Opinion ID: 2977292
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Procedural history in the state courts

Text: Saxton was indicted on one count of aggravated murder, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of aggravated arson. After a two-week jury trial, he was convicted on all counts. He filed a motion for acquittal and a motion for a new trial, arguing that the conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence and was the product of prosecutorial misconduct. Both motions were denied after a hearing. The state trial court acknowledged that [t]here was no direct evidence in this case which could place the defendant at the scene. There was no direct evidence that the defendant personally committed any act necessary to the offenses of burglary, murder or arson. Only circumstantial evidence was offered . . . . While there were 57 witnesses presented by the state, No. 07-3706 Saxton v. Sheets Page 3 much of the testimony was mere foundation, with no direct materiality to the issue of guilt . . . . This case was tried on the quantity of the evidence, not the quality. Much of the physical evidence was mishandled, and the testimony of several witnesses who handled that evidence was contradictory as to who did what and how. . . . The danger in such cases is that the fact-finder will make an inference upon inference, or multiple inferences. This clearly would be improper. Nonetheless, the trial court determined that “without a full transcript and a considerable delay in time,” it “cannot now make any better judgment on the sufficiency of the evidence than [it] did at trial . . . . [T]he court will not trust its memory of the testimony to make such a decision and reverse a jury verdict.” The court therefore decided that “[t]he reviewing court with a complete record will be better able to review such issues.” Saxton timely appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals, raising nine issues that included insufficiency of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. A three-judge panel rejected each of Saxton’s claims and affirmed his conviction. The majority opinion found that “a rational trier of fact could have concluded that Appellant committed the crimes for which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Saxton, No. 9-2000-88, 2002 Ohio