Opinion ID: 4556341
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Newton and Rolison Murders

Text: {¶ 88} In his fourth proposition of law, Kirkland contends that the state violated Evid.R. 404(B) by introducing evidence relating to the murders of Mary Jo Newton and Kimya Rolison, because the resentencing hearing was not for those two murders—it was for only the aggravated murders of Esme and Casonya. {¶ 89} This proposition is meritless. Evid.R 404(B) provides: “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” (Emphasis added.) At the guilt phase of Kirkland’s original trial, the jury found Kirkland guilty of murdering Esme and Casonya as part of a course of conduct including two or more intentional killings. The Newton and Rolison murders were part of that course of conduct, and the jury was required to weigh the course-of-conduct specification in recommending a sentence. Thus, for purposes of the resentencing hearing that is the subject of this appeal, the Newton and Rolison murders were not “other crimes, wrongs, or acts.” {¶ 90} Nor were the Newton and Rolison murders introduced to prove Kirkland’s character in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. That is, they were not introduced to show that he was guilty of murdering Esme and Casonya. He had already been found guilty of those murders; guilt was not at issue in this resentencing hearing. {¶ 91} Kirkland also contends that evidence relating to the Newton and Rolison murders should have been excluded because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, Evid.R. 403(A). This assertion has even less merit. Again, the Newton and Rolison murders were part 23 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO of Kirkland’s course of conduct, which was one of the aggravating circumstances the jury was required to weigh against the mitigating factors. As such, they were central to the sentencing determination the jury had to make and could not be unfairly prejudicial.