to apply going forward. The standard that was 

recently adopted by the Supreme Court of Kentucky in Woodall v. Commonwealth, 

563 S.W.3d 1 (Ky.2018) (recognizing that Moore I likely invalidated Kentucky’s 

statutory definition of intellectual disability) provides such guidance. Id. at 6; see

Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann. 532.130(2). 

{¶ 99} The Supreme Court of Kentucky stated: 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 26 

In an attempt to provide guidance to courts confronting this 

issue, we shall attempt to fashion a rule. The U.S. Supreme Court 

in Moore favorably viewed what appears to be the “generally 

accepted, uncontroversial intellectual-disability diagnostic 

definition,” * * * “which identifies three core elements: (1) 

intellectual-functioning deficits (indicated by an IQ score 

‘approximately two standard deviations below the mean’—i.e., a 

score of roughly 70—adjusted for the ‘standard error of 

measurement’ [AAIDD-11 at 27]; (2) adaptive deficits (‘the inability 

to learn basic skills and adjust behavior to changing circumstances,’ 

[Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. ___, ___, 134 S.Ct. 1986, 1994, 188 

L.Ed.2d 1007 (2014)]); and (3) the onset of these deficits while still 

a minor.” 

Woodall at 6-7, quoting Moore I, __ U.S. at __, 137 S.Ct. at 1045, 197 L.Ed.2d 

4165; see also State v. Thurber, 308 Kan. 140, 420 P.3d 389, 450-452 (2018) 

(severing portions of Kansas statutes that ran afoul of Moore I and Hall). 

D. Conclusion 

{¶ 100} Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court to properly 

determine whether Ford is intellectually disabled. Lott’s holding that there is a 

rebuttable presumption that a defendant is not intellectually disabled if his or her 

IQ score is above 70 is no longer valid. For purposes of eligibility for the death 

penalty, a court determining whether a defendant is intellectually disabled must 

consider three core elements: (1) intellectual-functioning deficits (indicated by an 

IQ score approximately two standard deviations below the mean—i.e., a score of 

roughly 70 or lower when adjusted for the standard error of measurement, (2) 

significant adaptive deficits in any of the three adaptive-skill sets (conceptual, 

social, and practical), and (3) the onset of these deficits while the defendant was a 
January Term, 2019 

27 

minor. The trial court may consider expert testimony and appoint experts if 

necessary in deciding this issue. The trial court shall make written findings and set 

forth its rationale for finding the defendant intellectually disabled or not 

intellectually disabled. 

IV. Remaining Issues 

{¶ 101} We now address Ford’s remaining propositions of law. For ease of 

discussion, we will address them out of turn. 

A. Joinder of Offenses at Trial 

{¶ 102} In proposition of law No. VII, Ford argues that the trial court erred 

by failing to grant the defense motion to sever the felonious-assault charge in Count 

11 from the remaining charges. 

{¶ 103} “Two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment, 

information or complaint in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged 

* * * are of the same or similar character * * *.” Crim.R. 8(A). Crim.R. 8(A) also 

allows the joinder of offenses that “are based on the same act or transaction, or are 

based on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts 

of a common scheme or plan, or are part of a course of criminal conduct.” 

Permitting joinder “conserves resources by avoiding duplication inherent in 

multiple trials and minimizes the possibility of incongruous results that can occur 

in successive trials before different juries.” State v. Hamblin, 37 Ohio St.3d 153, 

158, 524 N.E.2d 476 (1988). 

{¶ 104} “Notwithstanding the policy in favor of joinder,” Crim.R. 14 

permits a defendant to request severance of the counts in an indictment “on the 

grounds that he or she is prejudiced by the joinder of multiple offenses.” State v. 

LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181, 2002-Ohio-2128, 767 N.E.2d 166, ¶ 49. The defendant 

“has the burden of furnishing the trial court with sufficient information so that it 

can weigh the considerations favoring joinder against the defendant’s right to a fair 

trial.” State v. Torres, 66 Ohio St.2d 340, 343, 421 N.E.2d 1288 (1981). But even 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 28 

if the equities appear to support severance, the state can overcome a defendant’s 

claim of prejudicial joinder by showing either that (1) it could have introduced 

evidence of the joined offenses as other acts under Evid.R. 404(B) or (2) the 

“evidence of each crime joined at trial is simple and direct,” State v. Lott, 51 Ohio 

St.3d 160, 163, 555 N.E.2d 293 (1990). 

{¶ 105} In his motion for severance, Ford argued that the offenses should 

be severed because there was no evidence that the incidents were part of a common 

scheme or plan or a course of criminal conduct and because the felonious assault 

and murders involved different dates, locations, and victims. The state argued that 

joinder was proper because the assault set a series of related events into motion and 

helped to prove Ford’s motive and intent to commit the murders. The trial court 

denied the motion, finding that “the events that occurred on March 23, 2013 were 

connected to the events which took place on April 2, 2013.” 

{¶ 106} We review a trial court’s ruling on a Crim.R. 14 motion for an 

abuse of discretion. State v. Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378, 2006-Ohio-18, 840 N.E.2d 

151, ¶ 166. A defendant who appeals the denial of relief bears a heavy burden: 

He must affirmatively demonstrate (1) that his rights were 

prejudiced, (2) that at the time of the motion to sever he provided 

the trial court with sufficient information so that it could weigh the 

considerations favoring joinder against the defendant’s right to a fair 

trial, and (3) that given the information provided to the court, it 

abused its discretion in refusing to separate the charges for trial. 

State v. Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d 51, 59, 600 N.E.2d 661 (1992). “Abuse of 

discretion” has been defined as an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or 

unconscionable. Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83, 87, 482 N.E.2d 

1248 (1985), citing State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980). 
January Term, 2019 

29 

“A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process that would 

support that decision.” AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban 

Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161, 553 N.E.2d 597 (1990). 

{¶ 107} Ford fails to show that “no sound reasoning process” supported 

joinder, and thus he fails to establish an abuse of discretion.

{¶ 108} First, it is reasonable for the trial court to agree with the state that 

the felonious assault of Chelsea set a series of related events into motion and helped 

to prove Ford’s motive and intent to commit the aggravated burglary and murders. 

Ford’s assault of Chelsea resulted in her hospitalization. Given the close proximity 

of the offenses and the relationship of the victims, Ford has failed to demonstrate 

that the trial court acted unreasonably. 

{¶ 109} Second, it was not unreasonable for the court to find that the 

evidence of the felonious assault would have been admissible under Evid.R. 404(B) 

as evidence of motive. Evid.R. 404(B) recognizes that evidence of other crimes 

may “be admissible for * * * proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, [or] 

plan.” Evidence of the assault on Chelsea and her hospitalization was admissible 

as tending to show Ford’s motive, opportunity, and intent in committing the 

burglary and murders. Thus, even if these counts had been tried separately, the 

state would have been allowed to present evidence of other acts—the assault and 

hospitalization—to prove the opportunity and motive to commit the theft and 

ultimately the aggravated murders. See State v. Brinkley, 105 Ohio St.3d 231, 

2005-Ohio-1507, 824 N.E.2d 959, ¶ 34. 

{¶ 110} Third, the evidence of each crime was direct. Zachary, Joshua,

Chelsea, King, and Heather testified mainly about Chelsea’s assault, 

hospitalization, and the subsequent investigation. The remainder of the testimony 

focused on the murders. Although the evidence presented to prove the murders was 

a bit more complex than the evidence presented to prove the assault, it was not 

confusing. See id. at ¶ 37; State v. Dean, 146 Ohio St.3d 106, 2015-Ohio-4347, 54 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 30 

N.E.3d 80, ¶ 64. Moreover, Ford admitted committing the assault and the murders. 

A jury is capable of segregating the proof of multiple charges when, as in this case, 

the evidence of each crime is uncomplicated. See State v. Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 

422, 2017-Ohio-9423, 108 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 52. 

{¶ 111} Finally, Ford cites State v. Atkinson, 4 Ohio St.2d 19, 211 N.E.2d 

665 (1965), in support of his argument that there was no overlap of evidence 

between the two counts and each count could have been tried without reference to 

the other. In Atkinson, the defendant was charged with one count of forging a 

check, one count of uttering the check, and one count of carrying a concealed 

weapon. Id. Because the checks and the concealed weapon, a blackjack, were 

found in the defendant’s car during a traffic stop, the prosecutor argued that the 

offenses arose out of the same investigation. Id. at 20. The trial court overruled 

the defendant’s objection to joinder. This court reversed, holding that there is “no 

proof or evidence * * * of any connection between the check counts and the 

blackjack count in the commission of any offense.” Id. at 21. Here, as discussed 

above, there is sound reasoning that connects the felonious assault of Chelsea and 

a week later, the aggravated burglary and the murder of her parents. It is reasonable 

that evidence of the felonious assault of Chelsea would have been admitted in the 

murder trial. More important, Ford has not met his burden to show that the trial 

court abused its discretion when it overruled his objection to joinder. Hand, 107 

Ohio St.3d 378, 2006-Ohio-18, 840 N.E.2d 151, at ¶ 166. 

{¶ 112} Based on the foregoing, we reject proposition of law No. VII. 

B. Limitations on Voir Dire 

{¶ 113} In proposition of law No. IV, Ford argues that the trial court 

improperly limited defense counsel from fully questioning prospective jurors about 

possible mitigating evidence during voir dire. He primarily argues that defense 

counsel should have been permitted to question prospective jurors about youth as a 

mitigating factor. 
January Term, 2019 

31 

{¶ 114} We have repeatedly held that a trial court is under no obligation to 

allow counsel to question a prospective juror about specific mitigating factors. See 

State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497, 2018-Ohio-493, 108 N.E.3d 1028, ¶ 152; 

State v. Pickens, 141 Ohio St.3d 462, 2014-Ohio-5445, 25 N.E.3d 1023, ¶ 59-60. 

{¶ 115} First, Ford argues that the trial court improperly sustained an

objection to the questioning of prospective juror No. 47, when defense counsel 

asked: “Would you be willing to give meaningful consideration to things such as 

age?” However, the trial court had earlier asked the same question. During 

preliminary inquiry, the trial court informed juror No. 47 that jurors must 

meaningfully consider any mitigating evidence and mentioned that “one example 

of mitigating evidence might be the youth * * * of the defendant.” Juror No. 47 

said she would be able to follow the law and give meaningful consideration to such 

evidence. Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not improperly disallow the 

question regarding age as it had already been asked. 

{¶ 116} Second, Ford complains about not being allowed to ask prospective 

juror No. 25 about whether he would give meaningful consideration to the 

defendant’s upbringing. The trial court initially sustained an objection to such 

questioning. But after defense counsel rephrased the question, juror No. 25 

indicated that he would meaningfully consider such evidence. Accordingly, this 

claim lacks merit. 

{¶ 117} Third, Ford argues that the trial court erred by not allowing defense 

counsel to ask prospective juror No. 19: “Let’s say we introduced evidence that 

Shawn is a young guy, he was 18 when this happened. Does that have any effect 

on you?” The trial court sustained an objection to this question, stating: “The juror 

cannot be asked to engage in the process, at this point not having heard any 

evidence, or make commitments based on hypotheticals.” The trial court added: 

“The question at hand is whether the juror would meaningfully consider any 

mitigating evidence, whatever that may be. That’s the question.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 32 

{¶ 118} The trial court did not err in precluding this question. See State v. 

Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54, 2004-Ohio-6235, 818 N.E.2d 229, ¶ 64. Moreover, 

juror No. 19 was excused for other reasons before the trial-phase deliberations were 

completed. Thus, no possible error occurred. 

{¶ 119} Ford also argues that “in the limited circumstances” when defense 

counsel were permitted to mention age as a possible mitigating factor, they were 

“never allowed” to determine whether the jurors would consider it. But the voir 

dire questioning of the jurors who participated in the deliberations belies this claim. 

The trial court defined mitigation and informed each of the participating jurors that 

they must meaningfully consider any evidence that would mitigate against the 

imposition of the death penalty. The trial court and/or the defense counsel also 

informed each of those jurors that Ford’s youth was a mitigating factor and each of 

them indicated that they would consider such evidence. Therefore, this claim also 

lacks merit. 

{¶ 120} Based on the foregoing, we reject proposition of law No. IV. 

C. Voir Dire Misstatements 

{¶ 121} In proposition of law No. V, Ford argues that during voir dire, the 

trial court misstated the proper standard for voting on the death penalty and the 

prosecutor made various misstatements about the aggravating circumstances, 

mitigating evidence, and weighing process. 

1. Trial Court’s Misstatements 

{¶ 122} Ford argues that, while individually questioning prospective jurors, 

the trial court advised them that they would have to unanimously find that the 

aggravating circumstances did not outweigh the mitigating factors before moving 

on to one of the life-sentence options. 

{¶ 123} During individual voir dire, the trial court informed three 

prospective jurors who later participated in deliberations that if the jury did not 

unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances 
January Term, 2019 

33 

outweigh the mitigating factors, the jury could not return a verdict for the death 

penalty. The trial court provided similar, but slightly different instructions to other 

prospective jurors who participated in deliberations. For example, prospective 

juror No. 39 was told: 

Now, if at the end of the mitigation part, the second trial, the 

jury decides beyond a reasonable doubt unanimously that the 

aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating factors or 

evidence, then the jury would be required to sign the verdict for the 

death penalty. 

* * * 

Now, on the other hand, if * * * the jury decides * * * that 

the aggravating circumstances do not outweigh beyond a reasonable 

doubt the mitigating factors, then the jury could not impose or

require a death penalty. 

(Emphasis added.) 

{¶ 124} Because Ford did not object to the trial court’s comments, we 

review these claims only for plain error. To prevail, Ford must show that an error 

occurred, that the error was plain, and that but for the error the outcome of the trial 

clearly would have been otherwise. State v. Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467, 2014-

Ohio-1942, 13 N.E.3d 1051, ¶ 69. 

{¶ 125} It is error to require a jury to unanimously reject a death verdict 

before considering one of the life-sentence options. State v. Brooks, 75 Ohio St.3d 

148, 160, 661 N.E.2d 1030 (1996). But the trial court’s voir dire instructions did 

not do that. The instructions that the trial court gave prior to the jury’s mitigationphase deliberations informed the jury that unanimity was not required before it 

considered life options. These mitigation-phase instructions cured any earlier 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 34 

misunderstandings on this point during voir dire. See State v. Thompson, 141 Ohio 

St.3d 254, 2014-Ohio-4751, 23 N.E.3d 1096, ¶ 237. We hold that no plain error 

occurred. 

2. Prosecutor’s Misstatements 

{¶ 126} Ford argues that the prosecutor’s misstatements during voir dire 

resulted in a jury that could not properly consider mitigation and engage in the 

appropriate weighing process. However, except where noted, defense counsel 

failed to object to the prosecutor’s comments and thus forfeited all but plain error. 

{¶ 127} Ford argues that during voir dire the prosecutor improperly (1)

referred to the aggravating circumstances as the “bad facts,” (2) called mitigation 

“background stuff,” (3) equated the weighing process to “how much it matters to 

you,” and (4) mentioned “I like that one” as a way to consider a mitigating factor 

and “[t]hat doesn’t mean a thing to me” as a way to reject it. 

{¶ 128} The prosecutor’s shorthand references to the aggravating 

circumstances, mitigating evidence, and the weighing process were casual and 

imprecise. But no plain error occurred. Moreover, any misstatements by the 

prosecutor were cured by the trial court’s instructions prior to the mitigation-phase 

deliberations. See Dean, 146 Ohio St.3d 106, 2015-Ohio-4347, 54 N.E.3d 80, at 

¶ 293; State v. Ahmed, 103 Ohio St.3d 27, 2004-Ohio-4190, 813 N.E.2d 637, ¶ 147. 

{¶ 129} Defense counsel also objected during voir dire that the prosecutor 

referred to mitigation as an excuse. See State v. Getsy, 84 Ohio St.3d 180, 200, 702 

N.E.2d 866 (1998) (mitigating factors do not justify or excuse crimes). But the trial 

court sustained objections to this line of questioning. Moreover, the trial court’s 

later instructions cured any possible error. Dean at ¶ 293. 

{¶ 130} Based on the foregoing, we reject proposition of law No. V. 

 
January Term, 2019 

35 

D. Defense Jury Challenges 

{¶ 131} In proposition of law No. VI, Ford argues that the trial court erred 

by failing to excuse eight prospective jurors who were “obviously biased” and 

“predisposed to impose the death sentence.” 

{¶ 132} The United States Supreme Court and this court have long 

recognized that a defendant’s right to a fair and impartial jury extends to capital 

sentencing. Accordingly, “[a] prospective juror in a capital case may be excused 

for cause if his views on capital punishment would ‘ “prevent or substantially 

impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions 

and his oath.” ’ ” State v. Jackson, 107 Ohio St.3d 53, 2005-Ohio-5981, 836 N.E.2d 

1173, ¶ 38, quoting Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 

L.Ed.2d 841 (1985), quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 65 

L.Ed.2d 581 (1980). If a juror would “automatically vote for the death penalty in 

every case,” the juror cannot be fair and impartial because he or she “will fail in 

good faith to consider the evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances as 

the instructions require him to do.” Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 729, 112 S.Ct. 

2222, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992). “If even one such juror is empaneled and the death 

sentence is imposed, the State is disentitled to execute the sentence.” Id.

{¶ 133} When a defendant challenges a prospective juror for cause, the trial 

court’s ruling “will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is manifestly arbitrary and 

unsupported by substantial testimony, so as to constitute an abuse of discretion.” 

State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 1, 8, 679 N.E.2d 646 (1997). 

{¶ 134} We have also held that a “defendant in a criminal case cannot 

complain of error in the overruling of a challenge for cause if such ruling does not 

force him to exhaust his peremptory challenges.” State v. Eaton, 19 Ohio St.2d 

145, 249 N.E.2d 897 (1969), paragraph one of the syllabus, death penalty vacated 

on other grounds, 408 U.S. 935, 92 S.Ct. 2857, 33 L.Ed.2d 750 (1972). Thus, “[i]f 

the trial court erroneously overrules a challenge for cause, the error is prejudicial 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 36 

only if the accused eliminates the challenged venireman with a peremptory 

challenge and exhausts his peremptory challenges before the full jury is seated.” 

(Emphasis sic.) State v. Tyler, 50 Ohio St.3d 24, 30-31, 553 N.E.2d 576 (1990). 

{¶ 135} Of the eight challenged prospective jurors, two (jurors Nos. 39 and 

72) were seated and three (jurors Nos. 25, 36, and 45) were excused through 

peremptory challenges. The jury was seated before the remaining three prospective 

jurors (jurors Nos. 103, 106, and 134) could have been selected. Defense counsel 

used only five of Ford’s six peremptory challenges during jury selection.

1. Prospective Juror No. 39 

{¶ 136} On the death-penalty questionnaire, juror No. 39 circled an answer 

stating that the death penalty was the “proper punishment in some cases, but not 

the proper punishment in some other cases.” She explained that “[e]very 

circumstance is different. And it depends on the evidence.” During individual voir 

dire, juror No. 39 stated that she believed in the death penalty, but added, “I don’t 

believe it should be handed down in every case.” She also indicated that she would 

meaningfully consider any mitigating evidence. 

{¶ 137} Juror No. 39 disclosed during questioning that her spouse was 

convicted of murder in Summit County in 2003 and was imprisoned. But she 

stated, “It is not going to affect my ability to be fair,” because “he was doing stuff 

he had no business doing.” She added, “And, to me, this—it sat him down to get 

himself together. That’s how I look at it.” Defense counsel challenged juror No. 

39 for cause, arguing that her husband’s imprisonment “makes it difficult for her to 

be fair and impartial.” The trial court overruled this challenge. 

{¶ 138} Ford contends that juror No. 39 was an automatic-death-penalty 

juror because she stated, “I feel like if you are found guilty of a crime and that’s an 

option, then I agree with it.” He also argues that juror No. 39 should have been 

excused because her husband was in prison. We review this claim on the basis of 
January Term, 2019 

37 

plain error, because Ford failed to exercise all of his peremptory challenges. Dean, 

146 Ohio St.3d 106, 2015-Ohio-4347, 54 N.E.3d 80, at ¶ 72. 

{¶ 139} Juror No. 39 assured the court that she would follow the law and 

could consider a life sentence. Her responses on the death-penalty questionnaire 

showed that she took a moderate view of the death penalty. Juror No. 39 also said 

that her husband’s conviction and imprisonment would not influence her ability to 

be fair. See State v. Allen, 73 Ohio St.3d 626, 629, 653 N.E.2d 675 (1995) 

(prospective juror whose brother was a homicide victim was permitted to remain as 

a capital juror after assuring the court that she could set her feelings aside and 

remain impartial). We hold that the trial court committed no plain error by failing 

to excuse juror No. 39. 

2. Prospective Juror No. 72 

{¶ 140} On her death-penalty questionnaire, juror No. 72 stated, “I believe 

in the death penalty.” She also circled an answer stating that the death penalty was 

the “proper punishment in some cases, but not the proper punishment in some other 

cases.” During individual voir dire, juror No. 72 expressed her willingness to 

follow the law and meaningfully consider any mitigating evidence before 

concluding whether a death-penalty verdict should be returned. 

{¶ 141} First, Ford claims that the trial court erred by not excusing juror 

No. 72 because the state’s questioning diminished the value of mitigating evidence 

by calling it “excuses.” At trial, defense counsel argued that this juror was 

“irreparably harmed” by the prosecutor’s remarks, because they minimized any 

potential mitigating evidence. The trial court overruled the defense challenge, 

stating that juror No. 72 expressed her willingness to follow the law and 

meaningfully evaluate the mitigating evidence. The trial court added, “I don’t 

conclude that she has been tainted. The jury will be given instructions regarding 

this topic on multiple occasions.” Additionally, the trial court sustained objections 

to this line of questioning during voir dire. The trial court’s mitigation-phase 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 38 

instructions also cured any earlier misstatements. Dean, 146 Ohio St.3d 106, 2015-

Ohio-4347, 54 N.E.3d 80, at ¶ 293. 

{¶ 142} Second, Ford argues that juror No. 72 demonstrated that she was

unduly biased by stating, “I think that there are some very sick individuals that can’t 

be rehabilitated.” Ford adds that when counsel asked a follow-up question 

suggesting that juror No. 72 would not be open to mitigation, she stated, “So what, 

is there a question there?” However, juror No. 72 stated that she would follow the 

law, would meaningfully consider mitigating evidence, and could impose a life 

sentence. “The fact that the defense counsel was able to elicit somewhat 

contradictory viewpoints from [this juror] during his examination does not, in and 

of itself, render the court’s judgment erroneous.” State v. Scott, 26 Ohio St.3d 92, 

98, 497 N.E.2d 55 (1986) “[D]eference must be paid to the trial judge who sees 

and hears the juror.” Witt, 469 U.S. at 426, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841. 

{¶ 143} Third, Ford argues that he was precluded from ascertaining juror 

No. 72’s views about the death penalty because he was not allowed to ask whether 

she believed in the notion that “if you take a life, you lose a life.” The trial court 

sustained an objection to such questioning, stating: “Well, the question is whether 

you could give meaningful consideration to any and all mitigating evidence.” Juror 

No. 72 replied that she could. 

{¶ 144} Crim.R. 24 and R.C. 2945.27 afford both the prosecution and 

defense the opportunity to conduct reasonable voir dire. Nevertheless, the scope of 

voir dire falls within the trial court’s sound discretion and varies depending on the 

circumstances of a given case. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181, 2002-Ohio-2128, 767 

N.E.2d 166, at ¶ 40. While restrictions on voir dire have generally been upheld, 

any limits on voir dire must be reasonable. Jackson, 107 Ohio St.3d 53, 2005-Ohio5981, 836 N.E.2d 1173, at ¶ 48. Moreover, we will not find prejudicial error in a 

trial court’s qualification of venirepersons as fair and impartial jurors unless the 

defendant can show a clear abuse of discretion. Id. 
January Term, 2019 

39 

{¶ 145} The record belies Ford’s claim that the trial court unduly limited 

defense questioning about juror No. 72’s views about the death penalty. Defense 

counsel had earlier presented a hypothetical that mirrored the evidence in the 

Schoberts’ murders. Juror No. 72 was then asked if that was “a case where [she] 

would think that it’s automatic for the death penalty?” She responded that it was 

not necessarily an automatic-death-penalty case, because “there may be mitigating 

circumstances that * * * sway that decision.” Thus, we conclude that Ford fails to 

show that the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining the state’s objection to 

defense counsel’s later question about juror No. 72’s views. 

{¶ 146} Fourth, Ford invokes White v. Mitchell, 431 F.3d 517 (6th 

Cir.2005), in arguing that prospective juror No. 72’s contradictory statements show 

that she should have been excused for cause. Yet White is readily distinguishable. 

Despite cursory statements that she could follow the law, the juror in White

repeatedly expressed doubt as to whether she could follow the law and stated that 

“she did not think it would be fair to the defendant for her to sit on the jury.” Id. at 

541. White presented a “particularly egregious situation in which an individual 

desired to participate on a jury because she wanted to provide one of the twelve 

votes for death against a particular defendant.” Trimble v. Bobby, 804 F.3d 767, 

779 (6th Cir.2015). The voir dire of prospective juror No. 72 in this case contains 

nothing comparable. 

{¶ 147} Ford also raises Wolfe v. Brigano, 232 F.3d 499 (6th Cir.2000), in 

arguing that the trial court erred by accepting the juror’s tentative promises to try 

to be fair and impartial. In Wolfe, one juror had an ongoing business relationship 

with the victim’s parents, another juror and her husband were friends with the 

victim’s parents whom they often visited, a third juror admitted that she would have 

difficulty putting aside what she had gleaned from media reports in deciding the 

case, and the fourth juror doubted that he would require the state to prove its case 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 502-503. The trial court overruled defense 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 40 

challenges for cause against these jurors. The United States Court of Appeals for 

the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that “it appear[ed] that the trial judge based his 

findings of impartiality exclusively upon each juror’s tentative statements that they 

would try to decide this case on the evidence presented at trial. Such statements, 

without more, are insufficient.” Id. at 503. 

{¶ 148} Unlike in Wolfe, the trial court here did not overrule a challenge for 

cause against juror No. 72 based only upon “tentative statements” that she would 

try to be fair and impartial. Juror No. 72 assured the court that she would follow 

the law before concluding whether a death-penalty verdict should be returned. She 

also knew little about the murders, and there is no evidence that she knew the 

victims or their family. Wolfe is dissimilar to the present case. 

{¶ 149} Finally, Ford argues that this court should not find waiver—that he 

loses the right to challenge a juror not being removed when he had a peremptory 

challenge he could have used to remove a juror—because there was only one 

peremptory challenge that he did not use. He claims that if he had used that 

peremptory challenge to remove either juror No. 39 or No. 72, he would still have 

been faced with one biased juror sitting on the case. But nothing shows that these 

jurors were unduly biased. Moreover, we have invoked the waiver rule in other 

cases in which defense counsel used five of their six peremptory challenges. See, 

e.g., State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118, 2008-Ohio-3426, 892 N.E.2 864, ¶ 88. 

Thus, we also reject this claim here. 

{¶ 150} In conclusion, the trial court committed no plain error in overruling 

the challenge for bias against juror No. 72. 

3. Prospective Juror Nos. 25, 36, and 45 

{¶ 151} Of the remaining challenged jurors, the defense excused 

prospective juror Nos. 25, 36, and 45 with peremptory challenges. 

{¶ 152} Prospective juror No. 25 believed that the death penalty “fits” for 

someone like Jeffrey Dahmer. However, prospective juror No. 25 stated that he 
January Term, 2019 

41 

would not automatically vote for the death penalty and would follow the court’s 

instructions before deciding on a sentence. See State v. Trimble, 122 Ohio St.3d 

297, 2009-Ohio-2961, 911 N.E.2d 242, ¶ 71. 

{¶ 153} Prospective juror No. 36 stated that the “circumstances of the crime 

should possibly dictate whether or not a death penalty sentence has occurred. For 

example, if it is a police officer, I think that’s automatic.” But prospective juror 

No. 36 stated that he did not believe the death penalty was appropriate in every 

case, he would follow the law, and he could impose a life sentence. Ford also 

argues that the trial court erred in failing to excuse prospective juror No. 36 because 

his answers during voir dire showed that he lacked the capability of doing the job 

as a juror. However, when “a prospective juror is being challenged for bias, 

‘[d]eference must be paid to the trial judge who sees and hears the juror.’ ” State 

v. White, 82 Ohio St.3d 16, 20, 693 N.E.2d 772 (1998), quoting Witt, 469 U.S. at 

426, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841. 

{¶ 154} Prospective juror No. 45 believed that the death penalty is “one of 

the greatest deterrents to crime.” He added, “I believe if a man is found guilty, and 

beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he committed that crime with the intent to cause 

bodily harm or death, then the death penalty should be considered.” Under further 

questioning, prospective juror No. 45 told the court that he was not in favor of the 

death penalty in every case and would follow the court’s instructions. Ford 

challenged prospective juror No. 45, arguing that he should be excused because he 

has a “proof problem” and “the only time that death is not going to be appropriate 

punishment for him is when there is a problem with the State’s case in chief.” The 

trial court overruled the challenge. 

{¶ 155} Ford argues that prospective juror No. 45 should have been excused 

because of his confusion about the burden of proof. However, prospective juror 

No. 45 later clarified that he equated the term “beyond a shadow of a doubt” with 

“beyond a reasonable doubt.” But the trial court was able to see and hear 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 42 

prospective juror No. 45, Witt at 426, and therefore had “the benefit of observing 

[the juror’s] demeanor and body language,” Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d at 8, 679 

N.E.2d 646. Nothing in the record suggests that the trial court acted unreasonably 

by believing this juror’s statement that he would follow the instructions. 

{¶ 156} We hold that the trial court’s denial of automatic-death-penalty 

challenges of these prospective jurors did not constitute plain error. 

4. Prospective Juror Nos. 103, 106, and 134 

{¶ 157} Ford objects to the trial court’s failure to excuse prospective juror 

Nos. 103, 106, and 134, because he says they were automatic-death-penalty jurors. 

However, Ford could not have suffered any prejudice, because the jury was seated 

before any of them could have been selected as members of the jury. See Trimble, 

122 Ohio St.3d 297, 2009-Ohio-2961, 911 N.E.2d 242, at ¶ 90. 

{¶ 158} Based on the foregoing, we reject proposition of law No. VI. 

E. Shackling 

{¶ 159} In proposition of law No. XV, Ford argues that the trial court erred 

when it ordered that he be shackled without holding a hearing. 

{¶ 160} No one should be tried while shackled, absent unusual 

circumstances. State v. McKnight, 107 Ohio St.3d 101, 2005-Ohio-6046, 837 

N.E.2d 315, ¶ 219, citing Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 344, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 

L.Ed.2d 353 (1970). The use of restraints tends to erode the presumption of 

innocence that the justice system attaches to every defendant. State v. Franklin, 97 

Ohio St.3d 1, 2002-Ohio-5304, 776 N.E.2d 26, ¶ 79. But it is widely accepted that 

a prisoner may be shackled when there is a danger of violence or escape. State v. 

Neyland, 139 Ohio St.3d 353, 2014-Ohio-1914, 12 N.E.3d 1112, ¶ 82. The decision 

to require restraints is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, which is in a 

position to consider the defendant’s actions both inside and outside the courtroom 

as well as his demeanor while the court is in session. Id. 

 
January Term, 2019 

43 

1. Rulings on Restraints 

{¶ 161} The trial court ordered that Ford be restrained at all proceedings 

because he had expressed a desire to hurt himself and in order to protect people in 

the courtroom in the event of a violent outburst. 

{¶ 162} In July 2013, Ford filed a pretrial motion requesting to appear at all 

proceedings without restraints. Later that month, the trial court overruled the 

motion, stating that Ford would be restrained at all proceedings but would “appear 

without visible restraints during his trial.” 

{¶ 163} After the trial court’s ruling on the motion to appear without 

restraints, Ford was placed on suicide watch at the jail. Dr. Byrnes, who examined 

Ford during a competency evaluation, sent a letter to the court in August stating 

that Ford’s “incarceration has been stressful. He has expressed suicidal ideation 

and suicidal precautions have been implemented in the jail.” At a pretrial hearing 

that month, Ford complained about being on suicide watch and forced to wear a 

padded gown. Defense counsel acknowledged that Ford mentioned “jumping over 

the railing after court and things like that.” When asked about these comments, 

Ford told the trial court, “I really will end up doing it. Like, if I got to be in [the 

mental-health unit] for * * * the rest of this week, I am going to do it. Like, I don’t 

care any more.” 

{¶ 164} At a pretrial hearing in November 2013, the trial court stated that 

“at any point where Mr. Ford could be seen by any member of a jury, he will be 

seen only in street clothes in accordance with the normal procedures. There will be 

restraints underneath those clothes, again, consistent with normal procedures.” 

{¶ 165} Nearly one year later, in October 2014, the trial court filed an 

updated ruling on Ford’s motion to appear without restraints, stating: 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 44 

This case involves the alleged brutal and violent attacks by 

defendant on three different individuals, two of whom died as a

result of the attacks. * * * 

* * * Given the violent nature of the crimes and the 

defendant expressing a desire to harm himself, the court found that 

extra security measures were necessary in this case. * * * 

* * * 

As indicated in its July 26, 2013 journal entry, the defendant 

will be restrained during the jury trial of this case but his restraints 

will not be visible to the jury. The court finds that such restraints 

are necessary in part to prevent defendant from attempting suicide 

in the courthouse but also to protect spectators and others in the 

event of a violent outburst by defendant. 

2. Analysis

{¶ 166} Ford argues that the trial court should have conducted an 

evidentiary hearing before ordering him placed in restraints. But a hearing on the 

necessity of restraints was not required. See State v. Wilks, 154 Ohio St.3d 359, 

2018-Ohio-1562, 114 N.E.3d 1092, ¶ 108; Franklin, 97 Ohio St.3d 1, 2002-Ohio5304, 776 N.E.2d 26, at ¶ 82. Moreover, before the trial began, the trial court made 

findings that Ford’s threats to hurt himself and the violent nature of the crimes were 

the basis for ordering restraints. 

{¶ 167} Ford objects that the trial court’s order was unsupported by 

testimony from jail personnel or statements from defense counsel that Ford was a 

suicide risk or danger to others. However, the trial court had observed Ford’s 

demeanor in court. Dr. Byrnes reported that Ford expressed “suicidal ideation” and 

that “suicidal precautions [had] been implemented in the jail.” Defense counsel 

also acknowledged that Ford had made suicidal comments to them, and Ford told 
January Term, 2019 

45 

the court that he meant those remarks. Thus, there was adequate information before 

the court to support its ruling. See Neyland, 139 Ohio St.3d 353, 2014-Ohio-1914, 

12 N.E.3d 1112, at ¶ 96. 

{¶ 168} Ford cites Neyland at ¶ 105 in arguing that the trial court should 

have considered lesser alternatives to the use of restraints. In Neyland, we held that 

the trial court should have considered whether there were lesser alternatives to the 

use of leg restraints to provide adequate courtroom security. Id. But we rejected 

the claim of improper shackling, stating: 

[T]he trial court used restraints that were not visible to the jury rather 

than shackles or other visible types of restraints. Even though the 

record is unclear, it appears that the trial court considered the 

presence of deputies and the use of leg restraints as the least form of 

restraint necessary to ensure courtroom security. 

(Emphasis sic.) Id. at ¶ 105. 

{¶ 169} Here, the trial court stated, “Given the violent nature of the crimes 

and the defendant expressing a desire to harm himself, the court found that extra 

security measures were necessary in this case.” (Emphasis added.) This implies 

that the trial court did consider lesser measures before ordering restraints. Even 

assuming that the trial court did not consider lesser measures, nothing in the record 

shows that the jurors saw Ford in restraints, so Ford suffered no prejudice. 

{¶ 170} Ford contends that it is not apparent from the record what kind of 

restraints he was wearing during the trial. Although the exact type of restraints 

were not identified, the trial court’s statements indicated that Ford would wear 

restraints underneath his clothing that were not visible to the jury. Nothing in the 

record shows that the jury ever observed Ford in restraints. Thus, we conclude that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 46 

he was not prejudiced. Neyland, 139 Ohio St.3d 353, 2014-Ohio-1914, 12 N.E.3d 

1112, at ¶ 108. 

{¶ 171} Finally, Ford argues that it is unclear whether restraints limited his 

ability to interact with counsel during trial. However, the defense never asserted 

that restraints interfered with the attorney-client relationship. He has thus forfeited 

all but plain error. Id. at ¶ 106. Both of Ford’s hands were free throughout trial. 

Ford also does not complain that the restraints interfered with his ability to follow 

the proceedings and interact with counsel. See id. at ¶ 107. Accordingly, we 

conclude that no plain error occurred. 

{¶ 172} Based on the foregoing, we reject proposition of law No. XV. 

F. Admissibility of Defendant’s Statements to the Police 

{¶ 173} In proposition of law No. I, Ford argues that he was not properly 

advised of his rights in accordance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 

1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and that his statements were involuntary because of 

police coercion and the use of an informant to obtain them. He also argues that 

police testimony about information obtained from an informant violated his Sixth 

Amendment right to confrontation and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 

S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). 

1. Factual Background 

{¶ 174} Before trial, Ford moved to suppress three statements that he made 

to the police on April 2, 3, and 4, 2013.4

 At the suppression hearing, Detectives 

Morrison and Hitchings testified that they conducted videotaped interviews of 

Ford, and all three recordings were played during the hearing. At the completion 

of the hearing, the trial court denied Ford’s motion to suppress.

 

 

4. Ford was also interviewed about Chelsea’s attack. Ford was not advised of his Miranda rights 

before that interview because there was no indication at that time that Ford was involved in her 

assault. Ford does not challenge the voluntariness of those statements or the failure to read him his 

Miranda rights as to that interview. 
January Term, 2019 

47 

a. April 2 interview 

{¶ 175} On April 2, 2013, Ford was interviewed at the Akron police 

department after the Schobert murders. Before questioning began, Morrison orally 

advised Ford of his Miranda rights as written on a pre-interview card, stating: 

You have the right to remain silent. Do you understand that? 

Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. 

Do you understand that? You have the right to talk to a lawyer and 

have him or her present with you while you are being questioned. 

Do you understand that? If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one 

will be appointed to represent you before any questioning if you 

wish. Do you understand that? You can decide anytime to exercise 

these rights and not answer any questions or make any statements. 

Do you understand that? 

Ford indicated that he understood each of these rights. 

{¶ 176} During the interview, Ford denied committing the murders. He 

stated that he had not been to the Schoberts’ house for two weeks. 

b. April 3 interview 

{¶ 177} On April 3, Hitchings was informed that Ford had given Beech, a

fellow inmate, information about the whereabouts of evidence related to the 

murders. Based on that information, the police found Jeffrey’s car on an Akron 

street and gloves, a knife, and other evidence in a nearby storm drain. 

{¶ 178} Later that day, Hitchings and Morrison talked to Ford at the Portage 

County jail. Ford was in jail on a warrant for lying about Chelsea’s assault. 

Morrison advised Ford of his Miranda rights in the same manner as he had on the 

previous day. Once again, Ford indicated that he understood each of these rights. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 48 

{¶ 179} At the start of the interview, Morrison told Ford that they found the 

stolen car, that they had searched the sewers and found the gloves, and that they 

had his shoes with everybody’s blood on them. Ford replied that he did not kill 

anybody. Morrison told Ford that they already knew that Chelsea’s blood and the 

Schoberts’ blood were on his shoes. Morrison added, “It’s amazing when you know 

people at BCI how fast you can get this * * * tested.” 

{¶ 180} As Ford continued to deny the murders, Morrison said, “I was kind 

of hoping we could come here and get you ahead of the ball because right now the 

question is gonna come up very shortly, when they ask us how cooperative was he. 

Because when we go to grand jury, it’s gonna be a decision on agg. murders or 

death penalties.” 

{¶ 181} The police also told Ford that his conversations with Beech about 

the details of the murder had been videotaped. Morrison added that nothing the 

police were telling him was a lie. Ford denied that he told Beech that he committed 

the murders. Morrison then said, “You’re looking at automatic death penalty.” 

{¶ 182} Ford repeated that he did not kill the Schoberts. Morrison then said 

that they found his DNA on the latex gloves in the sewer. Ford said, “[T]his is life 

in jail.” Morrison responded, “You need to quit looking at it like there’s no 

possibility for you here. Because the possibility is here for you but it’s not gonna 

be there if you sit here and lie.” Hitchings then discussed the different life sentences 

for murder. 

{¶ 183} After more than 20 more minutes elapsed, Ford told Morrison that 

he broke into the Schoberts’ home with Zachary and Malik. He said that Zachary 

killed them both. He also stated that Zachary had had Jeffrey’s cell phone and used 

it to text Margaret. The text messages were used to gauge what time Margaret 

would return home. 

 
January Term, 2019 

49 

c. April 4 interview 

{¶ 184} On April 4, the police reinterviewed Ford at the Portage County

jail. Hitchings advised Ford of his Miranda rights in the same manner that Ford 

had been advised on the previous occasions. But Hitchings added, “Having those 

rights in mind that I’ve explained to you, do you wish to talk to us now?” Ford 

waived his rights and agreed to be interviewed. 

{¶ 185} During this interview, Ford admitted killing the Schoberts. 

2. Analysis 

a. Sufficiency of Miranda warnings 

{¶ 186} A suspect in police custody “must be warned prior to any 

questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used 

against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, 

and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any 

questioning if he so desires.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 

694. 

{¶ 187} A suspect may then knowingly and intelligently waive these rights 

and agree to make a statement. Id. In the context of Miranda, the United States 

Supreme Court has explained the two aspects of waiver: 

First, the relinquishment of the right must have been voluntary in 

the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather 

than intimidation, coercion, or deception. Second, the waiver must 

have been made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right 

being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon

it. Only if the “totality of the circumstances surrounding the

interrogation” reveal both an uncoerced choice and the requisite 

level of comprehension may a court properly conclude that the 

Miranda rights have been waived. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 50 

Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986), 

quoting Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 725, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 

(1979). 

{¶ 188} Ford argues that the police never secured a valid waiver of his

Miranda rights, because they did not specifically ask him whether he wanted to 

waive his rights and speak to them before the interrogation began. However, a 

Miranda waiver need not be expressly made in order to be valid. North Carolina 

v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373, 99 S.Ct. 1755, 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979). A court may 

infer a waiver from a suspect’s behavior, viewed in light of the surrounding 

circumstances. See State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 518, 747 N.E.2d 765 

(2001). 

{¶ 189} During the three days that he was questioned, Ford’s videotaped

statements show that he was alert and sober when he was advised of his rights. He 

did not ask for a further explanation or protest that he did not understand his rights. 

He demonstrated his ability to express his thoughts and recall his actions. We are 

not persuaded that police used coercive tactics to obtain the waiver. See id. at 519. 

Finally, Ford’s argument does not apply to his third interview, because he was 

specifically asked whether he wanted to talk to the police after being advised of his 

rights. 

{¶ 190} Although not raised at the suppression hearing, the record shows 

that Ford’s IQ scores are low. However, deficient intelligence is but one factor in 

the totality of the circumstances that must be considered in determining the 

voluntariness of a confession. While a defendant’s mental condition is a significant 

factor in the voluntariness calculus, it “does not justify a conclusion that a 

defendant’s mental condition, by itself and apart from its relation to official 

coercion, should ever dispose of the inquiry into constitutional ‘voluntariness.’ ” 

Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 164, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986). 
January Term, 2019 

51 

{¶ 191} We conclude that Ford was capable of voluntarily waiving his 

rights despite his low intelligence. See State v. Lynch, 98 Ohio St.3d 514, 2003-

Ohio-2284, 787 N.E.2d 1185, ¶ 56 (voluntary confession from an accused with an 

IQ score of 72 and no records of a major mental disorder); State v. Bays, 87 Ohio 

St.3d 15, 23, 716 N.E.2d 1126 (1999) (voluntary confession from an accused with 

an IQ score of 71, but who had done well in school and finished the tenth grade); 

State v. Dailey, 53 Ohio St.3d 88, 91-92, 559 N.E.2d 459 (1990) (voluntary 

confession from an 18-year-old accused with an IQ score of 71).

{¶ 192} Based upon the totality of the circumstances, we hold that Ford

validly waived his Miranda rights. 

b. Voluntariness 

{¶ 193} Ford argues that his police statements were involuntary because of 

police coercion and the use of an informant to obtain them. 

(1) Police coercion 

{¶ 194} If a defendant challenges a confession as involuntary, the state must 

prove a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver by a preponderance of evidence. 

See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694; Connelly, 479 U.S. 

at 168-169, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473. Voluntariness of a confession is 

determined by “the totality of the circumstances, including the age, mentality, and 

prior criminal experience of the accused; the length, intensity, and frequency of 

interrogation; the existence of physical deprivation or mistreatment; and the 

existence of threat or inducement.” State v. Edwards, 49 Ohio St.2d 31, 358 N.E.2d 

1051 (1976), paragraph two of the syllabus, death penalty vacated on other 

grounds, 438 U.S. 911, 98 S.Ct. 3147, 57 L.Ed.2d 1155 (1978). However, a waiver 

will not be deemed to be involuntary “unless there is evidence of police coercion, 

such as physical abuse, threats, or deprivation of food, medical treatment, or sleep.” 

(Emphasis sic.) State v. Wesson, 137 Ohio St.3d 309, 2013-Ohio-4575, 999 N.E.2d 

557, ¶ 35. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 52 

{¶ 195} First, Ford argues that his statements were involuntarily obtained 

because the detectives lied to him about the evidence. The detectives did mislead 

Ford by telling him that BCI had tested the evidence and identified his DNA on the 

shoes and gloves and that his conversations with Beech had been recorded. 

{¶ 196} The tactic of lying to a suspect about the evidence is not in itself 

sufficient to render a confession involuntary. See Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 

737-739, 89 S.Ct. 1420, 22 L.Ed.2d 684 (1969) (false statement that a codefendant 

had confessed did not make statement involuntary); Ledbetter v. Edwards, 35 F.3d 

1062, 1066, 1070 (6th Cir.1994) (false statements that defendant’s fingerprints had 

been found at crime scene and that the victim and two witnesses had identified him 

did not render confession involuntary); Bays, 87 Ohio St.3d at 22-23, 716 N.E.2d 

1126 (misleading defendant about the strength of the evidence against him did not 

make confession involuntary). However, the fact that the detectives misrepresented 

the evidence is a relevant factor in evaluating whether the totality of the 

circumstances renders the confession involuntary. Frazier at 739. 

{¶ 197} Second, Ford contends that the detectives coerced his confession 

by telling him that they would be asked to comment on Ford’s cooperativeness 

when the case was presented to the grand jury, because it would be a factor in 

deciding whether to charge him with aggravated murder or the death penalty. 

{¶ 198} “Officers may discuss the advantages of telling the truth, advise 

suspects that cooperation will be considered, or even suggest that a court may be 

lenient with a truthful defendant.” State v. Belton, 149 Ohio St.3d 165, 2016-Ohio1581, 74 N.E.3d 319, ¶ 111, citing Edwards, 49 Ohio St.2d at 41, 358 N.E.2d 1051. 

And “[a]dmonitions to tell the truth are considered to be neither threats nor 

promises.” State v. Loza, 71 Ohio St.3d 61, 67, 641 N.E.2d 1082 (1994); see also 

State v. Dixon, 101 Ohio St.3d 328, 2004-Ohio-1585, 805 N.E.2d 1042, ¶ 29. 

Finally, it is not unduly coercive for a law-enforcement officer to mention potential 

punishments. See State v. Western, 2015-Ohio-627, 29 N.E.3d 245, ¶ 38 (2d Dist.); 
January Term, 2019 

53 

compare State v. Robinson, 9th Dist. Summit No. 16766, 1995 WL 9424, *4 

(“While a correct statement of the law may not render a confession involuntary, a 

misstatement of the law may cause such a confession to be involuntary”). 

{¶ 199} Here, contrary to Ford’s claims, the detectives did not promise

leniency if he confessed or threaten death if he did not. Instead, detectives 

presented him with the opportunity to clarify the facts of the case, so that the 

prosecutor could better determine whether an aggravated-murder charge was 

proper. See Western at ¶ 42 and 46. Moreover, detectives did not misstate the law

in telling him that the death penalty was a potential punishment for the murders. 

See Bays, 87 Ohio St.3d at 23, 716 N.E.2d 1126. 

{¶ 200} Third, Ford complains that police told him that the possibility of a 

lesser sentence was available for him but not if he continued to lie to them. 

Hitchings was admonishing Ford simply to tell the truth, and such comments were 

not unduly coercive. See State v. Cooey, 46 Ohio St.3d 20, 28, 544 N.E.2d 895 

(1989); State v. Knight, 2d Dist. Clark No. 04-CA-35, 2008-Ohio-4926, ¶ 111 

(officer’s assertion to a suspect that he or she is lying or that the suspect would not 

have another chance to tell his or her side of the story does not automatically render 

a confession involuntary). 

{¶ 201} Fourth, Ford complains that officers told him that he was looking 

at an “automatic” death penalty. Under R.C. 2929.03(D)(2) and (3), the death 

penalty is never automatic. See generally Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 

280, 301, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976). A brief reference to the death 

penalty does not, by itself, render a subsequent confession involuntary when the 

statement merely illustrates the seriousness of the crime and the defendant’s will 

was not overborne as a result of the statement. State v. Garner, 260 Neb. 41, 50, 

614 N.W.2d 319 (2000). The Supreme Court of California has held that “[a] 

constitutional violation arises ‘only where the confession results directly from the 

threat [capital] punishment will be imposed if the suspect is uncooperative, coupled 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 54 

with a “promise [of] leniency in exchange for the suspect’s cooperation.” ’ ” 

(Emphasis added and brackets sic.) People v. Winbush, 2 Cal.5th 402, 453, 213 

Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 387 P.3d 1187 (2017), quoting People v. Holloway, 33 Cal.4th 96, 

116, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 212, 91 P.3d 164 (2004), quoting People v. Ray, 13 Cal.4th 

313, 340, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 296, 914 P.2d 846 (1996). 

{¶ 202} After reviewing the video of Ford’s interview, we are not persuaded 

that the detectives’ references to the death penalty were threats or that their remarks 

resulted in Ford’s will being overborne. First, Ford continued to deny the murders 

after the “automatic death penalty” comment. The video shows that other officers 

consistently encouraged Ford to tell the truth and to be truthful about his 

involvement or any details he knew about the murders. Ford responded, “This is 

life in jail,” and later added, “[M]urder ain’t no way around it, that’s life 

regardless.” In other words, Ford expressed concern about life sentences and not 

the death penalty. Thus, we hold that the “automatic death penalty” comment did 

not render Ford’s subsequent confession involuntary. 

{¶ 203} As a final matter, Ford cites various cases to show that his 

statements were involuntary. However, these cases are readily distinguishable. See 

Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 83 S.Ct. 1336, 10 L.Ed.2d 513 (1963) 

(suspect told he would be allowed to call his wife only if he cooperated and gave 

the police a statement); Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 

290 (1978) (suspect questioned while in intensive-care unit, encumbered by tubes, 

needles, and breathing apparatus); Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528, 83 S.Ct. 917, 

9 L.Ed.2d 922 (1963) (suspect threatened with the removal of state financial aid 

and of her children if she did not cooperate); United States v. Tingle, 658 F.2d 1332 

(9th Cir.1981) (suspect coerced into confessing by threats that she would not see 

her child for a long time if she did not cooperate); Williams v. Brewer, 509 F.2d 

227 (8th Cir.1974) (telling defendant of need to locate victim’s body and give her 

a Christian burial, after defendant’s attorney told law enforcement defendant should 
January Term, 2019 

55 

not be questioned while he was being transported, violated right to counsel and 

rendered statements involuntary), aff’d, 430 U.S. 387, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 51 L.Ed.2d 

424 (1977). 

{¶ 204} Based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Ford’s 

police statements were voluntarily made. 

(2) Ford’s statements to jailhouse informant 

{¶ 205} Ford argues that his statements were involuntary because they were 

coerced through the use of a government informant. 

{¶ 206} Ford and Beech were housed in the Portage County jail together. 

Beech was described as a “frequent visitor” in jail and was there on a burglary 

charge. Lt. Gregory Johnson, a Portage County Deputy Sheriff, testified that he 

was informed by a corrections officer on April 3 that Beech wanted to talk to him. 

Johnson testified that Beech told him, “There is an inmate I am housed with that’s 

been talking to me, and I think he was involved in a murder.” Beech then provided 

information that linked Ford to the Schobert murders. 

{¶ 207} Prior to speaking to Beech, Johnson testified that he had no 

information about Ford other than what he read in the Akron Beacon Journal. He 

stated that Beech had not been asked to provide information about Ford. After 

providing the information, Beech indicated to Johnson that “he would appreciate if 

[Johnson] could make sure that the Court knew of his * * * cooperation, that he had 

come forward on his own.” Johnson told Beech that he could not make any 

promises to him other than making sure that the prosecution and his attorney knew 

about his assistance. Johnson added that Beech had never been a source of 

information about other cases. 

{¶ 208} Hitchings testified that detectives never called any officials in 

Portage County about Ford or the Schobert murder case before being informed 

about Beech’s information. He added that he was not aware of any promises or 

inducements to obtain Beech’s assistance. Beech did not testify at trial. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 56 

{¶ 209} In Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473, the 

Supreme Court addressed the constitutional voluntariness of a statement made 

under circumstances not requiring Miranda warnings. The court held that coercive 

police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a statement is not 

“voluntary” within the meaning of the due-process clause. Id. at 167. Thus, the 

voluntariness analysis must focus on the crucial element of police overreaching. 

See People v. Manning, 182 Ill.2d 193, 208, 695 N.E.2d 423 (1998). 

{¶ 210} Nothing in the record shows that Beech was acting as a state agent 

when talking to Ford. Indeed, during the suppression hearing, defense counsel 

acknowledged that they had no information showing that Beech was an agent. And 

although Beech may have been seeking more lenient treatment in his own case, he 

requested these favors only after repeating Ford’s statements to the police. See Bell 

v. Bell, 512 F.3d 223, 233-234 (6th Cir.2008) (fact that an informant desired 

favorable treatment in return for his testimony does not, standing alone, 

demonstrate the existence of an implied agreement). There is no evidence of police 

overreaching. 

{¶ 211} We also reject Ford’s claim that Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 

279, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991), shows that his statements to Beech 

were involuntary. In Fulminante, the state used an inmate, who was a paid FBI 

informant, to elicit a confession from the defendant that was used to convict him. 

Id. at 283. On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court had held that Fulminante’s 

confession was coerced. Id. at 284. The United States Supreme Court agreed with 

this conclusion. Id. at 287. Unlike in Fulminante, however, Beech was not acting 

as a state agent when talking to Ford. Accordingly, we hold that Ford’s statements 

to Beech were voluntary. 

c. Confrontation Clause 

{¶ 212} Ford argues that the trial court erred in permitting Hitchings to 

testify about Johnson’s conversation with Beech, because it was inadmissible 
January Term, 2019 

57 

hearsay and violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. However, Ford 

failed to object to Hitchings’s testimony at trial and thus has forfeited all but plain 

error. 

{¶ 213} Ford complains about the following segment of Hitchings’s 

testimony: 

[HITCHINGS]: We received a phone call from Lieutenant 

Greg Johnson from the Portage County Sheriff’s Office. He is in 

charge of their Detective Bureau. 

[MR. LOPRINZI (prosecutor)]: All right. And in regards to 

him calling, what was it that he was calling about? 

[HITCHINGS]: I mean, he had called and relayed some 

information to us. And as a result of some information, we ended 

up checking some areas in Akron, and we ended up locating a—our

stolen vehicle. 

{¶ 214} Ford invokes Crawford, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 

177, in arguing that this testimony violated the Confrontation Clause, found in the 

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Crawford, the Supreme 

Court held that the admission of testimonial statements made by a witness who did 

not appear at trial violates the Confrontation Clause, unless the witness “was 

unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for crossexamination.” Id. at 53-54. Only testimonial hearsay implicates the Confrontation 

Clause. See id. at 59, fn. 9; State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261, 2016-Ohio5735, 70 N.E.3d 508, ¶ 186. 

{¶ 215} Hitchings’s testimony was not hearsay because he was explaining 

the next investigative step in the case. Testimony offered to explain police conduct 

is admissible as nonhearsay if it satisfies three criteria: (1) “the conduct to be 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 58 

explained [is] relevant, equivocal, and contemporaneous with the statements,” (2) 

the probative value of the statements is not substantially outweighed by the danger 

of undue prejudice, and (3) “the statements cannot connect the accused with the 

crimes charged.” State v. Ricks, 136 Ohio St.3d 356, 2013-Ohio-3712, 995 N.E.2d 

1181, ¶ 27. Hitchings’s testimony met these criteria. The testimony was relevant 

in explaining the next investigative step in the search for Jeffrey’s vehicle, it did 

not connect Ford with the crimes, and it was not unduly prejudicial. Accordingly, 

Hitchings’s testimony did not implicate Ford’s confrontation rights or violate 

Crawford. We hold that no plain error occurred. 

{¶ 216} Based on the foregoing, we reject proposition of law No. I. 

G. Impeachment of Heather Greathouse 

{¶ 217} In proposition of law No. X, Ford argues that the state improperly 

impeached Heather Greathouse with her prior recorded statement and improperly 

played that statement for the jury’s consideration. 

1. Factual Background 

{¶ 218} Heather testified that in early April 2013, Ford was living with her 

in Akron. Heather did “not really” talk to Ford about Chelsea’s assault, and he 

never indicated any involvement in causing her injuries. Heather did not remember 

Ford being home on the evening of April 1, but she said Ford came home the next 

day. Heather indicated that she did “not really” talk to Ford that day and said that 

Ford never talked to her about what happened to the Schoberts. 

{¶ 219} Heather acknowledged giving a statement to detectives in April 

2013 and said it was truthful when she made it. But she did not remember whether 

she talked to Ford about the Schoberts before making her statement. The prosecutor 

then asked the following questions: 

[MR. LOPRINZI (prosecutor)]: Do you remember 

reviewing your interview last night from back in April? 
January Term, 2019 

59 

[HEATHER]: Yes. 

[LOPRINZI]: Okay. And do you recall telling the detectives 

that you had a conversation with Mr. Ford about the Schoberts? 

[HEATHER]: Yes. 

[LOPRINZI]: All right. What conversation did you have 

with * * * Mr. Ford about the Schoberts back in—prior to their 

death? 

[HEATHER]: I have no clue. 

{¶ 220} Outside the jury’s presence, the prosecutor stated his intention to 

impeach Heather, because he was “surprised” and “[i]t is a material issue in the 

case.” The prosecutor told the court that Heather informed detectives that “she had 

a conversation with Mr. Ford in which he had talked about killing [Chelsea’s] 

parents ever since Chelsea was injured because they were starting to piece things 

together.” The prosecutor added that detectives had talked to Heather the previous 

day and played her recorded interview to her and that she recalled what she said in 

her statement. Defense counsel objected, stating that Heather’s lack of memory 

was not grounds for turning her into a hostile witness. The trial court overruled that 

objection. 

{¶ 221} While still outside the jury’s presence, defense counsel objected 

that the prosecutors played the recorded interview in the courtroom where it was 

plainly audible to everyone. The defense stated that “it was unquestionably heard 

by Ms. Greathouse” and “this witness has now been irreparably tainted by having 

an opportunity to hear * * * a significant segment of her interview.” The defense 

argued that she was now an incompetent witness. The prosecutor responded that 

Heather had listened to the recording the previous night and it did not matter if she 

heard it again. Moreover, the prosecutor did not think Heather heard the recording 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 60 

when it was played in court, because “I couldn’t hear it myself.” The trial court 

overruled the defense objection. 

{¶ 222} The prosecutor told the court that he was amenable to trying to

refresh Heather’s recollection before proceeding to impeach her. But defense 

counsel objected that the prosecutor had improperly refreshed her recollection 

outside the presence of counsel and the court. Heather told the court that she heard 

only “bits and pieces” of the recording that was played in the courtroom and that 

what she heard did not refresh her memory. 

{¶ 223} Over defense objection, the state proceeded to impeach Heather by 

playing a portion of her videotaped interview with Hitchings for the jury. After the 

video was played, Heather said that she had not remembered what Ford told her 

about the Schoberts, because “[her] memory stinks.” However, Heather stated that 

her recollection might be refreshed as to her conversation with Ford about Chelsea. 

Over defense objection and outside the jury’s presence, Heather watched a segment 

of her videotaped interview to refresh her recollection. 

{¶ 224} When questioning resumed before the jury, Heather testified that 

her memory had been refreshed about her conversation with Ford about Chelsea. 

She testified that Ford told her he stabbed Chelsea, hit her in the head with a brick, 

and would have killed her if Zachary had not intervened. Heather also testified that 

Ford told her that he was going to “hit a lick” and she told him “not to go kill them 

people.” She said Ford was not home on the evening of April 1, but she saw him 

around noon the next day. She also identified the bloody pants that Ford “wore the 

night that he went and killed the Schoberts” and testified that she told her boyfriend 

to burn them. Heather added that Ford returned with two rings and some money. 

2. Analysis

{¶ 225} Ford argues that the trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor to 

impeach Heather by playing her videotaped interview before the jury. 
January Term, 2019 

61 

{¶ 226} Under Evid.R. 607(A), “[t]he credibility of a witness may be 

attacked by any party except that the credibility of a witness may be attacked by 

the party calling the witness by means of a prior inconsistent statement only upon 

a showing of surprise and affirmative damage.” 

{¶ 227} Playing Heather’s videotaped statement before the jury violated

Evid.R. 607(A). First, the state used a statement that did not contradict her in-court 

testimony. Second, Heather did not cause affirmative damage by testifying “I have 

no clue” when asked about Ford’s statement. Her response was neutral and 

provided no basis for impeachment. See State v. Keenan, 66 Ohio St.3d 402, 412, 

613 N.E.2d 203 (1993); State v. Hubbard, 150 Ohio App.3d 623, 2002-Ohio-6904, 

782 N.E.2d 674, ¶ 13 (7th Dist.) (“in determining affirmative damage, a response 

of ‘I don’t recall,’ which is a neutral response, is not enough for damage. * * * 

Instead, the statement must be contradictory or harm[ ] the state’s trial position”). 

{¶ 228} Furthermore, even if it had been proper for the state to impeach 

Heather’s testimony, a prior inconsistent statement is admissible under Evid.R. 607 

only to impeach the declarant and not as substantive evidence offered to prove the 

truth of the matter asserted. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261, 2016-Ohio-5735, 70 

N.E.3d 508, at ¶ 128; State v. Dick, 27 Ohio St.2d 162, 165, 271 N.E.2d 797 (1971). 

There was no other basis for presenting Heather’s videotaped interview because it 

was otherwise objectionable hearsay. Accordingly, we conclude that Heather’s 

videotaped interview was improperly presented for the jury’s consideration. 

{¶ 229} We now turn to whether Heather’s videotaped interview was 

properly presented to refresh her recollection under Evid.R. 612. 

{¶ 230} Under the doctrine of present recollection refreshed, “the witness 

looks at the memorandum to refresh his memory of the events, but then proceeds 

to testify upon the basis of his present independent knowledge.” State v. Scott, 31 

Ohio St.2d 1, 5-6, 285 N.E.2d 344 (1972). The testimony of the witness whose 

recollection has been refreshed is the evidence, not the contents of the writing. See
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 62 

1 Giannelli, Evidence, Section 612.3, at 578 (3d Ed.2010). Thus, “ ‘a party may 

not read the statement aloud, have the witness read it aloud, or otherwise place it 

before the jury.’ ” State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233, 2012-Ohio-2577, 971 

N.E.2d 865, ¶ 57, quoting State v. Ballew, 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 254, 667 N.E.2d 369 

(1996). 

{¶ 231} The state could have refreshed Heather’s recollection under 

Evid.R. 612 by showing her the videotaped interview outside the jury’s presence. 

However, the prosecution did not present Heather’s refreshed recollection 

testimony until after the videotaped interview had been improperly played in open 

court. Under Evid.R. 612, the party calling a witness may not present the matter 

used to refresh memory to be admitted as evidence unless that matter qualifies as 

independent evidence admissible under the hearsay rule. 1 Broun et al., McCormick 

on Evidence, Section 9, at 56 (7th Ed.2013). We hold that the trial court abused its 

discretion by allowing the prosecutor to present Heather’s refreshed recollection 

testimony because a portion of the recording used to refresh Heather’s memory was 

previously presented to the jury. 

3. Harmless Error Beyond a Reasonable Doubt 

{¶ 232} Ford argues that the improper admission of Heather’s videotaped

interview resulted in prejudice during both phases of the trial. The state responds 

that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 

{¶ 233} To determine whether an alleged error affected the substantial 

rights of the defendant and requires a new trial, “[t]he reviewing court must 

ascertain (1) whether the defendant was prejudiced by the error, i.e., whether the 

error had an impact on the verdict, (2) whether the error was not harmless beyond 

a reasonable doubt, and (3) whether, after the prejudicial error is excised, the 

remaining evidence establishes the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

State v. Arnold, 147 Ohio St.3d 138, 2016-Ohio-1595, 62 N.E.3d 153, ¶ 50. 
January Term, 2019 

63 

{¶ 234} We conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Ford was not 

prejudiced by Heather’s videotaped interview or her subsequent refreshed 

testimony and that the erroneous admission of that evidence had no impact on the 

verdict. The remaining evidence admitted at trial established Ford’s guilt beyond 

any reasonable doubt. Most notably, DNA evidence linked him to the murders and 

he confessed to police that he was the killer. 

{¶ 235} Based on the foregoing, we reject proposition of law No. X. 

H. Gruesome Photographs 

{¶ 236} In proposition of law No. XI, Ford argues that the trial court erred 

in admitting gruesome crime-scene and autopsy photographs. 

{¶ 237} A gruesome photograph is admissible only if its “ ‘probative value 

* * * outweigh[s] the danger of prejudice to the defendant.’ ” (Ellipsis and brackets 

sic.) Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467, 2014-Ohio-1942, 13 N.E.3d 1051, at ¶ 96, 

quoting State v. Morales, 32 Ohio St.3d 252, 258, 513 N.E.2d 267 (1987). 

Moreover, even a photo that satisfies the balancing test is inadmissible if it is 

repetitive or cumulative. Id.; see State v. Thompson, 33 Ohio St.3d 1, 9, 514 N.E.2d 

407 (1987). A trial court’s decision that a photo satisfies the standard is reviewable 

only for abuse of discretion. See State v. Vrabel, 99 Ohio St.3d 184, 2003-Ohio3193, 790 N.E.2d 303, ¶ 69. 

1. Crime-Scene Photos 

{¶ 238} Ford complains about two exhibits presented during Gerring’s 

testimony about discovering the bodies at the Schoberts’ residence. State’s exhibit 

No. 80 depicts a view of Margaret’s body on the floor. State’s exhibit No. 84 shows 

Jeffrey’s body and the sledgehammer on the bed with Margaret’s body on the floor 

next to the bed. Jeffrey’s injuries cannot be seen but Margaret’s head injuries are 

visible. These photos show the position of the bodies and the murder weapon when 

the bodies were found. See State v. Gapen, 104 Ohio St.3d 358, 2004-Ohio-6548, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 64 

819 N.E.2d 1047, ¶ 85. Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion 

in the admission of these photos. 

{¶ 239} Ford also argues that the trial court erred in admitting five 

gruesome photographs of Margaret’s body. State’s exhibit No. 82 shows 

Margaret’s body next to the dresser, but her head injuries are not prominently 

depicted. State’s exhibit Nos. 91 and 124 show her outstretched arm near the bloodspattered dresser. Blood is visible next to the body, but these photos are not 

gruesome. See State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 108, 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997) 

(photographs of bloodstains are generally not gruesome). Each photo was also 

relevant to show the direction of the blows causing the blood spatter. State’s exhibit 

Nos. 93 and 97 are gruesome photos showing Margaret’s head injuries. But we 

conclude that each photo was highly “probative of [the defendant’s] intent and the 

manner and circumstances of the victims’ deaths” and that the probative value of 

each outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice. Trimble, 122 Ohio St.3d 297, 

2009-Ohio-2961, 911 N.E.2d 242, at ¶ 134. 

{¶ 240} Finally, Ford argues that the trial court erred in admitting eight 

gruesome photographs of Jeffrey’s body. State’s exhibit No. 106 shows Jeffrey’s 

body on the bed, next to the end table and the blood-spattered dresser, and state’s 

exhibit No. 112 is a closer photo of the top half of his body. These photos, although 

gruesome, illustrate the testimony of the BCI analyst who processed the crime 

scene. See Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467, 2014-Ohio-1942, 13 N.E.3d 1051, at 

¶ 98-99. 

{¶ 241} State’s exhibit Nos. 98 and 99 show Jeffrey’s body next to the 

sledgehammer. These photographs are not particularly gruesome and were relevant 

in showing the location of the murder weapon. See Trimble at ¶ 135. State’s exhibit 

Nos. 113, 115, 125, and 138 show different views of Jeffrey’s bloody wrist and 

arms and close-up views of the sledgehammer. These photographs are somewhat 

cumulative but they are not gruesome. The mere fact that there are numerous 
January Term, 2019 

65 

photographs does not result in prejudicial error, absent gruesomeness or shock 

value. State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 2008-Ohio-6266, 900 N.E.2d 565, ¶ 232. 

{¶ 242} Ford argues that the risk of undue prejudice was especially great 

because one news reporter became ill during the presentation of photographs during 

the state’s opening statement. The trial court noted that “[w]e have learned * * * 

that she was otherwise ill even beyond the photographs. The photographs may have 

contributed, but she came to court not feeling well and suffered some kind of a 

consequence.” Moreover, nothing shows that any of the jurors became ill or were 

unduly affected by seeing these photos. 

{¶ 243} Ford cites Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467, 2014-Ohio-1942, 13 

N.E.3d 1051, at ¶ 97-100, in arguing that too many photographs of the victims were 

admitted. In Mammone, the state presented two crime-scene photographs, showing 

a single photo of each child victim murdered in their car seats. Id. at ¶ 97. Over 

defense objection, the trial court admitted both photos. Id. We have “strongly 

caution[ed] judicious use” of gruesome photographs in capital cases. Morales, 32 

Ohio St.3d at 259, 513 N.E.2d 267. 

{¶ 244} The circumstances surrounding the Schoberts’ murders are 

horrifying. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting 

the crime-scene photographs depicting the Schoberts. The probative value of the 

photographs outweighed the danger of prejudice. 

2. Margaret’s Autopsy Photos 

{¶ 245} Ford argues that the trial court erred by admitting 14 autopsy 

photographs of Margaret. As an initial matter, Ford objects to state’s exhibit Nos. 

3 through 10 and 13. During trial, the defense stated that it had no objection to any 

of these exhibits, and hence Ford can complain only of plain error. See Trimble,

122 Ohio St.3d 297, 2009-Ohio-2961, 911 N.E.2d 242, at ¶ 151; Gapen, 104 Ohio 

St.3d 358, 2004-Ohio-6548, 819 N.E.2d 1047, at ¶ 83. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 66 

{¶ 246} State’s exhibit No. 3 is a nongruesome photograph showing a 

contusion on Margaret’s shoulder and other injuries to her neck. State’s exhibit 

Nos. 4 through 9 depict different views of the injuries to Margaret’s head after the 

blood was removed. Although these photographs are gruesome, each of them 

supported Dr. Dean’s testimony and provided a different perspective of the victim’s 

wounds. See State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512, 2011-Ohio-4215, 954 N.E.2d 596, 

¶ 142. State’s exhibit No. 10 is another nongruesome photo showing a wound 

above Margaret’s left ear. State’s exhibit No. 13 shows two scratches on a finger, 

which was actually Jeffrey’s. This photo is also not gruesome. No plain error 

resulted from the admission of any of these photos. 

{¶ 247} State’s exhibit No. 17 shows Margaret’s body as she arrived at the 

medical examiner’s office and shows injuries to the right side of her head. State’s 

exhibit No. 18 shows a massive skull fracture, and state’s exhibit No. 19 depicts 

injuries to her jaw and severe dental injuries. The number and location of the 

injuries were all probative evidence of a purpose to cause death. Each photo also 

supported and illustrated Dr. Dean’s testimony about Margaret’s wounds and the 

cause of her death. See Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467, 2014-Ohio-1942, 13 

N.E.3d 1051, at ¶ 102. 

{¶ 248} Ford argues, mistakenly, that state’s exhibit Nos. 22 and 24 are 

gruesome photos depicting Margaret’s battered head before her body was cleaned. 

These are photos of Jeffrey. Their admissibility will be discussed as it pertains to 

his autopsy photos. 

{¶ 249} Finally, Ford argues that more autopsy photographs were admitted 

than in Mammone. But nothing in Mammone limits the number of noncumulative 

autopsy photographs that can be admitted if they are otherwise admissible. 

{¶ 250} In summary, we find no plain error in the admission of the autopsy 

photos of Margaret. 

 
January Term, 2019 

67 

3. Jeffrey’s Autopsy Photos 

{¶ 251} Ford also argues that the trial court erred by admitting eight autopsy 

photographs of Jeffrey. 

{¶ 252} During trial, defense counsel stated that the defense had no 

objection to state’s exhibit Nos. 34 and 37. Thus, Ford can complain only of plain 

error. State’s exhibit No. 34 shows an incised wound on Jeffrey’s torso and a side 

view of Jeffrey’s head wounds. Although somewhat gruesome, we find no plain 

error in the admission of this photo. State’s exhibit No. 37 is a nongruesome photo 

showing contusions on his left shoulder. We find that no plain error resulted from 

the admission of this photo. 

{¶ 253} State’s exhibit Nos. 38, 39, and 40 depict different views of the 

injuries to Jeffrey’s head after the blood was removed. State’s exhibit Nos. 41 and 

42 show injuries to Jeffrey’s upper and lower jaw. State’s exhibit No. 44 shows a 

cutaway of the skull after the brain was removed and depicts fractured bone matter. 

These photos are gruesome. However, each of these photos illustrated Dr. Dean’s 

testimony about Jeffrey’s wounds and the cause of his death. See Lang, 129 Ohio 

St.3d 512, 2011-Ohio-4215, 954 N.E.2d 596, at ¶ 142. We hold that the prejudicial 

impact of these photos did not outweigh their probative value and the trial court did 

not abuse its discretion in admitting them. 

{¶ 254} State’s exhibit Nos. 22 and 24, which were mentioned earlier, are 

particularly gruesome photographs of the right and left side of Jeffrey’s head when 

his body was brought to the medical examiner’s office. The caked-on blood 

covering his face obscures any of his wounds. Defense counsel objected that the 

photographs were gruesome and cumulative. The trial court overruled the 

objection, noting that the judge in Mammone had admitted photos of children as 

they arrived at the coroner’s office, still strapped in their car seats. The trial court 

added that the judge in Mammone also admitted additional photographs of the 

victims after their bodies were prepared for autopsy. The trial court “reached the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 68 

same conclusion” in admitting state’s exhibit Nos. 22 and 24 “given the different 

things that are being depicted.” 

{¶ 255} Unlike in Mammone, state’s exhibit Nos. 22 and 24 did not show 

different injuries from those depicted in other admitted photos. See Mammone, 139 

Ohio St.3d 467, 2014-Ohio-1942, 13 N.E.3d 1051, at ¶ 104 (each of seven autopsy 

photos, including the photo of a child still strapped to a car seat as she arrived at 

the coroner’s office, presented a different injury). Thus, we agree that the trial court 

erred by admitting these cumulative photographs. 

{¶ 256} Nevertheless, we hold that any error was harmless beyond a 

reasonable doubt. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23-24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 

17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Mammone at ¶ 106, fn. 5. The evidence that Ford murdered 

the Schoberts was overwhelming. Ford confessed to these crimes. DNA evidence 

on Ford’s shoes also linked him to the murders. 

{¶ 257} Although we find no abuse of discretion here, we caution trial 

courts to closely scrutinize the crime-scene and autopsy photos that are offered as 

exhibits in murder trials. The admission of gruesome photos exposes the jurors to 

horrific images, and when those photographs go to an element of the offense that is 

clearly proven by other evidence, they serve no useful purpose whatsoever. Instead, 

such exposure only serves to inflame the passions of jurors and risks subjecting 

them to harm. A few crime-scene photos showing the body along with the 

coroner’s testimony will often suffice. 

{¶ 258} Based on the foregoing, we reject proposition of law No. XI. 

I. Jury Issues 

{¶ 259} In proposition of law No. VIII, Ford argues that the trial court erred 

by failing to conduct an investigation into alleged juror misconduct during 

deliberations.

 
January Term, 2019 

69 

1. Factual Background 

{¶ 260} During voir dire, prospective juror No. 195

 informed the court that 

she had interned with the Summit County Prosecutor’s Office. Her affiliation with 

the prosecutor’s office had ended, and she assured the court that her internship 

would not affect her ability to fairly consider the evidence in this case. She has 

paralegal and criminal-justice degrees. During individual voir dire, juror No. 19 

was asked: “Do you think you would be bringing your own legal training to the 

case? Or could you leave that outside and just rely on the evidence that comes in 

through the court?” She responded, “Rely on the evidence.” The defense later 

challenged juror No. 19 because she was a trained paralegal and used that 

experience in her job with the state. The trial court overruled that challenge. 

{¶ 261} During Detective King’s testimony, juror No. 19 informed the court 

that they attended the same church and that King was the bodyguard for the pastor’s 

wife. Juror No. 19 stated that she did not know King and would not tend to favor 

King’s testimony because of King’s role in the church. The trial court overruled a 

defense motion to excuse juror No. 19 because of King’s position at the juror’s 

church. 

{¶ 262} After trial-phase deliberations had begun, the jury foreman passed 

a note to the court asking: “For which of the 11 counts do we not have to all 12 

agree on? If we can’t come to an agreement (unanimous) ex. 11-1, do we consider 

not guilty?” The trial court advised the jury that a unanimous verdict must be 

reached as to all counts. 

{¶ 263} At a sidebar, prosecutors informed the court that they had just

learned that juror No. 19 was Facebook friends with the Summit County 

Prosecuting Attorney, Sherri Bevan Walsh, and three Summit County assistant 

prosecutors. Defense counsel requested that juror No. 19 be excused, and the trial 

 

5. Prospective juror No. 19 became seated juror No. 5. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 70 

court agreed. During questioning before being excused, juror No. 19 acknowledged 

that she was Facebook friends with the Summit County Prosecuting Attorney and 

an assistant prosecutor. But she denied telling other jurors that she was Facebook 

friends with members of the prosecutor’s office or that she had worked as an intern 

there. 

{¶ 264} Defense counsel moved for a mistrial, arguing that juror No. 19 had 

deeply tainted the rest of the jury. In support of that argument, counsel suggested 

that the jury’s question—about unanimity and “one person, because of her 

training,” not agreeing with the rest—demonstrated juror No. 19’s influence in the 

deliberations. The trial court interjected that the defense may be conflating two 

different questions that the jury had posed. In a separate question, the jury had 

asked: 

One of us feels that aggravated burglary is only about taking 

something when someone is present other than an accomplice. The 

rest of us think it is committing any criminal offense, trespassed by 

force, stealth or deception when another person is present other than 

an accomplice. Which is right? Most of us take the definition

literally whereas the one girl’s training makes her insist something 

had to be taken. 

(Underlining sic.) The trial court stated, “That could have been this juror, we don’t 

know.” 

{¶ 265} Defense counsel argued that “it is a reasonable assumption * * * 

that they are talking about the paralegal.” Defense counsel added: “[T]hat’s our 

juror that is holding out, that’s the juror that is being problematic for these 

upcoming convictions * * *. And then, shortly thereafter, we are put in a position 

by the State revealing this information about * * * Facebook that forces us to * * * 
January Term, 2019 

71 

ask whether we are going to bump off at our request the only person who may be a 

holdout for innocence.”6

{¶ 266} In response, the prosecutor explained how they learned about the 

Facebook connection, stating that “earlier today, [the] bailiff called to advise that 

there was a question; there was an issue with the juror that we needed to come over 

for.” The bailiff gave the assistant prosecutor the juror’s name. The prosecutor 

then checked with colleagues in the office and learned that juror No. 19 was 

Facebook friends with some of the prosecutors. 

{¶ 267} The trial court overruled the motion for a mistrial, stating that there 

is “no reason to think that the contact that Juror Number 19 * * * has had with 

Facebook friends, which she says she did not disclose to the rest of the jury, has in 

any way tainted the rest of the jury.” The trial court added: 

 On the issue of whether the State of Ohio brought this 

information [about Facebook] to light in order to achieve some 

tactical purpose, I interpret it a different way. 

 The State of Ohio, as Mr. Gessner said, had some curiosity. 

The curiosity was addressed. Once the information became known, 

it was entirely proper to bring that information to light. 

{¶ 268} As to the potential influence of juror No. 19 on the rest of the jurors, 

the trial court stated: 

 The defense has no more reason to think than I do or anyone 

else does that this individual was or was not a holdout, because we 

do not know whether the jury went on to resolve whatever issue they 

 

6. In proposition of law No. XX, Ford argues that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance 

of counsel by requesting that juror No. 19 be excused, because it was likely she was a holdout juror. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 72 

may have had with respect to the aggravated burglary count. We do 

not know, nor will we know, what prompted the most recent 

question which raised the issue of something being 11 to 1. 

2. Analysis 

a. Outside influence during deliberations 

{¶ 269} Ford argues that juror No. 19 used her background as a paralegal to 

influence other jurors to disregard the trial court’s instructions and apply her own 

legal definitions. Ford contends that the jury’s questions about aggravated burglary 

and unanimity of the verdicts show that juror No. 19 was interjecting outside 

information that was inconsistent with the trial court’s instructions. He argues that 

this was an outside influence that the trial court failed to investigate. 

{¶ 270} Ohio law prohibits outside influences, if they are shown to be 

prejudicial. State v. Kehn, 50 Ohio St.2d 11, 18-19, 361 N.E.2d 1330 (1977). 

Any communication or contact outside the courtroom or jury room

about the matter at trial between a juror and another person, 

particularly if connected with one of the parties to the litigation, and 

any independent inquiry or experiment by a juror about the evidence 

or the law, violate the juror’s duty to limit his considerations to the 

evidence, arguments and law presented in open court. Any such 

activity is juror misconduct, a constitutional violation whether 

viewed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution or Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.

State v. King, 10 Ohio App.3d 161, 165, 460 N.E.2d 1383 (1st Dist.1983). 

{¶ 271} Ford’s argument fails for several reasons. First, he fails to establish 

that juror No. 19 said anything during deliberations that caused the jury to disregard 
January Term, 2019 

73 

the trial court’s instructions. The fact that the foreman sought clarification about 

juror unanimity and the definition of aggravated burglary does not show that the 

juror was trying to undermine such instructions. At about the same time, the 

prosecutor disclosed that juror No. 19 was Facebook friends with members of the 

prosecutor’s office. Nothing shows that the two events were related. Moreover, 

juror No. 19 was excused, an alternate juror took her place, and deliberations began 

anew. Thus no prejudice occurred. See State v. Hipkins, 69 Ohio St.2d 80, 83, 430 

N.E.2d 943 (1982) (judgment will not be reversed because of juror misconduct 

unless prejudice is shown); Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 217, 102 S.Ct. 940, 71 

L.Ed.2d 78 (1982) (party complaining about juror misconduct must prove 

prejudice). 

{¶ 272} Second, even assuming that juror No. 19 interjected her legal 

experience into the deliberative process, nothing shows that this was an improper 

“outside influence” on the deliberations. Ford does not claim that she consulted 

legal texts, checked the internet, or spoke to a lawyer and conveyed such 

information to the other jurors. Nor does he claim that juror No. 19 paraded her 

paralegal background before the other jurors or gave legal directives. Here, the 

juror’s personal experiences, including her paralegal experience, do not constitute 

an outside influence. See Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 117-119, 107 S.Ct. 

2739, 97 L.Ed.2d 90 (1987); State v. Hughes, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 02CA15, 

2003-Ohio-6094, ¶ 28. 

{¶ 273} In examining a claim that a juror had improperly used her 

engineering and mathematics background, the Supreme Court of Colorado stated 

that “[t]he line between a juror’s application of her background professional and 

educational experience to the record evidence and a juror’s introduction of legal 

content or specific factual information learned from outside the record can be a fine 

one.” Kendrick v. Pippin, 252 P.3d 1052, 1066 (Colo.2011). But “[t]he test 

requires that the experience used by the juror in deliberations be part of the juror’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 74 

background, gained before the juror was selected to participate in the case and not 

as the result of independent investigation into a matter relevant to the case.” Id. A 

similar analysis applies here. Further, “a majority of courts have held that a juror’s 

intradeliberational statements, when based on personal knowledge and experience 

do not constitute extraneous prejudicial information.” Id. at 1065. Thus, we reject 

Ford’s claim that juror No. 19 interjected an “outside influence” during 

deliberations. 

{¶ 274} Ford argues that the trial court should have conducted a hearing to 

determine the extent of the outside influence and prejudice. In Remmer v. United 

States, 347 U.S. 227, 74 S.Ct. 450, 98 L.Ed. 654 (1954), the United States Supreme 

Court held that a trial court confronted with an allegation of external tampering or 

contact with a juror during trial about a matter pending before the jury “should 

determine the circumstances, the impact [of the circumstances] upon the juror, and 

whether or not it was prejudicial, in a hearing with all interested parties permitted 

to participate.” Id. at 230. 

{¶ 275} Nonetheless, “not all communications with jurors warrant a hearing 

for a determination of potential bias.” White v. Smith, 984 F.2d 163, 166 (6th 

Cir.1993). An allegation of an unauthorized communication with a juror requires 

a Remmer hearing only when the alleged contact presents a likelihood of affecting 

the verdict. See United States v. Frost, 125 F.3d 346, 377 (6th Cir.1997). 

{¶ 276} We hold that the trial court did not err by failing to conduct a 

Remmer hearing, because Ford presented no basis upon which to believe that juror 

No. 19 had introduced an “outside influence” into the proceedings. Juror No. 19 

also assured the court that she had not told other jurors that she was Facebook 

friends with members of the prosecutor’s office or had worked as an intern there. 

{¶ 277} Next, Ford argues that juror No. 19 tainted the jury. However,

“[s]peculation and unsubstantiated allegations do not present a colorable claim of 
January Term, 2019 

75 

outside influence of a juror.” See United States v. Wintermute, 443 F.3d 993, 1003 

(8th Cir.2006). 

{¶ 278} As a final matter, Ford claims that by excusing juror No. 19, the 

trial court sent a message to other jurors that a holdout would not remain on the 

jury. But the trial court told the jury: “I wanted to advise the members of the jury 

that for a reason that has nothing to do with your deliberations in the case or the 

facts of the case, but, instead, on some information the Court became aware of that 

is not a matter for your concern, the Court did find it necessary to excuse [juror No. 

19] from further jury service on this case.” These instructions addressed any 

lingering concerns about juror No. 19’s removal. See State v. Jones, 91 Ohio St.3d 

335, 344, 744 N.E.2d 1163 (2001) (jury presumed to have followed trial court’s 

instructions). 

{¶ 279} Furthermore, Ford requested that juror No. 19 be removed from the 

panel. The doctrine of invited error specifies that a litigant may not “take advantage 

of an error which he himself invited or induced.” Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. 

v. Ford Motor Co., Lincoln-Mercury Div., 28 Ohio St.3d 20, 502 N.E.3d 590 

(1986), paragraph one of the syllabus. “This court has found invited error when a 

party has asked the court to take some action later claimed to be erroneous, or 

affirmatively consented to a procedure the trial judge proposed.” State v. Campbell, 

90 Ohio St.3d 320, 324, 738 N.E.2d 1178 (2000). Here, defense counsel requested 

that juror No. 19 be removed from the panel and is not entitled to complain of an 

error that counsel requested. Accordingly, we reject this claim. 

b. Bailiff’s discussions with the prosecutor 

{¶ 280} Ford argues that the trial court erred by not conducting a hearing 

under Remmer, 347 U.S. 227, 74 S.Ct. 450, 98 L.Ed. 654, to address the bailiff’s 

communications with the prosecutor about an issue with a juror. He argues that 

these communications violated the secrecy of the jury deliberations. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 76 

{¶ 281} It is unclear what the bailiff told the prosecutor, beyond stating that 

there was “a question; there was an issue with the juror that we needed to come 

over for.” After they talked, the prosecutor learned that juror No. 19 was Facebook 

friends with members of the prosecutor’s office. 

{¶ 282} There is no evidence that the bailiff had a conversation with the 

juror that affected the verdict—all the bailiff did was tell the prosecutor that there 

was an “issue” with a juror and gave him the juror’s name. Thus, we conclude that 

the trial court did not err by failing to conduct a Remmer hearing regarding this 

matter. 

{¶ 283} Based on the foregoing, we reject proposition of law No. VIII. 

J. Juror Misconduct During Deliberations 

{¶ 284} In proposition of law No. IX, Ford argues that juror misconduct

during deliberations violated his right to a fair trial and fair sentencing proceedings. 

1. Factual Background 

a. Juror No. 19 

{¶ 285} On October 28, 2014, during the mitigation phase, the Akron

Beacon Journal published an interview with juror No. 19, who had already been

excused. According to the newspaper article, she stated that other jurors were in a 

hurry to convict Ford without conducting much debate. She said one juror had 

talked about the need to reach a verdict in time to attend an upcoming birthday 

party. Juror No. 19 added, “I was a roadblock to them getting out,” and “I was the 

only one trying to fight and take a look at what was going on.”

{¶ 286} Juror No. 19 stated that some jurors, despite instructions to the 

contrary, talked about potential penalties. They mentioned the likelihood that Ford 

would never get out of prison if convicted of aggravated murder or would not face 

execution any time soon if the jury voted for the death penalty. She stated that 

some jurors relied on her legal experience to ask basic questions but then pressured 

her to convict Ford, calling her positions “crazy” and not worthy of debate. 
January Term, 2019 

77 

{¶ 287} Juror No. 19 stated that she had originally signed the guilty form 

for aggravated murder but changed her mind after a night being sequestered. She 

did not believe that Ford went to the Schoberts’ home on April 2, 2013, with the 

intent to kill. She also did not believe that Ford and his codefendant, Vaughn, 

walked nine miles from Akron to the Schoberts’ home in New Franklin. She said 

that a second juror appeared to be agreeing with her. 

{¶ 288} She said that others were not agreeing and there was “shouting at 

times.” Juror No. 19 got into a “real blow up” with another juror, because she was 

making snide remarks about her being a paralegal. Juror No. 19 added, “It was me 

and [a second juror] and they kept saying are we crazy.” 

{¶ 289} Unbeknownst to juror No. 19 at the time, the foreperson sent notes 

to the court asking about jury unanimity and the burglary charge. She said that this 

led the prosecutors to search her Facebook page and learn that she was “friends” 

with members of the prosecutor’s office. She said the decision to excuse her was 

shocking and likely fueled by the tone of the foreperson’s notes to the judge. 

b. Juror No. 46 

{¶ 290} On November 2, 2014, just days after the jury had been excused,

the Akron Beacon Journal published an interview with juror No. 46, a seated juror 

during both phases of the trial. Juror No. 46 said she was the lone holdout for a life 

sentence. She said, “I didn’t want the death penalty at all. I fought for hours. I had 

one juror get in my face saying, ‘I can’t believe you wouldn’t give this kid the death 

penalty. What’s wrong with you * * *.’ ” She added, “Yes, [I was intimidated]. 

* * * I don’t feel a death sentence is right for Shawn.” (Brackets sic.) 

{¶ 291} Juror No. 46 said she was initially the only person to vote against 

death for Jeffrey’s murder. Pressure to vote for death for Margaret’s murder 

intensified. She relented and signed a death sentence for Margaret’s murder while 

the other jurors agreed to a life sentence for Jeffrey’s murder. But she said, “I didn’t 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 78 

want to sign it, and I think now I’m going to have to live with that guilt * * * I 

don’t feel it was the right thing to do.” 

{¶ 292} Juror No. 46 said she considered changing her vote when the jurors 

were polled. She said, “I wanted to say no, but I couldn’t. I was looking down. I 

was shaking. I couldn’t even control myself. But I said yes.” Juror No. 46 stated 

that she surrendered her position “[b]ecause of how awful [the other jurors] were.” 

{¶ 293} She said deliberations during the trial phase were swift and most 

jurors had no interest in deliberating. The same haste occurred during sentencing. 

Some jurors arguing for death expressed concern that Ford, if given life in prison, 

could one day escape. One juror cited the Chardon school shooter and his recent 

escape as an example. She added, “They were screaming at me. It wasn’t pleasant 

behind the scenes with these people.” 

c. Motion for a Remmer hearing denied 

{¶ 294} Following the publication of juror No. 46’s interview, defense 

counsel filed a motion for a hearing under Remmer, 347 U.S. 227, 74 S.Ct. 450, 98 

L.Ed. 654, to address the juror misconduct reported in the Akron Beacon Journal. 

The trial court denied the motion, stating that “there is no evidence before the court 

suggesting that the jury * * * was improperly influenced by anyone or anything 

outside of the jury.” The trial court added that “because defendant’s motion is 

based on newspaper articles related entirely to the deliberations of the sequestered 

jury and there is no evidence aliunde suggesting juror misconduct, the court would 

not be permitted to hear testimony from these former jurors on the subject upon 

which defendant’s motion is based.” 

2. Analysis 

{¶ 295} Evid.R. 606(B), also known as the aliunde rule, governs the 

competency of a juror to testify at a subsequent proceeding concerning the verdict. 

It states: 
January Term, 2019 

79 

(B) Inquiry Into Validity of Verdict or Indictment. Upon 

an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may 

not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course 

of the jury’s deliberations or to the effect of anything upon that or 

any other juror’s mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent 

to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the juror’s 

mental processes in connection therewith. A juror may testify on 

the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was 

improperly brought to the jury’s attention or whether any outside 

influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror, only after 

some outside evidence of that act or event has been presented. 

However a juror may testify without the presentation of any outside 

evidence concerning any threat, any bribe, any attempted threat or 

bribe, or any improprieties of any officer of the court. A juror’s 

affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror concerning a 

matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying will 

not be received for these purposes. 

(Boldface sic.) 

{¶ 296} The purpose of the aliunde rule is to maintain the sanctity of the 

jury room and the deliberations therein, ensure the finality of jury verdicts, and 

protect jurors from being harassed by defeated parties. See State v. Hessler, 90 

Ohio St.3d 108, 123, 734 N.E.2d 1237 (2000); State v. Reiner, 89 Ohio St.3d 342, 

350, 731 N.E.2d 662 (2000). 

{¶ 297} The trial court did not err in refusing to hold a Remmer hearing to 

consider evidence from juror No. 19 or juror No. 46 about the deliberations. We 

addressed a similar claim in Hessler. In that case, a distraught juror complained to 

the trial judge about her treatment from fellow jurors. Hessler at 116-120. The 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 80 

defense argued that the juror’s statement showed that she wanted to vote for life 

sentences but was unfairly coerced and pressured to vote for death. The defendant 

claimed that he was denied the right to a fair and impartial jury because of jury 

misconduct. Id. at 120. We rejected that claim, stating: 

 “The very object of the jury system is to secure unanimity 

by a comparison of views, and by arguments among the jurors 

themselves.” Allen v. United States (1896), 164 U.S. 492, 501, 17 

S.Ct. 154, 157, 41 L.Ed. 528, 531. The requirement of a unanimous 

decision, however, does not come without a price. Heightened 

emotions and intense feelings are part and parcel of this process. 

Experience tells us that during deliberations, it is not unusual to find 

heavy-handed influencing, browbeating, and even bullying to a 

certain extent. For always there is the possibility that “articulate 

jurors may intimidate the inarticulate, the aggressive may unduly 

influence the docile.” People v. DeLucia (1967), 20 N.Y.2d 275, 

278, 282 N.Y.S.2d 526, 529, 229 N.E.2d 211, 213. 

Id. 

{¶ 298} Hessler applies to the allegations of misconduct that juror Nos. 19 

and 46 reported against other jurors. Evid.R. 606(B) prohibited the trial court from 

questioning these jurors about what occurred during deliberations that might have 

affected the jurors’ minds or emotions in the process once the final verdict was 

rendered. Thus, a Remmer hearing was not required. 

{¶ 299} Moreover, juror No. 19 was excused before the trial-phase 

deliberations were completed and would not have known what happened in the jury 

room after she was replaced. And juror No. 46 confirmed her verdict in open court 

when the jury was polled. “The function of the poll is ‘to enable the court and the 
January Term, 2019 

81 

parties to ascertain with certainty that a unanimous verdict has in fact been reached 

and that no juror has been coerced or induced to agree to a verdict to which he has 

not fully assented.’ ” State v. Williams, 99 Ohio St.3d 493, 2003-Ohio-4396, 794 

N.E.2d 27, ¶ 37, quoting Miranda v. United States, 255 F.2d 9, 17 (1st Cir.1958). 

Once polling has been completed and all have assented to the verdict, “a juror may 

not thereafter rescind or modify his or her vote.” Williams at ¶ 38. 

{¶ 300} Ford raises Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, __ U.S. __, 137 S.Ct. 

855, 197 L.Ed.2d 107 (2017), in arguing that the behavior of certain jurors during 

deliberations denied him a fair and impartial jury. The Supreme Court held in 

Peña-Rodriguez that the traditional “no-impeachment rule” codified in Fed.R.Evid. 

606(b) may violate the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury when “a juror 

makes a clear statement that indicates he or she relied on racial stereotypes or 

animus to convict a criminal defendant.” Id. at ___, 137 S.Ct. at 869. In such cases, 

a court may decline to apply the no-impeachment rule, consider jury testimony, 

overturn a jury verdict, and hold a new trial. See id. Unlike in Peña-Rodriguez, 

neither juror No. 19 nor juror No. 46 indicated that racial bias or hostility was 

exhibited during the deliberations. Thus, Peña-Rodriguez does not overcome the 

no-impeachment rule here. 

{¶ 301} Ford also cites Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. 40, 135 S.Ct. 521, 190 

L.Ed.2d 422, (2014), in arguing that in extreme cases of juror bias, applying Evid.R. 

606(B) to bar juror testimony proving such bias would run afoul of the Sixth 

Amendment. Warger held that Fed.R.Evid. 606(b) applies to juror testimony 

during a proceeding in which a party seeks to secure a new trial on the ground that 

a juror lied during voir dire. Id. at 44. Ford relies on a footnote in Warger, in which 

the court said: 

There may be cases of juror bias so extreme that, almost by 

definition, the jury trial right has been abridged. If and when such a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 82 

case arises, the Court can consider whether the usual safeguards are 

or are not sufficient to protect the integrity of the process. We need 

not consider the question, however, for those facts are not presented 

here. 

Id. at 51, fn. 3. 

{¶ 302} The Supreme Court decided Peña-Rodriguez a little more than two 

years later. As discussed, however, Peña-Rodriguez limited the exception to the 

no-impeachment rule to a situation in which “a juror makes a clear statement that 

indicates he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal 

defendant.” See Peña-Rodriguez at ___, 137 S.Ct. at 869. Warger does not apply 

here. 

{¶ 303} Based on the foregoing, we reject proposition of law No. IX. 

K. Limitations on Defense Closing Arguments 

{¶ 304} In proposition of law No. XVI, Ford argues that the trial court erred 

in sustaining a series of objections to defense counsel’s closing arguments. 

{¶ 305} First, Ford argues that the trial court erred in sustaining an objection 

to a comment that called into question the extent of the state’s investigation: 

 MR. SINN [(defense counsel)]: And, again, when you make 

decisions here, you have a right to have the investigation that you 

need to make the decisions to let you know what happened. You 

don’t have to put the pieces together. * * * That’s the * * * job of 

the New Franklin Police Department. And if they are not up to 

doing it, then they need to get somebody else out there. 

 MR. LOPRINZI [(prosecutor)]: Objection. 

 THE COURT: Sustained. 
January Term, 2019 

83 

{¶ 306} Both parties are given latitude during closing arguments to address 

what the evidence has shown and what reasonable inferences may be drawn from 

that evidence. See Loza, 71 Ohio St.3d at 78, 641 N.E.2d 1082. As one court 

explained: 

Trial counsel may advocate and persuade to the limit of his or her 

ability and enthusiasm but cannot misrepresent evidence or go 

beyond the limits set by the trial court. Thus, counsel may freely 

discuss the facts, arraign the conduct of parties, impugn, excuse, 

justify or condemn motives according to the evidence, and attack the 

credibility of witnesses when the record supports the same. The 

court should not be severe in arresting argument on the ground that 

the argument or inference is illogical. 

(Internal citations omitted.) State v. Powell, 177 Ohio App.3d 825, 2008-Ohio4171, 896 N.E.2d 212, ¶ 45 (4th Dist.). 

{¶ 307} Leading up to the objected-to comments, defense counsel argued 

that the police had failed to prove that Zachary was out of town at the time of the 

murders. The defense also argued that the police failed to identify any witnesses 

who saw Ford and Vaughn walking in the middle of the night from Akron to the 

Schoberts’ house in New Franklin. The defense argument aimed at the New 

Franklin Police Department was a means of questioning why the prosecution lacked 

more evidence. We hold that the trial court erred in prohibiting such argument. 

{¶ 308} Second, Ford argues that the trial court erred by sustaining an

objection to a defense argument about the prosecution’s failure to call Detective 

Morrison as a witness. During closing argument, defense counsel argued: 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 84 

 Over two days, there are multiple statements given, six or 

seven different statements. At first, Shawn Ford denies 

involvement, and then he talks about other people being involved. 

And, each time, Detective Hitchings or Detective Morrison—who, 

again, we don’t hear from Detective Morrison— 

 MR. LOPRINZI: Objection. 

 THE COURT: Sustained. 

{¶ 309} A party’s failure “ ‘to call a witness who has some knowledge of 

the matter under investigation may be commented upon.’ ” State v. D’Ambrosio, 

67 Ohio St.3d 185, 193, 616 N.E.2d 909 (1993), quoting State v. Petro, 148 Ohio 

St. 473, 498, 76 N.E.2d 355 (1948). Morrison did not testify during trial even 

though he played a key role in the investigation of Chelsea’s assault and 

interviewed Ford on April 2 and 3. Thus, defense counsel’s comment about not 

hearing from Morrison during trial should have been allowed. 

{¶ 310} The state cites Crim.R. 16(I) in arguing that the defense does not 

have a “freewheeling right to comment on the absence of any person who that party 

thinks should have testified.” But Crim.R. 16(I) provides: 

 (I) Witness List. Each party shall provide to opposing 

counsel a written witness list, including names and addresses of any 

witness it intends to call in its case-in-chief, or reasonably 

anticipates calling in rebuttal or surrebuttal. The content of the 

witness list may not be commented upon or disclosed to the jury by 

opposing counsel, but during argument, the presence or absence of 

the witness may be commented upon. 
January Term, 2019 

85 

(Emphasis added and boldface sic.) Nothing in Crim.R. 16(I) prohibited defense 

counsel from commenting on Morrison’s absence; indeed, the rule expressly 

permits such comment. Thus, we conclude that the trial court erred in sustaining 

an objection to the defense argument. 

{¶ 311} We conclude, however, that the two erroneous rulings were 

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chapman, 386 U.S. at 23-24, 87 S.Ct. 

824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705; Arnold, 147 Ohio St.3d 138, 2016-Ohio-1595, 62 N.E.3d 153, 

at ¶ 50. There is little likelihood that the restrictions on defense counsel’s argument 

affected the verdict in view of DNA evidence linking Ford to the murders and his 

confession. 

{¶ 312} Finally, Ford argues that the trial court erred in curtailing the 

defense argument that questioned the completeness of Ford’s police interview. 

Defense counsel argued: 

 What else did he say? I mean, really, what else did he say? 

You have got him saying—you have got him now opened up, 

confessing. What else did Shawn say? * * * Where is the rest of 

the information? 

 Where are the cell phones? Where are Jeff and [Margaret’s] 

cell phones? That’s important. We don’t know where those phones 

went. Why don’t we know that? 

 I mean, if, according to Hitchings, Shawn has now come 

clean and telling the truth of the story, that’s when you ask him all 

the questions you want to ask. That’s when you get all the answers 

out. 

The prosecutor objected and, outside the jury’s presence, argued that defense 

counsel “knows the answers to these questions. He knows his client was asked 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 86 

these questions.” The trial court sustained the objection, stating that counsel 

“cannot imply that some work was not done that was done. * * * I will instruct 

counsel not to continue with that.” 

{¶ 313} Ford’s recorded interview showed that he told police that Vaughn 

had both of the Schoberts’ phones. Thus, the trial court could prohibit defense 

counsel from arguing that Ford was not asked about the phones when they knew 

that he had been asked. See State v. Sibert, 98 Ohio App.3d 412, 426-427, 648 

N.E.2d 861 (4th Dist.1994) (defense not permitted to argue that the state failed to 

call victim’s father when counsel agreed that the victim’s father could not testify). 

{¶ 314} Based on the foregoing, we reject proposition of law No. XVI. 

L. Sufficiency and Manifest Weight of the Evidence

{¶ 315} In proposition of law No. XII, Ford challenges the sufficiency of 

the evidence for his convictions for (1) aggravated murder with prior calculation 

and design, (2) aggravated murder during an aggravated robbery, the aggravatedrobbery death-penalty specifications, and the separate aggravated-robbery offense, 

(3) aggravated murder during an aggravated burglary and the separate aggravatedburglary offense, and (4) grand theft. He also challenges his conviction for the 

felonious assault of Chelsea as against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

1. Aggravated Murder with Prior Calculation and Design 

{¶ 316} Ford argues that there is insufficient evidence of the element of 

prior calculation and design to support his convictions for the aggravated murders 

of Jeffrey (Count 1) and Margaret (Count 4). Ford also challenges his convictions 

for committing aggravated murder with prior calculation and design in the two 

death-penalty specifications attached to Count 4. 

{¶ 317} In reviewing a record for sufficiency, “[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, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 
January Term, 2019 

87 

(1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 

99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 

{¶ 318} Ford claims that there is insufficient evidence of prior calculation 

and design because it is just as likely that he went to the Schoberts’ home to break 

in and rob the Schoberts while they were at the hospital. He argues that he did not 

bring a weapon to the house but used a knife and a sledgehammer obtained from 

the Schoberts’ home. 

{¶ 319} “The phrase ‘prior calculation and design’ by its own terms 

suggests advance reasoning to formulate the purpose to kill.” State v. Walker, 150 

Ohio St.3d 409, 2016-Ohio-8295, 82 N.E.3d 1124, ¶ 18. There is no bright-line 

test to distinguish between the presence or absence of prior calculation and design; 

each case depends upon its own facts. Id. at ¶ 19. Three factors have traditionally 

been considered in determining whether prior calculation and design exists: “(1) 

Did the accused and victim know each other, and if so, was that relationship 

strained? (2) Did the accused give thought or preparation to choosing the murder 

weapon or murder site? and (3) Was the act drawn out or ‘an almost instantaneous 

eruption of events?’ ” State v. Taylor, 78 Ohio St.3d 15, 19, 676 N.E.2d 82 (1997), 

quoting State v. Jenkins, 48 Ohio App.2d 99, 102, 355 N.E.2d 825 (8th Dist.1976). 

{¶ 320} There is sufficient evidence in this case for any rational trier of fact 

to find that Ford killed Jeffrey and Margaret with prior calculation and design. 

First, Ford knew the Schoberts and knew that they did not want him to see Chelsea 

in the hospital. Ford also knew that the story he had told police about Chelsea’s 

assault was falling apart. Second, despite Ford’s assertion that he planned only to 

steal from the Schoberts and that he went to the Schoberts’ house without a weapon, 

there is sufficient evidence that he had decided to kill them. Regarding the murder 

of Jeffrey, the evidence shows that Jeffrey was in bed when Ford arrived at the 

Schoberts’ home. There is no evidence of a struggle or confrontation between Ford 

and Jeffrey. Ford admits he took a sledgehammer from the Schoberts’ garage, went 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 88 

upstairs to the bedroom, and killed Jeffrey by hitting him in the head, at least 14 

times according to the coroner. 

{¶ 321} There is also sufficient evidence of prior calculation and design for 

the aggravated murder of Margaret (Count 4). After killing Jeffrey, the evidence 

suggests that Ford waited at the house for Margaret to come home. During this 

time Ford or Vaughn used Jeffrey’s phone, pretending to be Jeffrey, to determine 

when Margaret would be coming home. 

{¶ 322} At trial, the state introduced text messages that were exchanged 

between Jeffrey’s phone and Margaret’s phone during the early morning of April 

2, 2013: 

[03:58:19: (Jeffrey)] you still at hospital 

* * * 

[04:57:59: (Margaret)] Have u been up all night 

[04:59:26: (Jeffrey)] yea 

[05:00:10: (Jeffrey)] How Chelsea doin 

[05:09:00: (Jeffrey)] What time you coming home 

[05:12:25: (Margaret)] Who is at the house 

[05:14:30: (Jeffrey)] Just me i know you called but my phone 

not working right now i dobt know why 

[05:16:26: (Margaret)] we have been up since 4. * * * She 

is crying bc she can’t eat cereal and wants to see shawn 

[05:17:49: (Jeffrey)] Is you go let her see him 

[05:17:53: (Margaret)] Her throat is hurting. * * * She says 

she is 18 and can do what she wants 

[05:18:15: (Margaret)] Is this Shawn 

* * * 

[05:19:11: (Jeffrey)] I hate that asshole 
January Term, 2019 

89 

[05:20:21: (Margaret)] What is going on 

* * * 

[05:22:12: (Jeffrey)] I’m about to go to bed i been up all 

night but what time you coming 

[05:22:53: (Margaret)] Why were u up all night 

* * * 

[05:24:45: (Jeffrey)] I was watching TV and i was studying 

my case 

[05:25:10: (Margaret)] why do u want to know when I am 

coming 

[05:27:19: (Jeffrey)] Because I’m probably go be sleep when 

you get here just asking 

[05:29:35: (Jeffrey)] Goodnight hun 

[05:30:09: (Margaret)] I can’t deal w lies anymore 

[05:31:06: (Jeffrey)] What are you talking about 

{¶ 323} Despite Margaret’s suspicions that it was Ford and not Jeffrey who 

was texting her, Margaret did not call the police and went home alone. The 

evidence suggests that Ford and Vaughn had been in the home for hours, lying in 

wait for her arrival, and attacked her with the sledgehammer when she walked into 

the bedroom. She was hit in the head at least 19 times. Regardless of Ford’s claim 

that he arrived at the Schoberts’ home without a weapon and regardless of his claim 

that his original plan was only to steal from the Schoberts, there is sufficient 

evidence for any rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that after 

Ford arrived at the Schoberts’ home, he decided to kill them. 

{¶ 324} Accordingly, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to 

establish that Ford acted with prior calculation and design in killing Jeffrey and 

Margaret. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 90 

2. Aggravated Murder during Aggravated Robbery 

{¶ 325} Ford argues that the evidence does not support his convictions for 

aggravated murder during an aggravated robbery (Counts 2 and 5), the deathpenalty specifications for committing aggravated murder while committing 

aggravated robbery, and the aggravated-robbery offenses (Counts 6 and 7). He 

contends that there was no evidence that he committed theft or knew that a theft 

was committed. These claims lack merit. 

{¶ 326} R.C. 2903.01(B), Ohio’s felony-murder statute, reads: 

(B) No person shall purposely cause the death of another or 

the unlawful termination of another’s pregnancy while committing 

or attempting to commit, or while fleeing immediately after 

committing or attempting to commit, kidnapping, rape, aggravated 

arson, arson, aggravated robbery, robbery, aggravated burglary, 

burglary, trespass in a habitation when a person is present or likely 

to be present, terrorism, or escape. 

(Emphasis added.) 

{¶ 327} The capital specification, R.C. 2929.04(A)(7), sets forth the criteria 

for imposing death or imprisonment for aggravated murder during an aggravated 

robbery: 

(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: 

 * * * 
January Term, 2019 

91 

 (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.) 

{¶ 328} R.C. 2911.01 sets forth provisions of the aggravated-robbery 

statute: 

(A) No person, 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, shall do any of the 

following: 

 (1) Have a deadly weapon on or about the offender’s person 

or under the offender’s control and either display the weapon, 

brandish it, indicate that the offender possesses it, or use it; 

* * * 

 (3) Inflict, or attempt to inflict, serious physical harm on another. 

{¶ 329} Heather Greathouse testified that before the murders, Ford said he 

was going to “hit a lick.” After the murders, he returned with two rings and some 

money. Heather’s aunt threw the rings in a nearby dumpster. The police later 

recovered the rings, and Chelsea identified one of the rings as her mother’s. Ford 

also admitted to police that someone took money and jewelry from the Schoberts’ 

home. Thus, we hold that there was sufficient evidence to establish Ford’s guilt of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 92 

aggravated murder during an aggravated robbery, the related aggravated-robbery 

death-penalty specifications, and the robbery offenses themselves. 

3. Aggravated Murder during Aggravated Burglary 

{¶ 330} Ford argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his 

convictions for committing aggravated murder during an aggravated burglary 

(Counts 3 and 6) and the separate aggravated-burglary offense (Count 8) because 

the state failed to prove that someone was likely to be home at the time of the 

offenses. 

{¶ 331} The aggravated-burglary statute, R.C. 2911.11, provides: 

(A) No person, by force, stealth, or deception, shall trespass 

in an occupied structure or in a separately secured or separately 

occupied portion of an occupied structure, when another person 

other than an accomplice of the offender is present, with purpose to 

commit in the structure or in the separately secured or separately 

occupied portion of the structure any criminal offense, if any of the 

following apply: 

(1) The offender inflicts, or attempts or threatens to inflict 

physical harm on another * * *. 

{¶ 332} “Occupied structure” is defined in R.C. 2909.01: 

(C) “Occupied structure” means any house, building, 

outbuilding, watercraft, aircraft, railroad car, truck, trailer, tent, or 

other structure, vehicle, or shelter, or any portion thereof, to which 

any of the following applies: 

* * * 
January Term, 2019 

93 

(4) At the time, any person is present or likely to be present 

in it.

(Emphasis added.) 

{¶ 333} The state charged Ford with aggravated burglary under R.C. 

2911.11(A), which requires that a “person other than an accomplice of the offender 

[was] present.” (Emphasis and brackets added.) The evidence showed that Jeffrey 

was at home at the time of the aggravated burglary. Thus, the state did not need to 

also prove the likelihood that Jeffrey or Margaret would be present. 

{¶ 334} Ford cites State v. Fowler, 4 Ohio St.3d 16, 445 N.E.2d 1119 

(1983), in arguing that the state needed additional proof that Jeffrey or Margaret 

were “likely to be present.” The aggravated burglary in that case occurred when 

no one was home. Under those circumstances, which are not applicable here, this 

court held that “proof that a permanent or temporary habitation or dwelling has 

been burglarized is alone insufficient to establish the fourth element necessary to 

support a conviction for aggravated burglary, i.e., that the occupied structure is one 

at the time of the trespass in which any person is present or likely to be present.” 

Id. at 18. Thus, Fowler is inapposite. 

{¶ 335} We hold that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude 

beyond a reasonable doubt that Ford was guilty of the two counts of aggravated 

murder during an aggravated burglary and of the separate aggravated-burglary 

offense.

4. Grand Theft 

{¶ 336} Ford argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his 

conviction for the grand theft of Jeffrey’s automobile (Count 9) because there is no 

proof that he exerted control over the vehicle. 

{¶ 337} Jeffrey’s automobile was missing from his home when the murders

were discovered. Based on information that Ford provided to inmate Beech, the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 94 

police located Jeffrey’s car a short distance from where Vaughn was staying. A 

search of nearby drains uncovered gloves, a knife, and a stocking hat. The BCI 

forensic scientist determined that Ford could not be excluded as a contributor to the 

DNA found on the stocking hat. 

{¶ 338} “Grand theft requires one to obtain or exert control over property 

of another.” State v. Talley, 18 Ohio St.3d 152, 155, 480 N.E.2d 439 (1985). Ford 

argues that the state failed to prove that Ford took or drove Jeffrey’s automobile. It 

is unclear whether Ford or Vaughn drove the car. But evidence shows that Ford 

was in the car. He told Beech where the car could be found. Evidence linking Ford 

to the murders was also found in the area near the car. Thus, even assuming that 

Ford was not the driver, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the jury 

to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Ford committed grand theft as an aider or 

abettor.

5. Felonious Assault of Chelsea 

{¶ 339} Ford contends that his conviction for the felonious assault of 

Chelsea (Count 11) is against the manifest weight of the evidence. He argues that 

Joshua, Zachary, and Chelsea picked someone besides Ford from the photo lineup 

as the assailant. Ford also mentions that Joshua and Zachary provided inconsistent 

accounts of what happened. 

{¶ 340} When reviewing a claim that a jury verdict is against the manifest 

weight of the evidence, an appellate court must apply the following 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 grant a new trial should be exercised 
January Term, 2019 

95 

only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily 

against the conviction.” 

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), quoting State 

v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). 

{¶ 341} Evidence shows that on March 23, 2013, Ford attacked Chelsea in

a bedroom at Zachary’s residence. According to Chelsea, Ford wanted to have sex, 

but she asked him to wait. Ford then hit her in the head with a brick and stabbed 

her in the neck and back. Following the attack, Ford told Joshua not to tell the truth. 

He also told Zachary to tell the police that Chelsea was assaulted by some guys at 

a party in Kent. Chelsea testified that she was initially scared to tell the truth: “I 

thought if he would have found out, then I would be in worse condition than I 

already was.” Heather testified that Ford told her that he “stabbed [Chelsea] and 

he hit her upside the head with a brick,” because “she wasn’t paying attention to 

him.” Ford “ultimately admitted” to detectives that “he did this to Chelsea.” Given 

the strength of the trial testimony and Ford’s own admissions, we conclude that 

Ford’s felonious-assault conviction is supported by the manifest weight of the 

evidence. 

{¶ 342} Based on the foregoing, we reject proposition of law No. XII. 

M. Conflicting Verdicts 

{¶ 343} In proposition of law No. II, Ford argues that the jury returned 

conflicting verdicts on the R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) death-penalty specifications in the 

counts for the aggravated murder of Margaret. Because Ford did not object to this 

alleged error at trial, he forfeited all but plain error. See Ballew, 76 Ohio St.3d at 

251, 667 N.E.3d 369. 

{¶ 344} The jury found Ford guilty of the aggravated murder of Margaret

with prior calculation and design, R.C. 2903.01(A) (Count 4), and the aggravated 

murder of Margaret during an aggravated robbery, R.C. 2903.01(B) (Count 5). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 96 

Both counts contained identical R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) specifications.7 The jury also 

found Ford guilty of “prior calculation and design” in Specifications 2 and 3 of 

Count 4. However, he was found guilty as the “principal offender” in 

Specifications 2 and 3 of Count 5. 

{¶ 345} Prior to the mitigation phase, at the request of both parties, the trial 

court merged Count 3, to the extent that it related to Margaret, Count 4, and Count 

5 into Count 4. Count 4 and the accompanying aggravating-circumstances 

specifications for the killing of two or more people and the commission of an 

aggravated murder with prior calculation and design were submitted to the jury in 

the sentencing phase. 

{¶ 346} Ford complains that the verdicts in Counts 4 and 5 are conflicting. 

First, he argues that the state should not have been allowed to charge both that Ford 

acted as the principal offender (i.e., the actual killer) or, if not the principal offender, 

that he acted with prior calculation and design. However, Ford acknowledges in 

his reply brief that the prior-calculation-and-design and the principal-offender 

elements of R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) may be charged disjunctively. The analysis in 

Ford’s reply brief reflects the proper standard of law. See State v. Cook, 65 Ohio 

St.3d 516, 527, 605 N.E.2d 70 (1992) (trial court may instruct the jury on priorcalculation-and-design and principal-offender status disjunctively in the same 

specification). 

{¶ 347} Second, Ford argues that the trial court erred by accepting 

conflicting verdicts in Counts 4 (i.e., murder with prior calculation and design) and 

5 (i.e., murder as the principal offender). However, the verdicts involved separate 

counts. And as we have stated, “ ‘The several counts of an indictment containing 

more than one count are not interdependent and an inconsistency in a verdict does 

 

7. Count 3 charged Ford with the aggravated murder (aggravated burglary) of Jeffrey or Margaret. 

Specifications 2 and 3 under Count 3 were the same as the specifications underlying Counts 4 and 

5. The jury also found Ford guilty of Count 3 and guilty as the “principal offender” under 

Specifications 2 and 3. 
January Term, 2019 

97 

not arise out of inconsistent responses to different counts, but only arises out of 

inconsistent responses to the same count.’ ” State v. Adams, 53 Ohio St.2d 223, 

374 N.E.2d 137 (1978), paragraph two of the syllabus. Moreover, the trial court’s 

merger of the convictions ensured that the murder of Margaret with prior 

calculation and design was the only count with R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) specifications 

that was submitted for the jury’s consideration for sentencing.

{¶ 348} Third, Ford cites State v. Penix, 32 Ohio St.3d 369, 371, 513 N.E.2d 

744 (1987), in arguing that the alternative specifications should not have been 

submitted to the jury. Penix held that it is error for a trial court to allow the jury to 

consider prior calculation and design together with principal-offender status as 

separate aggravating circumstances. Id. However, the present case differs from 

Penix in that the prior-calculation-and-design and the principal-offender elements 

of R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) were charged disjunctively to the jury in a single 

specification. Thus, Ford’s claim that there was a Penix violation lacks merit. See 

Cook at 527. 

{¶ 349} Fourth, Ford argues that the trial court erred by failing to instruct 

the jurors that to convict him of the R.C. 2929.04(A)(7) specifications, they had to 

agree unanimously on which of the two alternatives (principal offender or prior 

calculation and design) they found him guilty. The court erred by failing to provide 

such instructions. See State v. Moore, 81 Ohio St.3d 22, 40, 689 N.E.2d 1 (1998). 

Because the defense failed to object, however, Ford has forfeited all but plain error. 

See State v. Sowell, 148 Ohio St.3d 554, 2016-Ohio-8025, 71 N.E.3d 1034, ¶ 111. 

No plain error occurred, because the guilty verdict as to Count 4 indicated 

unanimous agreement that Ford committed the murder with prior calculation and 

design. 

{¶ 350} Finally, Ford argues that the verdict forms did not instruct the jury 

that they could consider prior calculation and design only if they found that he was 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 98 

not the principal offender. Ford did not raise an objection to the verdict forms and 

forfeited all but plain error. We find that no plain error occurred. 

{¶ 351} Based on the foregoing, we reject proposition of law No. II. 

N. Readmission of Trial-Phase Evidence and Testimony 

{¶ 352} In proposition of law No. XIV, Ford argues that the trial court erred 

in readmitting trial-phase evidence and all the trial-phase testimony during 

mitigation. 

{¶ 353} R.C. 2929.03(D)(1) provides that at the penalty stage of a capital 

proceeding, the jury shall consider, among other things, “any evidence raised at 

trial that is relevant to the aggravating circumstances the offender was found guilty 

of committing * * * [and] hear testimony and other evidence that is relevant to the 

nature and circumstances of the aggravating circumstances the offender was found 

guilty of committing.” See State v. Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12, 2014-Ohio-1019, 

9 N.E.3d 930, ¶ 240; State v. DePew, 38 Ohio St.3d 275, 282-283, 528 N.E.2d 542 

(1988).

{¶ 354} Ford asserts that the trial court erred in readmitting this evidence 

because none of it was relevant to the aggravating circumstances. He argues that 

the state was merely retrying guilt in the mitigation phase. He also argues that the 

prosecutor was trying to admit photographs showing blood so that the jury would 

focus on the gruesomeness of the crimes. 

{¶ 355} The trial court readmitted only the evidence that it deemed relevant 

to the aggravating circumstances. The ring and watch recovered from the dumpster, 

the stocking cap with Ford’s DNA on it, the gloves worn on the night of the murder, 

the photographs of the Schoberts’ home, the photograph of the bloody envelope 

inside Margaret’s purse, and the photograph of blood on the console of the car were 

relevant to the aggravated-robbery and aggravated-burglary specifications. The 

two photographs of Margaret’s injuries and the autopsy reports and protocols for 

Margaret and Jeffrey were relevant to the course-of-conduct aggravating 
January Term, 2019 

99 

circumstance. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion 

in readmitting this evidence, because the evidence bore some relevance to the 

nature and the circumstances surrounding the R.C. 2929.04(A)(5) course-ofconduct specification and the (A)(7) felony-murder specification. See Dean, 146 

Ohio St.3d 106, 2015-Ohio-4347, 54 N.E.3d 80, at ¶ 189. 

{¶ 356} The photographs of the hat and the gloves were unnecessarily 

cumulative and should not have been admitted. Similarly, the photographs of the 

Family Dollar store and dumpster where the ring and watch were found lack 

relevance and should not have been admitted. Nevertheless, we find that the 

readmission of this evidence was not prejudicial. 

{¶ 357} Ford also argues that the trial court erred by readmitting all 

testimonial evidence, because the jury had no way to disregard evidence that did 

not relate to the aggravating circumstances. However, defense counsel did not 

object to the readmission of the trial testimony and thus forfeited all but plain error. 

{¶ 358} Ford’s primary complaint is that all testimonial evidence regarding 

the felonious assault of Chelsea was submitted for consideration. But the trial 

court’s instructions on relevancy limited the jury’s consideration of the trial-phase 

testimony to that testimony related to the aggravating circumstances and the 

mitigating factors. Thus, there was no room for the jury to consider any evidence 

concerning Chelsea’s felonious assault. 

{¶ 359} Ford also argues that Dr. Dean’s testimony about the autopsies was 

not relevant to the aggravating circumstances. Even assuming that Dr. Dean’s 

testimony should not have been considered, we hold that no plain error occurred. 

{¶ 360} Viewing the mitigation-phase instructions as a whole, we conclude 

that the trial court adequately guided the jury’s consideration of the testimony 

during mitigation. See McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261, 2016-Ohio-5735, 70 N.E.3d 

508, at ¶ 253-254; Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512, 2011-Ohio-4215, 954 N.E.2d 596, at 

¶ 251. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 100 

{¶ 361} Based on the foregoing, we reject proposition of law No. XIV.

O. Instructions on Mercy

{¶ 362} In proposition of law No. XIX, Ford argues that the trial court erred 

by denying his request for an instruction on mercy. We have consistently rejected 

similar claims. See Sowell, 148 Ohio St.3d 554, 2016-Ohio-8025, 71 N.E.3d 1034, 

at ¶ 131; State v. Lorraine, 66 Ohio St.3d 414, 417-418, 613 N.E.2d 212 (1993). 

And contrary to Ford’s claims, neither Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163, 126 S.Ct. 

2516, 165 L.Ed.2d 429 (2006), nor Kansas v. Carr, __ U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 633, 193 

L.Ed.2d 535 (2016), holds that a defendant is entitled to an instruction on mercy. 

We reject proposition of law No. XIX. 

P. Prosecutorial Misconduct 

{¶ 363} In proposition of law No. XIII, Ford argues that the prosecutor

committed misconduct by disparaging defense counsel during the trial-phase and 

mitigation-phase closing arguments. Except where noted, however, trial counsel 

failed to object and thus have forfeited all but plain error. State v. Wade, 53 Ohio 

St.2d 182, 373 N.E.2d 1244 (1978), paragraph one of the syllabus. 

{¶ 364} 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, 14 Ohio St.3d 13, 14, 470 N.E.2d 883 (1984). 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. 

1. Trial-Phase Argument 

{¶ 365} First, Ford contends that the prosecutor improperly argued: “And I 

guarantee you the defense will suggest to you at points in their argument that you 

should not consider someone because of their background and that you would not 

rely on those people in the most important of your affairs.” Ford argues that the 

prosecutor was insinuating that the defense would try to get the jury to do things 

the law does not permit. It is improper to denigrate counsel in the jury’s presence. 
January Term, 2019 

101 

Pickens, 141 Ohio St.3d 462, 2014-Ohio-5445, 25 N.E.3d 1023, at ¶ 123. But 

counsel’s argument was directed at defense counsel’s anticipated argument about 

the state’s witnesses, not defense counsel’s insincerity or improper motives. No 

plain error occurred. See Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 2008-Ohio-6266, 900 N.E.2d 

565, at ¶ 221. 

{¶ 366} Second, Ford argues that the prosecutor attempted to disparage 

counsel during rebuttal by arguing: “One of the things I want to point out at the 

beginning of this thing is: Mr. Sinn has done what I consider to be, you know, the 

Jedi mind trick. It is, you know: Look over here, don’t look at the evidence.” But 

the defense had opened the door to these comments by arguing: “[T]here is a lot 

more to this case than what you think you know. I mean, the prosecutor packages 

it in such a way that it is just so clear that you don’t look any further.” Both parties 

have latitude in responding to arguments of opposing counsel and may be “colorful 

or creative.” State v. Brown, 38 Ohio St.3d 305, 317, 528 N.E.2d 523 (1988). The 

prosecutor’s comment about “the Jedi mind trick” was a creative response to 

defense counsel’s argument and was not aimed at denigrating him. State v. Smith, 

87 Ohio St.3d 424, 442-443, 721 N.E.2d 93 (2000). Thus, no plain error occurred. 

{¶ 367} Third, Ford objects to the prosecutor’s argument about a letter from 

Ford to Chelsea that was not admitted at trial: 

 So what does Mr. Sinn do? Mr. Sinn came up here and told 

you: If you can’t feel it, put your hands on it—if it is important, you 

should be able to put your hands on it, right? 

 Why is he saying that? Because he knows that there are 

certain things that you can’t put your hands on. 

* * * 

 Mr. Sinn complains because we did not give you the letter 

that Detective Hitchings talked about that said “I love you to death” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 102 

in it. You can imagine that letter is probably just full of self-serving 

things the defendant said, and we didn’t feel that that was important 

to our case. 

 If Mr. Sinn does, he has the letter, he has all the discovery in 

this case, he has all those things, he has all those interviews. 

{¶ 368} The prosecutor’s rebuttal was fair comment in the face of the 

defense’s argument, “I didn’t see a jail letter come into evidence. I don’t know. 

You can look through 270 pieces of evidence.” “And when a piece of evidence that 

comes by that’s so big to you * * * dig through the box, find it. * * * If it is that 

important, hold it in your hands.” The prosecutor’s comments were directed at the 

evidence and not counsel. 

{¶ 369} Fourth, Ford objects to the prosecutor’s statement, “If Mr. Sinn has 

some additional evidence about Zach Keys, I will charge him, too.” But the defense 

had raised the possibility that Zachary was at the murder scene, the prosecutor’s 

comments were aimed at the evidence and not counsel, and nothing improper was 

said. The prosecutor’s comments could also be characterized as the expression of 

personal opinion, but such comments are not improper if they are based on the 

evidence presented at trial. Smith, 87 Ohio St.3d at 443, 721 N.E.2d 93. That is 

what occurred here. 

{¶ 370} Fifth, Ford contends that the prosecutor, over defense objection, 

disparaged counsel by arguing: “One of the other things I thought was really funny 

is—or interesting is, is that they said you don’t know the rest of the story. I didn’t 

hear anybody tell us the rest of the story.” But the prosecutor’s characterization of 

the defense argument as “really funny” was directed at the merits of the argument 

and not counsel. Thus, no error was committed. See Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 

2008-Ohio-6266, 900 N.E.2d 565, at ¶ 221. 
January Term, 2019 

103 

{¶ 371} Sixth, Ford contends that the prosecutor improperly argued: “The 

other thing is, he puts that—we call it planting a seed, right? He says, ‘There is 

more to this case than you think you know.’ What does that mean? It means 

nothing.” These were fair comments in the face of the defense argument. 

Moreover, nothing in these remarks disparaged counsel. 

{¶ 372} Finally, Ford contends that the prosecutor attacked defense counsel 

and not the evidence in arguing: “One of the things that I always, you know, think 

is interesting is how a defense approaches a case. And that’s fine; they have the 

right to do that however they want.” These comments implied that defense 

counsel’s approach in defending Ford was insincere. See LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 

181, 2002-Ohio-2128, 767 N.E.2d 166, at ¶ 167 (the prosecutor improperly 

juxtaposed his “honest” case with the defense case and unfairly suggested that the 

defense’s case was not honestly presented). Even so, we conclude that these were 

isolated comments that did not deny Ford a fair trial. Thus, no plain error occurred. 

2. Mitigation-Phase Argument 

{¶ 373} First, Ford objects to the prosecutor’s argument about the value of 

mitigating evidence: 

 Now, the past few days may have seemed to drag out longer 

than you thought they were, but these are the witnesses you heard: 

 Kathleen Kovach. She is from the Ohio Parole Board. [Her] 

testimony is that individuals who receive sentences other than death 

and other than life without parole are eligible for parole at some 

time. 

 Compare the value of that as a mitigating factor to the 

aggravating circumstances. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 104 

{¶ 374} Ford argues that this argument disparaged counsel for spending too 

long in presenting mitigation. However, the prosecutor’s remarks about the length 

of mitigation cannot be reasonably construed as a criticism of defense counsel. 

Ford also contends that the prosecutor’s request that the jury compare the “value” 

of mitigating evidence against the aggravating circumstances was improper, 

because the jury’s role is to consider the “weight” of mitigating evidence. But 

nothing in this argument resulted in plain error. 

{¶ 375} Second, Ford contends that the prosecutor’s rebuttal disparaged

how defense counsel argued the case by stating: 

[W]hat you just heard was not about the law, it wasn’t about the 

facts, it wasn’t about mitigation, it wasn’t about aggravating 

circumstances. What you just heard is a plea. 

 See, when you don’t have the facts on your side, you pound 

the law. When you don’t have the law on your side, you pound the 

facts. And when you got neither on your side, you beg and interject 

race. That’s what you just heard. 

{¶ 376} “A prosecutor can respond to issues raised by an accused.” State 

v. Cassano, 96 Ohio St.3d 94, 2002-Ohio-3751, 772 N.E.2d 81, ¶ 101. Here, in 

support of the defense counsel’s impassioned plea for a life sentence for Ford rather 

than the death penalty, defense counsel argued the reasons why young black men 

like Ford never really have a fair chance. Ford’s counsel was arguing that 

mitigating factors support a life sentence; the prosecutor argued that the aggravating 

factors support the imposition of the death penalty. While the prosecutor’s remarks 

here are dismissive and reductive, they do not rise to the level of plain error. 

{¶ 377} Third, Ford argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct 

during rebuttal argument by stating: 
January Term, 2019 

105 

 And then: These two are us. You know, they always call us 

“the government.” And I always go home and tell my wife, “Hey,

guess who you are sleeping with tonight, the government.” 

 I am human. Did you think I didn’t feel bad when Mrs. Ford 

got up there and asked you to save her son’s life? Are you kidding 

me? There wasn’t a dry eye in here. 

{¶ 378} The state concedes that the prosecutor’s remarks were unnecessary 

but argues that they were just as likely an attempt at levity as a denigration of 

defense counsel. These remarks about the defense argument were improper. 

However, there is no reasonable basis to conclude that the result of the trial would 

have been different absent them. See Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 2008-Ohio-6266, 

900 N.E.2d 565, at ¶ 222. No plain error occurred. 

{¶ 379} Fourth, Ford objects to the prosecutor’s comments about his 

mother’s testimony: “How odd is it and ironic is it that the reason that [Mrs. Ford] 

is in here crying for you, begging to you, to save her son’s life is because of what 

he did. * * * That’s mitigating? To me, that’s cruel. To make your mother do 

that, to put your mother through that because of what you did.” These comments, 

as inappropriate and maybe even as inaccurate as they may have been, were 

directed toward Ford, and not counsel. But even if such remarks could be imputed 

to defense counsel, no plain error occurred. 

{¶ 380} Fifth, Ford contends that the rebuttal argument disparaged counsel 

by saying: “I know Mr. Sinn would not intentionally do this, but he kept talking to 

you about the aggravating circumstances and, okay, Mr. Gessner [the prosecutor] 

had his hand up here when he said aggravating circumstances.” But this was a 

response to defense counsel’s argument that the state would “talk to you about these 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 106 

aggravating circumstances, and they keep putting their hands up real high, 

aggravating circumstances.” None of these comments disparaged counsel. 

{¶ 381} Sixth, Ford contends that the prosecutor’s rebuttal disparaged 

counsel by stating: “He talks about hate. He is trying to appeal to your sympathies, 

trying to make you feel like bad people if you were to find the aggravating 

circumstances outweigh the mitigating factors. Please do not fall for that one.” 

Ford also cites the prosecutor’s claim that defense counsel was “implying somehow 

that if you do your job * * * that somehow you are a bad person, and make you feel 

guilty and bad for following the law. Please, do not do that.” Again, both the 

prosecutor and defense counsel were attempting to persuade the jury to adopt their 

point of view about the appropriate punishment for Ford. Although the prosecutor’s 

remarks here could be viewed as manipulative, they do not rise to the level of plain 

error. See Dean, 146 Ohio St.3d 106, 2015-Ohio-4347, 54 N.E.3d 80, at ¶ 253. 

{¶ 382} Seventh, Ford argues that the prosecutor inappropriately argued: 

“And we are here to honor the law, not great speeches, racist speeches—or speeches 

about racism, speeches about slavery. * * * I mean, I can’t imagine going back 

there after hearing that history of slavery in this country and not feeling a little 

awkward, maybe pandered to.” This rebuttal was a response to defense counsel’s 

arguments about racism. His remarks were directed at the merits of that argument 

and not counsel. No plain error occurred. 

{¶ 383} Eighth, Ford asserts that the prosecutor disparaged counsel by 

arguing: “And I want to bring up another thing before I close here. They talk about 

his low IQ and they talk about his deficits. * * * I forget how he said it; it was 

really well done. He must have stayed up all night writing it.” The state’s sarcastic 

remarks, which were directed at counsel, were inappropriate and improper. The 

state concedes that the remarks were unnecessary but argues that they did not have 

any effect on the sentence. We agree. There is no reasonable basis to conclude that 

the sentence would have been different absent these comments, and no plain error 
January Term, 2019 

107 

occurred. See Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 2008-Ohio-6266, 900 N.E.2d 565, at 

¶ 222. 

{¶ 384} As a final matter, Ford argues that the cumulative effect of the 

prosecutor’s sarcastic and denigrating comments directed at defense counsel 

warrants reversal of the sentence. 

{¶ 385} For a prosecutor’s closing argument to be prejudicial, the remarks 

must be “so inflammatory as to render the jury’s decision a product solely of 

passion and prejudice.” State v. Williams, 23 Ohio St.3d 16, 20, 490 N.E.2d 906 

(1986). To determine whether the remarks were prejudicial, we must review the 

closing argument in its entirety. State v. Slagle, 65 Ohio St.3d 597, 607, 605 N.E.2d 

916 (1992); State v. Moritz, 63 Ohio St.2d 150, 157, 407 N.E.2d 1268 (1980). Thus, 

we must consider all of the prosecutor’s remarks, irrespective of whether the 

defense preserved an objection. Keenan, 66 Ohio St.3d at 410, 613 N.E.2d 203 

(“even though the defense waived objection to many remarks, those remarks still 

form part of the context in which we evaluate the effect on the jury of errors that 

were not waived”). 

{¶ 386} The prosecutor made inappropriate sarcastic remarks twice and 

also denigrated counsel on one other occasion. However, these were all relatively 

isolated remarks that did not pervade the prosecutor’s overall mitigation argument.

 By comparison, in State v. Kirkland, 140 Ohio St.3d 73, 2014-Ohio-1966, 

15 N.E.3d 818, we concluded that the prosecutor’s closing remarks during the 

mitigation-phase argument were improper and “substantially prejudicial.” Id. at 

¶ 96. That prosecutor had invited the jury to consider what the victim experienced 

in the last moments of life, incited the jury’s emotions through assertions that were 

not supported by the record, and argued that a sentence less than death was 

meaningless because he was already serving a life sentence. Id. at ¶ 82, 86-87. 

{¶ 387} Similarly, in Keenan, 66 Ohio St.3d at 405-411, 613 N.E.2d 203, 

we held that the prosecutor’s improper argument denied the defendant a fair trial. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 108 

There, the prosecutor improperly expressed his personal opinion about the 

defendant’s guilt, denigrated counsel for making objections, consistently 

substituted emotion for reasoned advocacy, and attacked the character of the 

defendant’s friends to attack him. Id. 

{¶ 388} After reviewing the mitigation-phase closing argument in its 

entirety, we find that the prosecutors in Kirkland and Keenan committed far more 

serious and pervasive errors than the prosecutor made here. Thus, we hold that the 

prosecutor’s closing remarks were not substantially prejudicial and did not deny 

Ford a fair trial. 

{¶ 389} Based on the foregoing, we reject proposition of law No. XIII.

Q. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 

{¶ 390} In proposition of law No. XX, Ford raises various claims that his 

counsel provided ineffective assistance during both phases of the trial. 

{¶ 391} Reversal of a conviction for ineffective assistance of counsel 

requires that the defendant show, first, that counsel’s performance was deficient 

and second, that the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant so as to deprive 

the defendant of a fair trial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 

2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Accord State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 

N.E.2d 373 (1989), paragraph two of the syllabus. 

1. Failure to Follow up on Grand-Jury Motions 

{¶ 392} Ford argues that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by 

failing to follow up on three pretrial motions related to the grand jury: (1) a motion 

to disclose the names of grand-jury witnesses, (2) a request to transcribe the grandjury testimony, and (3) a request for a pretrial copy of the grand-jury proceedings. 

{¶ 393} At a hearing on November 26, 2013, the state objected to all three 

motions because the defense failed to show a “particularized need” for disclosure. 

Defense counsel responded that a relaxed standard for the release of grand-jury 

testimony should apply in capital cases. The trial court took the motions under 
January Term, 2019 

109 

advisement. At a later hearing, on February 4, 2014, defense counsel argued for 

the disclosure of grand-jury witnesses and proceedings in every capital case. On 

September 24, 2014, the trial court ruled that the defense had failed to meet the 

“heavy burden” for “the disclosure of any of the Grand Jury materials referred to 

in those three motions; therefore, those motions will be overruled.” 

{¶ 394} 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, 66 Ohio St.2d 139, 420 N.E.2d 982 (1981), 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, 17 Ohio St.3d 169, 173, 478 N.E.2d 

781 (1985). Determining whether a particularized need exists is a matter within the 

trial court’s discretion. Greer at paragraph one of the syllabus.

{¶ 395} First, Ford argues that defense counsel were negligent in failing to 

follow up on the grand-jury motions after the November 26, 2013 hearing. 

However, defense counsel did follow up on the motions on February 4, 2014. This 

preceded the trial court’s ruling on the motions on September 24, 2014. 

{¶ 396} Second, Ford argues that defense counsel were ineffective by 

failing to raise meritorious arguments in support of his motions. He contends that 

the defense needed the grand-jury testimony because the lay witnesses provided 

inconsistent statements. However, the mere possibility of inconsistent testimony 

does not rise to the level of a particularized need that would warrant the disclosure 

of grand-jury testimony. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512, 2011-Ohio-4215, 954 N.E.2d 

596, at ¶ 44. 

{¶ 397} Third, Ford asserts that the defense needed to know whether 

Detective Morrison testified before the grand jury, because he did not testify at trial, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 110 

and perhaps the defense would have called him as a witness if it had known what 

he had said before the grand jury. But Ford was required to show that nondisclosure 

of the grand-jury testimony would probably deprive him of a fair trial. Ford’s 

speculative claim about Morrison fails to make such a showing. See Lang at ¶ 45. 

{¶ 398} Finally, Ford argues that defense counsel should have argued that 

the defense was unable to establish a particularized need without knowing who 

testified before the grand jury. The same arguments have previously been rejected. 

Id. Accordingly, we conclude that these ineffectiveness claims lack merit. 

2. Failure to Request Change of Venue 

{¶ 399} Ford argues that defense counsel were ineffective by failing to

request a change of venue. As an initial matter, it is unclear whether defense 

counsel filed a motion for change of venue. Nothing in the record shows that 

defense counsel actually filed such a motion. However, following the end of 

individual voir dire, the trial court stated that the defense motion for a change of 

venue was overruled. 

{¶ 400} Regardless, Ford cannot show that he was prejudiced by defense 

counsel’s alleged failure to file a motion for change of venue. Counsel may have 

reasonably decided as a matter of trial strategy to conduct the trial in Summit 

County. See State v. Frazier, 115 Ohio St.3d 139, 2007-Ohio-5048, 873 N.E.2d 

1263, ¶ 234; State v. Bryan, 101 Ohio St.3d 272, 2004-Ohio-971, 804 N.E.2d 433, 

¶ 156, quoting State v. Mason, 82 Ohio St.3d 144, 157, 694 N.E.2d 932 (“reviewing 

court ‘will not second-guess trial strategy decisions’ ”). And the record does not 

show the pervasive publicity about which Ford complains. 

{¶ 401} In addition, a change of venue is not automatically granted when 

there is pretrial publicity. Any decision to change venue rests largely within the 

discretion of the trial judge. See White, 82 Ohio St.3d at 25, 693 N.E.2d 772. Also, 

a “defendant claiming that pretrial publicity has denied him a fair trial must show 
January Term, 2019 

111 

that one or more jurors were actually biased.” State v. Gross, 97 Ohio St.3d 121, 

2002-Ohio-5524, 776 N.E.2d 1061, ¶ 29. 

{¶ 402} The jurors filled out questionnaires and were questioned about 

pretrial publicity. Seven of the seated jurors during deliberations had not been 

exposed to any media coverage about the case. One juror heard on TV that two 

people died, another saw a news report, and a third read about the violent death of 

a prominent couple in the newspaper. Of the remaining two jurors, one had heard 

that someone had broken into a home and killed people with a sledgehammer. The 

other remembered hearing that an older man coerced a younger man into 

committing the murders and that the older man had something to do with the 

victims’ daughter. Moreover, all the jurors who knew about the case indicated that 

they could set aside their knowledge of the case and that the pretrial publicity would 

not affect their ability to be fair and impartial. See Frazier at ¶ 236. Thus, counsel 

could have reasonably decided not to request a change of venue. See Bryan at 

¶ 156. Accordingly, we reject this ineffectiveness claim. 

3. Failure to Question or Object to Jurors Exposed to Pretrial Publicity 

{¶ 403} Ford argues that defense counsel failed to question or object to juror 

Nos. 39, 48, 72, or 78 about pretrial publicity. 

{¶ 404} In general, “it is for [trial] counsel to determine what questions 

should be asked on voir dire.” State v. Group, 98 Ohio St.3d 248, 2002-Ohio-7247, 

781 N.E.2d 980, ¶ 139. “We have consistently declined to ‘second-guess trial 

strategy decisions’ or impose ‘hindsight views about how current counsel might 

have voir dired the jury differently.’ ” State v. Mundt, 115 Ohio St.3d 22, 2007-

Ohio-4836, 873 N.E.2d 828, ¶ 63, quoting Mason, 82 Ohio St.3d at 157, 694 N.E.2d 

932. 

{¶ 405} Ford fails to explain what additional information defense counsel 

should have obtained from these prospective jurors or how defense counsel could 

have challenged these jurors. As discussed earlier, all the jurors who knew 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 112 

something about the case assured the court that they could be fair and impartial. 

Thus, this claim lacks merit. See State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404, 2008-Ohio-2, 

880 N.E.2d 31, ¶ 50. 

4. Failure to Exhaust Peremptory Challenges 

{¶ 406} Ford argues that counsel were ineffective by failing to exercise all 

of his peremptory challenges. 

{¶ 407} Decisions on the exercise of peremptory challenges are a part of 

trial strategy. State v. Goodwin, 84 Ohio St.3d 331, 341, 703 N.E.2d 1251 (1999). 

Trial counsel, who observe the jurors firsthand, are in a much better position to 

determine whether a prospective juror should be peremptorily challenged. See 

Trimble, 122 Ohio St.3d 297, 2009-Ohio-2961, 911 N.E.2d 242, at ¶ 99. 

{¶ 408} Ford argues that the defense should have used their last peremptory 

challenge against either juror No. 39 or No. 72 because they were automatic-deathpenalty jurors. However, as discussed in proposition of law No. VI, nothing shows 

that either juror was biased or would automatically vote for the death penalty. Thus, 

Ford fails to show that defense counsel were deficient or that he was prejudiced by 

the failure to challenge these jurors. See Dean, 146 Ohio St.3d 106, 2015-Ohio4347, 54 N.E.3d 80, at ¶ 264. 

{¶ 409} Ford also contends that he was prejudiced because counsel’s failure 

to exhaust Ford’s peremptory challenges waived any objection to the trial court’s 

denial of a challenge of a juror. See Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118, 2008-Ohio-3426, 

892 N.E.2d 864, at ¶ 87. However, Ford has failed to establish that he was 

prejudiced by counsel’s action. Thus, we reject this claim. 

5. Praising the Victims 

{¶ 410} Ford argues that counsel were ineffective by praising the victims’ 

character. During opening statement, defense counsel reviewed the victims’ 

background, stating that Jeffrey was a “well-known and highly regarded” attorney. 

Counsel added: 
January Term, 2019 

113 

 As the prosecution indicated, Attorney Schobert and his wife 

had been married for many, many years. They adopted two 

daughters. You know, there is a saying about children of adoption, 

that God blesses them because they get to choose those children. 

And by every measure, the Schoberts were remarkable parents and

they chose their daughters. 

* * * 

 The Schoberts were well-known in this community for their 

good works. Attorney Schobert mentored the Hoban mock trial 

team for years. He touched the lives of dozens of students. 

* * * 

* * * [Mrs. Schobert] was the perfect counterpart to Mr. 

Schobert. And her dedication to her daughters, her love of this 

community, her work in various social organizations unparalleled. 

{¶ 411} The defense can legitimately choose a strategy that is aimed at

building rapport with the jury. See Frazier, 115 Ohio St.3d 139, 2007-Ohio-5048, 

873 N.E.2d 1263, at ¶ 225; Bryan, 101 Ohio St.3d 272, 2004-Ohio-971, 804 N.E.2d 

433, at ¶ 168-169. It is not clear why defense counsel chose to praise the Schoberts. 

However, it appears the defense was trying to establish credibility with the jury by 

demonstrating awareness of the jurors’ likely concern for the victims’ family. Ford 

fails to establish that he was prejudiced by these comments. Thus, we reject this 

ineffectiveness claim. 

{¶ 412} Ford also argues that defense counsel improperly interjected 

victim-impact evidence during the cross-examination of Chelsea:
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 114 

Q: So who tells you that your parents are dead? Detective 

King? 

A: Yes. 

Q: And at some point, that causes you a new—incredible 

amount of distress? 

A: Yes. 

The trial court then interrupted, stating, “It seems to me you have crossed a line into 

victim impact information when you ask her about the incredible amount of distress 

that she suffered as a result of her parents dying.” Defense counsel replied, “Well, 

I guess I am just trying to establish what events took place after she found out her 

parents died.” Although this cross-examination was of questionable relevance, 

Ford does not show that he was prejudiced by such remarks. 

{¶ 413} Finally, Ford contends that defense counsel improperly mentioned 

victim-impact evidence before the trial court imposed sentence. Counsel stated, 

“The Schoberts were highly regarded in this community. Myself, throughout the 

course of this case, I’ve encountered people who knew the Schoberts. They would 

tell me about Mr. Schobert’s intellect, his landscaping business when he was 

young.” The trial court interrupted defense counsel and advised caution in 

discussing victim-impact information. 

{¶ 414} “Absent an indication that the trial court considered the victimimpact evidence in arriving at its sentencing decision, the admission of such 

evidence is not reversible error. * * * [T]his court will presume that a trial court 

considered only the relevant, material, and competent evidence in arriving at its 

judgment, unless the contrary affirmatively appears from the record.” State v. 

Myers, 97 Ohio St.3d 335, 2002-Ohio-6658, 780 N.E.2d 186, ¶ 131. Nothing 

shows that the trial court considered defense counsel’s statements about the 

victim’s background in sentencing Ford to death. Accordingly, Ford fails to show 
January Term, 2019 

115 

that he was prejudiced by defense counsel’s improper argument. We reject this 

ineffectiveness claim. 

6. Requesting Excusal of Juror No. 19 

{¶ 415} Ford argues that trial counsel were ineffective by requesting the 

court to excuse juror No. 19 because she was a holdout juror. 

{¶ 416} As discussed in proposition of law Nos. VIII and IX, the defense 

had unsuccessfully challenged juror No. 19 on two occasions: first, because she 

was a paralegal and had interned for the state, and second, because she attended the 

same church as Detective King. During the trial-phase deliberations, the parties 

learned that juror No. 19 was Facebook friends with several members of the 

prosecutor’s office. Defense counsel requested that juror No. 19 be excused, and 

the trial court excused her. In an interview later published in the Akron Beacon 

Journal, juror No. 19 stated that she had changed her mind and was planning to 

remove her signature from the verdict convicting Ford of Jeffrey’s murder when 

she was excused from the panel. 

{¶ 417} The scrutiny of counsel’s decision to request that juror No. 19 be 

excused requires that this court make “every effort * * * to eliminate the distorting 

effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged 

conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.” 

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. 

{¶ 418} In light of the prior defense challenges, defense counsel acted

reasonably by requesting that juror No. 19 be excused after they learned that she 

was Facebook friends with the Summit County prosecutor and some of her staff. 

In making this decision, defense counsel could not have known that juror No. 19 

was prepared to vote not guilty. Thus, viewed from counsel’s perspective at the 

time, we conclude that counsel were not deficient in moving to excuse juror No. 

19. 

 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 116 

7. Presentence Investigation 

{¶ 419} Ford argues that defense counsel were ineffective in requesting a 

presentence investigation (“PSI”). R.C. 2929.03(D)(1) provides that “[a] presentence investigation or mental examination shall not be made except upon request 

of the defendant. Copies of any reports prepared under this division shall be 

furnished to the court, to the trial jury if the defendant was tried by a jury, to the 

prosecutor, and to the offender or the offender’s counsel for use under this 

division.” (Emphasis added.) 

{¶ 420} During mitigation-phase deliberations, the trial court mentioned 

that defense counsel had requested a PSI and mental-health examination pursuant 

to R.C. 2929.03(D)(1). The trial court raised the question whether the PSI and Dr. 

Stankowski’s report, which was considered to be the mental-health report, should 

be provided to the jury. 

{¶ 421} Defense counsel objected to the PSI because it was completed in

haste and contained damaging information as to future dangerousness. Counsel 

added that they did not have an opportunity to talk with Ford before he spoke to the 

probation officer. Defense counsel requested to withdraw the PSI and wanted only 

Dr. Stankowski’s report to be submitted. In the alternative, defense counsel asked 

“that neither go in.” The trial court granted the defense request to withdraw the 

PSI. 

{¶ 422} The state disputed that the PSI was completed in haste and argued 

that they would have called other witnesses if they had known that Dr. 

Stankowski’s report would be provided to the jury. The trial court then decided, “I 

am going to follow the statute, and both documents will go to the jury.” After a 

short recess, the trial court announced that “neither document will go to the jury.” 
January Term, 2019 

117 

{¶ 423} Defense counsel submitted a request for Dr. Stankowski’s expert

assistance pursuant to R.C. 2929.024.8

 Ford contends that if defense counsel had 

understood that Dr. Stankowski’s assistance was requested under R.C. 2929.024, 

they could have gotten her report to the jury while avoiding the R.C. 2929.03(D)(1) 

requirement that the PSI also be submitted to the jury. But even so, Ford was not 

prejudiced by the failure to submit Dr. Stankowski’s report to the jury, because she 

provided lengthy mitigation testimony that covered much of the same information 

contained in her report. Thus, we hold that this ineffectiveness claim lacks merit. 

8. Deficiency in Raising Intellectual Disability 

{¶ 424} Ford argues that defense counsel were ineffective in pursuing his 

intellectual-disability claim. However, it is unnecessary to review this claim, 

because we are remanding to the trial court for further review of Ford’s intellectualdisability claim. 

9. Other Ineffective-Assistance Allegations 

{¶ 425} Ford raises other instances of alleged ineffectiveness of counsel. 

But as discussed in other propositions of law, even if counsel were deficient, no 

prejudice resulted. Ford has failed to establish that he was prejudiced by: 

 counsel’s failure to object to the trial court’s and the prosecutor’s voir dire 

misstatements and shorthand references to the weighing process 

(proposition of law No. V); 

 counsel’s isolated remarks referring to the aggravating circumstances as the 

“bad stuff”; 

 counsel’s failure to more fully develop the issue of police coercion during 

his April 3, 2013 interview (proposition of law No. I); 

 

8. R.C 2929.024 states: “If the court determines that the defendant is indigent and that investigation 

services, experts, or other services are reasonably necessary for the proper representation of a 

defendant charged with aggravated murder at trial or at the sentencing hearing, the court shall 

authorize the defendant’s counsel to obtain the necessary services for the defendant * * *.”
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 118 

 counsel’s failure to request an evidentiary hearing before he was ordered to 

be shackled (proposition of law No. XV); 

 counsel’s failure to apprise the trial court of Crim.R. 16(I) provisions during 

closing arguments (proposition of law No. XVI); 

 counsel’s failure to object to the verdict forms or the verdict that he killed 

Margaret with prior calculation and design (proposition of law No. II); and 

 counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s improper remarks during the 

trial-phase and mitigation-phase closing arguments (proposition of law No. 

XIII). 

10. Cumulative Error 

{¶ 426} Finally, Ford argues that defense counsel’s cumulative errors and 

omissions violated his constitutional rights. However, because none of Ford’s 

claims of ineffective assistance has merit, he cannot establish a right to relief by 

simply joining these claims together. See Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467, 2014-

Ohio-1942, 13 N.E.3d 1051, at ¶ 173. 

{¶ 427} Based on the foregoing, we reject proposition of law No. XX. 

R. Sentencing Opinion 

{¶ 428} In proposition of law No. XVII, Ford argues that there are 

numerous errors in the trial court’s sentencing opinion. 

{¶ 429} R.C. 2929.03(F) sets forth the findings a trial court must make

when imposing a death sentence. The statute requires that the court shall state the 

following in a separate opinion: 

specific findings as to the existence of any of the mitigating factors 

set forth in division (B) of section 2929.04 of the Revised Code, the 

existence of any other mitigating factors, the aggravating 

circumstances the offender was found guilty of committing, and the 
January Term, 2019 

119 

reasons why the aggravating circumstances the offender was found 

guilty of committing were sufficient to outweigh the mitigating

factors. 

{¶ 430} First, Ford argues that the trial court improperly referred to the R.C. 

2929.04(A)(5) course-of-conduct specifications as the “multiple killing 

specifications.” The trial court misspoke. However, the trial court had earlier 

correctly identified the R.C. 2929.04(A)(5) specifications as “a course of conduct 

involving the purposeful killing or attempt to kill two or more persons.” Thus, the 

trial court did not misunderstand the meaning of those specifications. 

{¶ 431} Second, Ford argues that the trial court improperly stated that he 

was found guilty of “Specifications Two and Three to Counts Four and Five, with 

the determination that he committed the aggravated murder of Margaret J. Schobert 

with prior calculation and design while committing * * * aggravated robbery.” 

This was a misstatement, because Ford was found guilty of murder during an 

aggravated burglary in Specification 3. But this misstatement was harmless 

because the trial court correctly identified the specifications elsewhere in the 

opinion. 

{¶ 432} Third, Ford discounts the trial court’s statement that it did not 

consider a list of irrelevant evidence. Ford argues, “If he examined them, he was 

aware of them and it is hard to somehow wipe that evidence from his mind in 

making his determination. It is like unringing his own bell.” However, Ford’s 

claim overlooks that “a judge is presumed to be capable of separating what may be 

properly considered from what may not be considered.” In re Disqualification of 

Forsthoefel, 135 Ohio St.3d 1316, 2013-Ohio-2292, 989 N.E.2d 62, ¶ 9. Ford 

presents nothing to overcome that presumption. Thus, we reject this claim. 

{¶ 433} Fourth, Ford argues that the trial court improperly compared him 

with other family members by stating, “[M]any people grow up in circumstances 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 120 

similar to Defendant Ford’s and do not resort to criminal conduct. Indeed, his own 

sister and two step brothers, who grew up in almost the exact same environment 

are examples of how people from challenging backgrounds can live law abiding 

lives.” However, such comparison was not improper. See State v. Hanna, 95 Ohio 

St.3d 285, 2002-Ohio-2221, 767 N.E.2d 678, ¶ 101; Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d at 

343, 738 N.E.2d 1178. 

{¶ 434} Fifth, Ford contends that the trial court improperly examined all the 

statutory mitigating factors even though the defense did not present evidence 

related to many of them. However, this claim overlooks the trial court’s statement, 

“The court did not consider any mitigating factors under R.C. 2929.04 not raised 

by the defense (e.g., R.C. 2929.04(B)(1), (2), (5), or (6)) and has given no weight 

to the fact that the defense presented no evidence relating to those statutory factors.” 

The trial court’s disclaimer belies Ford’s contention, and this claim is rejected. 

{¶ 435} Sixth, Ford argues that the trial court improperly discounted Dr. 

Stankowski’s testimony concerning Ford’s drug and alcohol abuse. The trial court 

said that Dr. Stankowski’s testimony supported her conclusion that Ford has an 

“alcohol use disorder” that contributed to his reckless or dangerous behavior. The 

trial court stated, “Apart from the impact of alcohol use on Defendant Ford’s 

antisocial personality disorder, the court finds this factor to carry no weight. There 

was no evidence that Defendant Ford was under the influence of alcohol at the time 

of the murder of Margaret Schobert.” 

{¶ 436} The assessment and weight to be given to mitigating evidence are 

matters for the trial court’s determination. Hanna, 95 Ohio St.3d 285, 2002-Ohio2221, 767 N.E.2d 678, at ¶ 103. The trial court could properly conclude that Ford’s 

history of alcohol abuse was not entitled to any weight beyond that attributable to 

its impact on his antisocial personality disorder. However, the trial court 

improperly discounted Ford’s alcohol use by assigning no weight to it as a 

mitigating factor simply because he was not under the influence of alcohol at the 
January Term, 2019 

121 

time of Margaret’s murder. The court’s statement in that regard reflects an 

incorrect definition of mitigation, one that relates to culpability, as opposed to those 

factors that are relevant to whether the offender should be sentenced to death. See 

State v. Goff, 82 Ohio St.3d 123, 133-134, 694 N.E.2d 916 (1998); State v. 

Holloway, 38 Ohio St.3d 239, 527 N.E.2d 831 (1988), paragraph one of the syllabus 

(mitigation not about blame or culpability but rather about punishment). 

{¶ 437} Seventh, Ford contends that the trial court improperly weighed the 

aggravating circumstances against the mitigating factors by considering him both 

the principal offender (i.e., the actual killer) and not the principal offender. The 

trial court, in weighing the aggravating circumstances against the mitigating 

factors, stated: “Ford purposely caused the death of Margaret J. Schobert as a part 

of a course of conduct involving the purposeful killing of two or more persons by 

the defendant. In this case, [Ford] was the actual killer * * *. Both people were 

killed when the defendant inflicted multiple sledgehammer blows to their heads.” 

The trial court added: “The defendant also committed the Aggravated Murder of 

[Margaret] while committing or attempting to commit Aggravated Robbery and 

Aggravated Burglary. And he committed the Aggravated Murder with prior 

calculation and design.” These conflicting findings were erroneous. 

{¶ 438} Finally, Ford argues that the trial court erred by not giving weight 

to the R.C. 2929.04(B)(6) accomplice-only mitigating factor. The trial court noted 

that the defense presented no argument or mitigating evidence on this factor and 

did not request the jury to be instructed on it. Moreover, “[t]he weight, if any, given 

to a mitigating factor is a matter for the discretion of the individual decisionmaker.” 

State v. Filiaggi, 86 Ohio St.3d 230, 245, 714 N.E.2d 867 (1999). 

{¶ 439} Based on the foregoing, we hold that proposition of law No. XVII 

has merit. On remand, we direct the trial court to correct the misstatements that we 

have identified in its sentencing opinion. 

 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 122 

S. Cumulative Error 

{¶ 440} In proposition of law No. XXI, Ford argues that the cumulative 

errors during both phases of the proceedings deprived him of a fair trial and a 

reliable mitigation hearing. However, Ford was not prejudiced by any error at his 

trial. Thus, we reject this claim. 

T. Constitutionality 

{¶ 441} In proposition of law No. XXII, Ford argues that Ohio’s capitalsentencing procedures violate the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial as construed 

in Hurst v. Florida, __ U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016). We reject

this argument on the authority of State v. Mason, 153 Ohio St.3d 476, 2018-Ohio1462, 108 N.E.3d 56, which rejected the same Hurst claim. 

{¶ 442} In proposition of law No. XXIII, Ford challenges the 

constitutionality of Ohio’s death-penalty statutes and claims that the statutes violate 

international law and treaties to which the United States is a party. We have 

previously rejected the same arguments. See, e.g., Thompson, 141 Ohio St.3d 254, 

2014-Ohio-4751, 23 N.E.3d 1096, at ¶ 279-280. 

U. Appropriateness and Proportionality of the Death Sentence 

{¶ 443} In proposition of law No. XVIII, Ford argues that the death 

sentence is not an appropriate sentence because of his background, his low IQ score, 

and his youth at the time of the offenses. He also argues that his sentence is not 

proportional given similar cases in which the death penalty was imposed or could 

have been imposed. We will not consider these arguments at this time. 

V. Conclusion 

{¶ 444} We affirm Ford’s convictions. However, we vacate the sentence 

and remand to the trial court to hold a new hearing to determine Ford’s intellectual 

disability, see Atkins, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335, and prepare 

a new sentencing opinion as required by R.C. 2929.03(F), correcting the 
January Term, 2019 

123 

misstatements that we have identified. The trial court shall also conduct whatever 

other proceedings are required by law and consistent with this opinion. 

Judgment affirmed in part 

and vacated in part, 

and cause remanded. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, FISCHER, and DONNELLY, JJ., concur. 

DEWINE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by 

KENNEDY, J. 

_________________ 

DEWINE, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 

{¶ 445} I would affirm the trial court’s judgment in full. The burden was 

on Shawn Ford to show that he is intellectually disabled. He came nowhere near 

meeting his burden—in fact the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that he 

is not intellectually disabled. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s 

judgment remanding the case for a new hearing under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 

304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). 

{¶ 446} The majority takes issue with the trial court’s application of the rule 

that this court laid down in State v. Lott, 97 Ohio St.3d 303, 2002-Ohio-6625, 779 

N.E.2d 1011. Relying on the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in

Moore v. Texas, the majority concludes that Lott is no longer good law in light of 

current psychological diagnostic standards. See Moore, __ U.S. __, 137 S.Ct. 1039, 

1045, 197 L.Ed.2d 416 (2017). Thus, the majority holds, Ford is entitled to a new 

hearing to determine whether he is intellectually disabled under those current 

standards. The problem is that the evidence adduced at the Atkins hearing that was 

already held shows that even under the most current diagnostic standards, Ford 

came nowhere near meeting his burden to show that he is intellectually disabled. 

Indeed, all three experts asked to opine on the matter concluded that Ford is not 

intellectually disabled.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 124 

{¶ 447} In Lott, this court confronted the task of applying the Atkins

prohibition against the execution of intellectually disabled defendants. In addition 

to adopting clinical definitions of mental retardation (now intellectual disability), 

the court held that the burden fell on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of 

the evidence that he is intellectually disabled. Lott at ¶ 11-12, 21. While the 

majority opinion takes issue—perhaps justifiably—with the test stated in Lott for 

determining whether a person is intellectually disabled, there has been no 

suggestion that the defendant’s burden should change. And here, there is no 

question that Ford did not meet that burden. 

{¶ 448} Ford’s own expert, Dr. Karpawich, was hamstrung in his ability to 

evaluate whether Ford is intellectually disabled because Ford refused to be 

interviewed by him. Nevertheless, using the resources available to him, Dr. 

Karpawich noted that Ford “has been evaluated on many prior occasions by 

educational professionals and psychologists, and he has never been given the 

diagnoses of mental retardation/intellectual disability.” And Dr. Karpawich 

concluded that “[b]ased upon the available information, it is my opinion, with 

reasonable scientific certainty, that there is insufficient information to conclude that 

the defendant fulfills the criteria for mental retardation/intellectual disability.” At 

the Atkins hearing, Ford did not challenge his expert’s opinion or argue that an 

incorrect standard was used. 

{¶ 449} Dr. Karpawich’s opinion was echoed by the state’s expert, Dr. 

Sylvia O’Bradovich, and the court’s expert, Dr. Katie Connell. And again, Ford 

did not challenge their conclusions. It’s not surprising, then, that the trial court 

found that Ford had not met his burden to prove he has an intellectual disability. 

{¶ 450} Nevertheless, the majority adopts Ford’s arguments and concludes 

that he should be given a new hearing because the rule we laid out in Lott does not 

apply current diagnostic standards. Specifically, the majority reasons that the trial 

court erred when it didn’t take into account the standard error of measurement 
January Term, 2019 

125 

(“SEM”) in assessing Ford’s IQ scores and when it applied Lott’s requirement that 

a defendant show deficits in two areas of adaptive behavior. While there is room 

for improving the test laid out in Lott to adjust for changes in diagnostic standards, 

the evidence before the court reflected the experts’ application of the current 

standards. Thus, any problem with the Lott test was not prejudicial to Ford. 

Intellectual Functioning

{¶ 451} In Lott, this court held that there was a rebuttable presumption that 

a defendant was not intellectually disabled if his IQ was over 70. Lott, 97 Ohio 

St.3d 303, 2002-Ohio-6625, 779 N.E.2d 1011, at ¶ 12. The majority correctly notes 

that in Hall v. Florida the Supreme Court explained that “an individual’s 

intellectual functioning cannot be reduced to a single numerical score.” Hall v. 

Florida, 572 U.S. 701, 713, 134 S.Ct. 1986, 188 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2014); accord 

Moore v. Texas, __ U.S. __, 137 S.Ct. 1039, 1050, 197 L.Ed.2d 416 (2017). Rather, 

“the SEM means that an individual’s score is best understood as a range of scores 

on either side of the recorded score.” Hall at 713. Hall requires that a defendant 

facing the death penalty be able to present other evidence of intellectual disability, 

including evidence of “deficits in adaptive functioning,” when IQ test results place 

the defendant within a statistical range that could indicate intellectual disability. 

See id. at 724. Nothing about the trial-court decision below is at odds with Hall. 

Indeed, after carefully considering the various IQ test results and expert testimony 

about each, the court looked to other evidence of intellectual disability, including 

Ford’s adaptive functioning. 

{¶ 452} Nevertheless, the majority concludes that the trial court erred in 

disregarding the SEM and failing to consider that the lower end of the SEM range 

could include an IQ score below 70. But the court didn’t disregard the lower end. 

Instead, it concluded that Ford hadn’t met his burden of proving he has significantly 

subaverage intellectual functioning. And there is overwhelming support for this 

finding in the record. Three out of six of Ford’s IQ scores, even taking the SEM 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 126 

into account, land above 70. And two of the tests that fell below that level were 

uniformly discounted by all three experts on grounds that they underestimated his 

actual intelligence. That leaves just one test, fixed on by the majority, which 

established an IQ range of 69-83. But any support for Ford’s claim provided by 

that test is substantially outweighed by the other tests and by the unanimous view 

of all three experts who testified that Ford is not intellectually disabled.

{¶ 453} Even though the IQ tests, when viewed together, support the 

conclusion that Ford is not intellectually disabled, the trial court also considered 

Ford’s adaptive functioning. It is thus unclear what the majority finds lacking in 

the trial court’s assessment. The majority accuses the trial court of “disregarding 

the SEM,” majority opinion at ¶ 84. But under Moore, the relevance of looking to 

the SEM is that when the lower end of the SEM falls in the intellectually disabled 

range, a court should also consider adaptive functioning. See Moore at __, 137 

S.Ct. at 1049. That’s precisely what the trial court and all three experts did. 

Adaptive Functioning

{¶ 454} Based on the diagnostic standards in place at the time, Lott held that 

to prove intellectual disability, a defendant must show “significant limitations in 

two or more adaptive skills.” Lott, 97 Ohio St.3d 303, 2002-Ohio-6625, 779 N.E.2d 

1011, at ¶ 12. Current diagnostic standards instead ask whether there are significant 

deficits in any of three adaptive skill sets. See Moore at __, 137 S.Ct. at 1046. The 

majority relies on Moore to find that the trial court erred in applying the older 

standards set forth in Lott. But Moore involved a much different fact pattern. 

{¶ 455} In Moore, the Texas court not only adhered to old standards, despite 

evidence that the defendant had an intellectual disability as defined under the new 

standards, but also refused to account for SEM in considering the defendant’s IQ 

score. See Moore at __, 137 S.Ct. at 1050. More troublingly, the court balanced 

adaptive deficits with what it considered strengths and used evidentiary factors not 

supported by clinical studies. Id. 
January Term, 2019 

127 

{¶ 456} Ford’s case differs considerably. First, unlike in Moore, there is no 

suggestion that Ford would be found intellectually disabled were new standards 

used. Further, both the state expert and the court expert—the only experts given an 

opportunity to talk with Ford—applied current psychological standards. Dr. 

O’Bradovich’s adaptive-behavior evaluation considered Ford’s communication, 

daily-living, and socialization skills and concluded that the results were “not 

indicative of significant deficits in adaptive functioning.” Dr. Connell explicitly 

used the current DSM-5 and AAIDD-11 standards cited in Moore. Applying these 

standards, Dr. Connell concluded that the available evidence did not support 

deficits due to intellectual disability in any of three adaptive behavior areas—

conceptual, social, or practical. And while Ford’s expert, Dr. Karpawich, did not 

personally interview Ford, he assessed Ford’s adaptive functioning using available 

resources, and did not conclude that Ford is intellectually disabled. Simply put, 

Ford came nowhere near showing by a preponderance of the evidence that under 

either set of standards, he is intellectually disabled. 

{¶ 457} That isn’t to say Lott wouldn’t benefit from a reworking. There are 

problems inherent in incorporating current psychological standards into a test that 

will be used for years to come. A better rule would tie the assessment to 

contemporary standards, requiring demonstration of the following: (1) significantly 

subaverage intellectual function (making clear that SEM must be considered), (2) 

significant deficit in adaptive functioning, as defined by psychological standards in 

place at the time of the evaluation, and (3) onset before age 18. Such an adjustment 

in Lott’s rule would recognize the importance of looking to the expertise of medical 

professionals, as noted in Lott, 97 Ohio St.3d 303, 2002-Ohio-6625, 779 N.E.2d 

1011, at ¶ 18, and Hall, 572 U.S. at 721, 134 S.Ct. 1986, 188 L.Ed. 1007. 

The Flynn Effect 

{¶ 458} The majority also instructs the trial court to at least discuss the 

“Flynn Effect” even though it notes that the trial court has discretion in deciding 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 128 

whether to apply it. The Flynn Effect arises out of the fact that IQ scores are normed 

based on comparisons to the general population. Since the general population is 

getting more intelligent over time—at least in ways measured by IQ tests—this 

means that what would have been average intelligence 100 years ago (receiving an 

IQ score of approximately 100) would be at the bottom end of the distribution now 

(receiving an IQ score of approximately 70). See Black v. Carpenter, 866 F.3d 734, 

749 (6th Cir.2017). 

{¶ 459} The relevance of the Flynn Effect to the determination of 

intellectual disability in capital cases has never been addressed by the U.S. Supreme 

Court. But some have argued that taking the Flynn Effect into account can 

eliminate a degree of arbitrariness in IQ scores depending on when an IQ test was 

taken and when it was normed. As Dr. Flynn himself has explained, if two 

defendants of the same intelligence were tested using different tests, of which one 

was normed 25 years earlier and another was normed more recently, the first might 

show an IQ score above 70 and face the death penalty, while the latter might show 

a score below 70 and not. See James R. Flynn, Tethering the Elephant: Capital 

Cases, IQ, and the Flynn Effect, 12 Psychol.Pub.Pol’y & L. 170, 174 (2006). But 

this merely underscores the importance of Hall’s reminder that rigid reliance on IQ 

scores alone should be resisted. Hall at 724; see also Bonnie & Gustafson, The 

Challenge of Implementing Atkins v. Virginia: How Legislatures and Courts Can 

Promote Accurate Assessments and Adjudications of Mental Retardation in Death 

Penalty Cases, 41 U.Rich.L.Rev. 811, 841-845 (2007). 

{¶ 460} In this case, I would not remand for the trial court to assess the 

relevance of the Flynn Effect, because applying the Flynn Effect doesn’t change 

the analysis. As Dr. Connell opined, the Flynn Effect would meaningfully affect 

only one of the IQ tests, yielding a modified IQ score of 72. The relevance of the 

Flynn Effect, then, is just that it might trigger a more searching look at adaptive 

functioning, as required by Hall and Moore. But the trial court in this case already 
January Term, 2019 

129 

engaged in that more searching inquiry, with the aid of three experts, all of whom 

concluded that Ford is not intellectually disabled.

Conclusion 

{¶ 461} Here, the trial court’s findings were informed by the view of 

medical experts, all of whom carefully looked at both Ford’s IQ scores and his 

adaptive functioning. Every expert opined that Ford does not have an intellectual 

disability. To remand this case in the face of such strong evidence is simply wrong 

as a matter of law. For that reason, I respectfully dissent. 

KENNEDY, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 

_________________ 

Sherri Bevan Walsh, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and Heaven R. 

DiMartino and Jacquenette S. Corgan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for 

appellee. 

Maro and Schoenike Company and Lynn A. Maro; and John B. Juhasz, for 

appellant. 

Dave Yost, Attorney General, Benjamin M. Flowers, State Solicitor, and M. 

Ryan Harmanis and Thomas E. Madden, Assistant Attorneys General, for amicus 

curiae, Ohio Attorney General. 

_________________