finding that the “ ‘extent of cross-examination with respect to an appropriate subject of inquiry is within the sound discretion of the trial court’ ” and that “the right of cross-examination includes the right to impeach a witness’s credibility”
How later courts described this case
- finding that the “ ‘extent of cross-examination with respect to an appropriate subject of inquiry is within the sound discretion of the trial court’ ” and that “the right of cross-examination includes the right to impeach a witness’s credibility”
- stating "[l]ack of an opportunity to fully cross- No. 15AP-978 24 examine is harmless error when there is overwhelming, untainted evidence supporting a conviction"
- defendant’s lack of intelligence, alcohol and drug addiction, and family upbringing, which included frequent physical abuse by an alcoholic father, collectively “entitled to modest weight”
- trial court has broad discretion to avoid unduly harassing questioning
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Wright, J.,
concurring. While I concur without reservation with the vast majority of the court’s opinion, I write briefly to articulate my position on the weight of the mitigating factors presented by Green:
Justice Sweeney fully and accurately discusses Green’s extremely low intelligence, her advanced alcoholism and drug addiction, and her limited intellectual and emotional development. I disagree, however, with the conclusion that these factors are entitled only to “modest weight.” I believe that together they carry considerable weight.
Although in past cases the existence of such factors has led me to dissent from the imposition of the death penalty, 2 the aggravating circumstance present in this case is very strong; in my view it outweighs the mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence showed that Green and *155 Coulter coldly formulated a plan to rob and kill an elderly victim in his home and that Green carried the plan into action. In a case in which an offender committed a premeditated felony murder, evidence of low intellect, advanced chemical dependency, and limited emotional development should not be sufficient to warrant vacating the death penalty on appeal.
However, in a different case — one that does not involve prior calculation and design — these same strong mitigating factors could lead me to vote to vacate the death penalty pursuant to R.C. 2929.05. In short, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s allotment of only “modest weight” to these factors.
. See, e.g., State v. Slagle (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 597, 615 , 605 N.E.2d 916, 932 (Wright, J., dissenting); State v. Rogers (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 174, 188 , 17 OBR 414, 426, 478 N.E.2d 984, 997 (Wright, J., dissenting).