Opinion ID: 762565
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Exclusion of Evidence Regarding Mapes's Prior Conviction

Text: 142 In this assignment of error, Mapes maintains that the trial court erred in ruling that it could not look behind the judgment of conviction on Mapes's New Jersey non vult murder plea, and that the error violated Mapes's right to due process and his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. According to Mapes, New Jersey law allows such judgments to be collaterally attacked when two criteria are met: (1) the plea was entered in order to avoid a possible death sentence, and (2) the record demonstrates a realistic possibility that the defendant did not commit murder. Mapes contends that his plea was entered to avoid the death penalty--even though New Jersey's death-penalty statute had been ruled unconstitutional by the New Jersey Supreme Court--because the U.S. Supreme Court had not yet ruled on a petition for certiorari, and could have reinstated a death sentence, had one been imposed. 143 Mapes further contends that several factors demonstrate he lacked the culpability to be convicted of the New Jersey murder. First, the New Jersey sentence was consistent with a conviction for manslaughter. Second, Mapes's explanation for his involvement in the New Jersey murder demonstrates at worst that he committed manslaughter. Third, Mapes has produced sufficient evidence of his contentions, including the New Jersey police report and the statements of others involved in the crime. 144 In Ohio, to be eligible for the death penalty a defendant must be found guilty of aggravated murder and at least one death specification. See Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2929.04(A). Thus, a defendant who [p]rior to the offense at bar ... was convicted of an offense an essential element of which was the purposeful killing of or attempt to kill another .... may be sentenced to death if both judge and jury find that the death-specification circumstance outweighs any mitigating circumstance. § 2929.04(A)(5). 145 Quite simply, it is irrelevant, for purposes of Ohio Revised Code Ann. § 2929.04(A)(5), whether Mapes, in fact, killed someone in New Jersey. The specification does not apply to those who have previously killed others, but to those who have been convicted of a prior killing. There is no dispute that this condition was satisfied. The court properly excluded Mapes's proffered evidence on this issue because it is irrelevant.