Opinion ID: 784041
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Constitutionality of Ohio's Death Penalty

Text: 163 Smith attacks the constitutionality of Ohio's death penalty on various grounds. First, he alleges that the Ohio scheme is unconstitutional because there is no legitimate, compelling state interest in killing a person. This global attack on the death penalty as a violation of the Eighth Amendment is foreclosed by Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 168-87, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). 164 Next, Smith claims that Ohio's sentencing procedures are unreliable. He contends that the Ohio scheme gives the jury too much discretion in determining the aggravating circumstances. Specifically, he claims that the statute fails to require the state to prove the absence of mitigating factors, as opposed to requiring the defendant to prove the existence of mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence, and fails to define relevant terms such as weighing and mitigating. The Constitution contains no such requirements. See Buchanan v. Angelone, 522 U.S. 269, 275-76, 118 S.Ct. 757, 139 L.Ed.2d 702 (1998) (holding that the Eighth Amendment does not require the jury be instructed on the concept of mitigating evidence or on particular statutory mitigating factors, and that states are free to structure the jury's consideration of mitigation so long as it does not preclude the jury from giving effect to it). Furthermore, this Court has upheld Ohio's statutory scheme for weighing aggravating circumstances against mitigating factors. See Buell v. Mitchell, 274 F.3d 337, 367-68 (6th Cir.2001). 165 Smith argues that the Ohio death penalty statutes are unconstitutional because they require proof of aggravating circumstances in the trial phase of a bifurcated proceeding. We rejected this argument in Coleman, 268 F.3d at 443 (holding that the Ohio scheme, by requiring proof of aggravating circumstances at the guilt, rather than penalty phase, is consistent with Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231, 108 S.Ct. 546, 98 L.Ed.2d 568 (1988)). See Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 241-46, 108 S.Ct. 546; Buell, 274 F.3d at 369-70. Smith's next argument is that the Ohio statute is unconstitutional because it permits duplication between the aggravating circumstances and an element of the underlying crime. This argument is also inconsistent with Lowenfield and has been rejected by this Court in Buell. See Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 246, 108 S.Ct. 546; Buell, 274 F.3d at 369-70. 166 Smith contends that the Ohio statute fails to provide for an adequate proportionality review by the appellate courts. However, comparative proportionality review is not constitutionally required, see Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 50, 104 S.Ct.871, 79 L.Ed.2d 29 (1984), and this argument has already been rejected by this Court. Buell, 274 F.3d at 368-69; Byrd, 209 F.3d at 539; Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320, 351-52 (6th Cir.1998). Smith also alleges that the electric chair violates the Eighth Amendment. We rejected this argument too in Buell. See Buell, 274 F.3d at 370. 167 Finally, as a general matter, this Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Ohio death penalty scheme. See Buell, 274 F.3d at 367-70; Byrd, 209 F.3d at 539. J. Grand Jury Discrimination 168 Smith alleged that his constitutional rights were violated because African-Americans were under represented in the pool from which his grand jury was selected. The district court held that this claim was procedurally defaulted, because Smith failed to present this claim in any state court proceeding. The district court ruled in that alternative that Smith had failed to substantiate his claim under the test set forth in Jefferson v. Morgan, 962 F.2d 1185 (6th Cir.1992). See Smith, 104 F.Supp.2d at 849. 169 Smith did allege in a motion to alter or amend judgment that the grand jury foreman in his case was selected in a discriminatory fashion. In support, he offered the results of a statistical study, which he claimed demonstrated racial discrimination in the selection of grand jury forepersons in Hamilton County. He also alleged that he had actually raised his twenty-fourth ground in his State post-conviction petition as his thirtieth claim. The district court rejected Smith's new allegation, holding that it was never presented in state court, and was procedurally defaulted. The court also rejected the claim on the merits. We agree with the district court that this claim is procedurally defaulted under Ohio's doctrine of res judicata as stated by the court at 104 F.Supp.2d at 849-50, and its amended order denying Smith's motion to alter or amend judgment, dated July 27, 2000. Furthermore, we will not overlook the default here, because as the district court held, the State has never been afforded an opportunity to rebut the claim and belated proof.