State v. Deloney

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 5213

Syllabus

DEATH PENALTY – LAW OF THE CASE – DOUBLE JEOPARDY – INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY: The law-of-the-case doctrine did not preclude the trial court from determining whether the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the imposition of the death penalty where the court of appeals, in reversing the trial court's determination that defendant was ineligible for the death penalty because he was intellectually disabled, had decided only that defendant had failed to meet his burden to show that he was intellectually disabled, and therefore, ineligible for the death penalty, and the appellate court had not decided whether the Double Jeopardy Clause precluded the state from seeking the death penalty. The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to preclude the imposition of the death penalty where the trial court had previously determined that defendant was ineligible for the death penalty because he was intellectually disabled and that determination had been reversed on appeal: the trial court's determination that defendant was ineligible for the death penalty because he was intellectually disabled was not the functional equivalent of an acquittal on the merits of imposing the death penalty. [See CONCURRENCE: The trial court's determination that defendant was intellectually disabled was not analogous to a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, which requires a finding of guilty on the underlying crime, but is bettered compared to a competency proceeding in that it is not a sentencing issue, but an eligibility for sentencing issue, because in Ohio a trial court's determination of whether defendant is intellectually disabled is a threshold determination of whether defendant is eligible for the death penalty and not an acquittal of the death penalty.]