Opinion ID: 2689828
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Preclusion of Mitigating Factors

Text: In his third proposition of law, Campbell contends that the trial judge precluded him from presenting evidence of two mitigating factors: (1) shortened life expectancy due to physical illness and (2) voluntary intoxication. Shortened Life Expectancy On February 13, 1998, Campbell filed a motion in the trial court requesting that he be taken to a medical facility for a “chest CT.” (“CT” is an abbreviation for “computed tomography.” Stedman’s Medical Dictionary [26 Ed.1995] 418.) He attached to his motion a brief medical report dated October 9, 1997, signed by Dr. Jeffrey L. Bory of the Corrections Medical Center, Columbus. Dr. Bory’s report stated that X-rays of Campbell’s chest showed a “density” in the region of his right lung and “faint nodular densities” in the left, and that “[t]he possibility of a 14 malignant process cannot be excluded.” Dr. Bory recommended “[c]omparison to a previous study if it exists”; failing that, he recommended that a chest CT be performed on Campbell “for further evaluation of these findings.” The trial court held a hearing the same day the motion was filed. Campbell argued that the CT was needed to determine the possible existence of a mitigating factor, i.e., that Campbell was suffering from an illness that might shorten his life. (Although the state contends that this is not a mitigating factor at all, we have recognized that “consideration should be given under R.C. 2929.04[B][7] to the probability that appellant will never be released from prison if sentenced to life in prison.” State v. Bradley [1989], 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 149, 538 N.E.2d 373, 385.) After hearing argument, the trial court denied the motion. Campbell contends that, by denying him the requested examination, the court precluded him from placing a mitigating factor before the jury. Due process may require that a defendant be provided with expert assistance when necessary to present an adequate defense. State v. Mason (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 144, 149, 694 N.E.2d 932, 943, citing Ake v. Oklahoma (1985), 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53. However, to show entitlement to such assistance, the defense must make “a particularized showing (1) of a reasonable probability that the requested expert would aid in his defense, and (2) that denial of the requested expert assistance would result in an unfair trial.” Mason, syllabus. In 15 making this determination, the court must consider “(1) the effect on the defendant’s private interest in the accuracy of the trial if the requested service is not provided, (2) the burden on the government’s interest if the service is provided, and (3) the probable value of the additional service and the risk of error in the proceeding if the assistance is not provided.” Mason, 82 Ohio St.3d at 149, 694 N.E.2d at 943. Here, Campbell submitted nothing to indicate that the results of a CT would be likely to aid in his defense. Dr. Bory’s report showed nothing more than a possibility that the growths on Campbell’s lung could be malignant. The mere possibility that the CT could have had some value to the defense was not enough. Mason, 82 Ohio St.3d at 150, 694 N.E.2d at 943; State v. Broom (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 277, 283, 533 N.E.2d 682, 691. The defense submission presented the trial court with nothing more than speculation as to the likely value of the CT. This did not amount to the “particularized showing” we spoke of in Mason. Campbell also failed to show that his physical health was likely to be a critical issue in the penalty phase. The defense apparently hoped to alleviate the jury’s possible fears concerning Campbell’s future dangerousness by showing that Campbell would likely die in prison. But the jury had the power to ensure that Campbell would die in prison, simply by sentencing him to life without possibility of parole. Thus, the argument that Campbell would die in prison was available to 16 the defense even without the CT. A court determining whether to grant a request for expert assistance must consider “the availability of alternative devices that would fulfill the same functions.” State v. Jenkins (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 164, 15 OBR 311, 473 N.E.2d 264, paragraph four of the syllabus; Mason, supra, 82 Ohio St.3d at 150, 694 N.E.2d at 943. Moreover, the state did not raise the issue of future dangerousness. Rather, the defense raised lack of future dangerousness as a mitigating factor. Hence, this case does not involve the “requirement that a defendant not be sentenced to death ‘on the basis of information which he had no opportunity to deny or explain.’ “ Skipper v. South Carolina (1986), 476 U.S. 1, 5, 106 S.Ct. 1669, 1671, 90 L.Ed.2d 1, 7, fn. 1, quoting Gardner v. Florida (1977), 430 U.S. 349, 362, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 1207, 51 L.Ed.2d 393, 404 (plurality opinion). Nor did denial of the CT appreciably increase the risk that the jury would err in recommending the penalty. Without the CT, Campbell was still able to present an impressive and substantial case in mitigation. Denial of the CT, therefore, did not deprive Campbell of “the basic and integral tools necessary to ensure a fair trial.” Mason, 82 Ohio St.3d at 149, 694 N.E.2d at 943. Moreover, even though the defense filed its motion a mere eleven days before trial began, this motion was completely silent as to whether a CT would delay the trial. The trial court was not informed regarding the time required to 17 receive a CT report and whether a CT would suffice or whether further testing might be necessary to permit a diagnosis and estimate of life expectancy. Applying Ake and Mason, we conclude that Campbell failed to make the required showing that a reasonable probability existed that the requested chest CT would aid in his defense and that deprivation of the requested assistance would result in an unfair trial. We therefore reject Campbell’s claim that he had a constitutional entitlement to have the CT performed. Voluntary Intoxication Campbell asked the trial court to instruct the jury in the penalty phase that voluntary intoxication is a potential mitigating factor. See State v. Sowell (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 322, 325, 530 N.E.2d 1294, 1300. The judge refused because he did not find sufficient evidence of voluntary intoxication to raise a jury issue. We disagree with the trial judge’s reasoning. There was evidence that Campbell drank forty ounces of beer during the offense. Whether or not he was intoxicated according to any particular definition is beside the point. The fact that he had a substantial amount of alcohol in his system was a circumstance of the offense and was relevant to mitigation under both Lockett, infra, and R.C. 2929.04(B). However, a trial court is not required to instruct on specific nonstatutory mitigating factors. See, e.g., State v. Goff (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 123, 130-131, 694 18 N.E.2d 916, 922-923; State v. Landrum (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 107, 122, 559 N.E.2d 710, 727-728. Certainly nothing in the penalty-phase instructions precluded the jury from considering appellant’s alcohol consumption. In fact, the trial court instructed the jury to consider, without limitation, “any other factors that are relevant to the issue of whether the offender should be sentenced to death” as mitigating factors. We have held repeatedly that such an instruction is sufficient to allow the jury to consider all the mitigating evidence before it. Goff, supra; Landrum, supra; State v. Scott (1986), 26 Ohio St.3d 92, 102, 26 OBR 79, 87-88, 497 N.E.2d 55, 64. Thus, the trial judge was correct in refusing to instruct specifically on voluntary intoxication, even though “erroneous reasons were assigned as the basis” for that refusal. Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Constantine (1944), 144 Ohio St. 275, 284, 29 O.O. 426, 430, 58 N.E.2d 658, 663. We reject both claims advanced under Campbell’s third proposition of law, which is therefore overruled.