Opinion ID: 1394902
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of the evidence supporting murder for hire

Text: The Ohio Supreme Court concluded that sufficient evidence supported Getsy's conviction on the murder-for-hire aggravating circumstance. Getsy's habeas petition regarding this claim was denied by the district court. Whether Getsy is entitled to habeas relief ultimately depends on whether the Ohio Supreme Court's denial was based on an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law regarding the sufficiency of the evidence. The applicable standard inquires whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis in original). As the Ohio Supreme Court noted, the most compelling evidence that Getsy committed the murder in exchange for compensation comes from Getsy's own confession: Q. OK. What was discussed there at the house when you come over between you and Ben Hudach? A. He said that we had something to do, we had to do. . . . Q. What did he tell you you had to do? A. Said we had to take out some guy. . . . Q. Was it Ben that was telling you this, or was it John Santine that was telling you this? Be honest now. A. It was Ben but it came from John. Q. He said you guys had to take this guy out? A. Yes. Q. So basically John was directing this through Ben? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you guys to receive something for doing this? A. He mentioned money. Q. Talk up. A. Mentioned money. Q. How much money? A. I really can't remember; it was four (4) digits. Q. Ten Thousand? A. No. Q. Five Thousand? A. Ten, five, somewhere like that. . . . Q. . . . So, you get to the house; Ben starts telling you you guys are going to get paid about $5,000  each, or $5,000 total? A. I don't know. Q. OK. To do this guy? A. Yes . . . . Q. Did you get your money? A. No. Q. Why not? A. `Cause we were going to get it later. It wasn't for the money, I was doing it because I was scared. In addition to Getsy's confession, Joshua Koch testified that Santine himself specifically discussed compensation with Getsy and his codefendants after the attack was over: Q. Did [Santine] say anything else? A. He said how much he was pleased with them and he asked them in the room, You guys want $10,000, I'll give you $10,000. Rick said he just wanted a wedding ring for his girlfriend. John said he would get his girlfriend the biggest f  ing diamond ring in the world. Q. Did Ben indicate what he wanted? A. Ben jumped forward and said that this was a favor for John Santine, he took care of him. Q. Did Jason ever say anything? A. He interrupted and made it clear that he was doing it for money. Q. And what did he need the money for? A. Something about his car, he had something that he had to pay for, maybe payments, maybe insurance. Q. So he told John that night that he needed the money to help pay for his car? A. Right. Koch's testimony, combined with Getsy's confession, supports a finding that Santine procured the commission of Serafino's murder in exchange for money, and that Getsy acceded to the arrangement. Getsy's confession establishes that the offer of money was made prior to and specifically in exchange for the take out. Although Getsy asserts that the money played only a small role in the killing, Koch testified to the contrary that Getsy was, in fact, motivated to commit the murder by the offer of money. Compare State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227, 767 N.E.2d 216, 240 (2002) (holding that sufficient evidence supported the murder-for-hire conviction of the appellant where a witness both heard the conversation in which Calvin Davis hired appellant to kill Arnett and actually saw McGhee pay his portion in cash) with State v. Lindsey, 87 Ohio St.3d 479, 721 N.E.2d 995, 1001 (2000) (noting that the trial court had dismissed the murder-for-hire specification where the state had failed to present any evidence of compensation). In response, Getsy contends that there was substantial evidence demonstrating that Santine threatened and coerced [Getsy and his codefendants] into the shooting of Chuckie Serafino. But even if true, this observation simply establishes that Getsy may have been motivated by additional concerns beyond remuneration. A reasonable juror could have decided to credit Koch's testimony that Getsy made it clear he was doing it for the money. Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction and such evidence need not remove every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. United States v. Barnett, 398 F.3d 516, 522 (6th Cir.2005). Similarly, as addressed in Part II.B. above, the fact that a different jury acquitted Santine of the murder-for-hire specification is of no consequence to the question of whether a reasonable juror at Getsy's trial could have determined otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. We find no basis to conclude that the Ohio Supreme Court's denial of Getsy's sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim was unreasonable.