Opinion ID: 774819
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Constitutionality of Ohio Death Penalty Statute

Text: 214 Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the Ohio death penalty on a number of fronts. 215
216 He first argues in a general way that the death penalty is cruel and unusual because it is excessive. The Supreme Court has rejected this challenge. See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 179-82 (1976). 217
218 Petitioner next attacks the arbitrary manner in which the death penalty is applied. Among other things, he notes that race seems to play a part in its application, pointing to the disproportionate number of African-Americans on death row. 219 We deny petitioner habeas relief on this claim because he has failed to demonstrate a constitutionally significant risk of racial bias affecting the Ohio capital sentencing process. 220
221 Petitioner contends that the death penalty is neither the least restrictive nor an effective means of deterrence. 222 The imposition of the death penalty has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court. Until the Court holds to the contrary, we are bound by its decisions. 223
224 Petitioner argues that Ohio's death penalty scheme is defective because it does not require proof that a defendanthad a conscious desire to kill. The Supreme Court has held that such a conscious desire to kill is not required in order to impose the death penalty. See Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 158 (1987) (major participation in the felony committed, combined with reckless indifference to human life, enough to justify death even though defendant did not have intent to kill). 225
226 Petitioner next objects to the manner in which the Ohio statute allows weighing of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances because it does not require the state to prove the absence of any mitigating factors or that death is the only appropriate penalty. 227 The Supreme Court only requires that the statutory scheme requires that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating ones. See Blystone v. Pennsylvania, 494 U.S. 299 (1990) (scheme mandating death penalty if jury finds one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances satisfies the Eighth Amendment). 228
229 Although proportionality review is not constitutionally required, once a state adopts such a scheme, it must comport with due process. Ohio law provides that the Supreme Court shall consider whether the sentence is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases. Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.05. 230 We note that petitioner has no Eighth Amendment right to proportionality review. Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320, 352 (6th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, the record fails to support petitioner's contention. 231
232 Petitioner believes that the death penalty violates the Supremacy Clause because the United States has signed numerous international agreements that prohibit the death penalty. 233 Until the United States Supreme Court holds to the contrary, we are compelled to deny relief on this ground. 234
235 Petitioner asserts that the use of the underlying crime, in this case aggravated robbery, as an aggravating circumstance does not act to narrow the class of murders eligible for the death penalty. In his view, it is wrong to allow the death penalty for felony murder without requiring at least one additional aggravating factor. 236 Such schemes have been upheld, however. See Tison, supra. 237
238 Finally, petitioner contends that electrocution constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Not only has the constitutionality of electrocution been consistently upheld, In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 (1890), but Ohio allows for the choice of lethal injection.