Death Penalty Upheld in Portage County Triple Murder
2005-2436. State v. Trimble, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-2961.
Portage C.P. No. 2005 CR 0022. Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., concurs separately.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-Ohio-2961.pdf 
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."
(June 30, 2009) The Supreme Court of Ohio today unanimously upheld the aggravated murder convictions and death sentence of James Trimble for the 2005 shooting deaths of his girlfriend, Renee Bauer, her seven-year-old son, Dakota Bauer, and Kent State University student Sarah Politano, who was taken hostage by Trimble while fleeing the scene of the other killings and subsequently shot during a standoff with a police SWAT team.
In today’s decision, authored by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, the Court rejected all 15 allegations of legal and procedural error by the trial court that Trimble had advanced as grounds to vacate his convictions or reduce his death sentence to a term of life imprisonment. These included claims that the trial judge should have granted a requested change of venue because of prejudicial pretrial publicity; and that the trial court improperly allowed the state to display before the jury a collection of 19 firearms owned by Trimble that were not used in the murders with which he was charged.
While acknowledging that the triple murder received extensive coverage in area newspapers and broadcast media, Chief Justice Moyer wrote: “The trial court conducted extensive individual voir dire of prospective jurors. Two of the seated jurors and one of the alternate jurors did not remember any pretrial publicity. Another seated juror had talked to friends about the case, but had read or heard nothing about it in the media. The remaining seated and alternate jurors had heard or read something about the case in the news media. However, all of these jurors assured the court that they could set aside what they heard or read in the news media, remain fair and impartial, and decide the case based solely on the evidence presented in court. Though pretrial publicity was extensive, the trial court was in the best position to judge each juror’s demeanor and fairness. The trial court selected a jury after conducting in-depth voir dire that encompasses over 2,450 pages of the record. Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not commit plain error in denying the defense motion for a change of venue.”
With regard to the display of Trimble’s firearms in the courtroom and later in the jury room during guilt-stage deliberations, the Chief Justice wrote: “Trimble argues that the courtroom display of firearms and ammunition that were not used in the killings was unduly prejudicial. ... During the testimony of (ATF expert witness) Agent Saraya, the defense objected to the display of the firearms found in Trimble’s basement as they were being identified and introduced into evidence. The trial court overruled this objection. ... Later, over defense objection, the trial court allowed all of the firearms to be in the jury room during the guilt-phase deliberations. However, during the penalty phase of the trial, the trial court excluded the firearms and ammunition that had been found in Trimble’s basement.”
“The firearms and ammunition displayed in court had been introduced into evidence and were displayed only during Agent Saraya’s testimony. Nothing in the record demonstrates that the method of presenting this evidence prejudiced Trimble by inflaming the jury’s passions. … While it is highly questionable whether the trial court should have allowed this evidence to be displayed before the jury in court or during deliberations, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in doing so. Even assuming that these exhibits should not have been displayed, any error was harmless. As previously discussed, overwhelming evidence was presented at trial that established Trimble’s guilt of the three murders. Moreover, during the penalty phase, the trial court excluded the firearms found in the basement ... ”
In the Court’s independent weighing of aggravating factors favoring the death penalty vs. mitigating factors favoring a term of life imprisonment, Chief Justice Moyer wrote: “We find nothing in the nature and circumstances of the offense to be mitigating. On January 21, 2005, Trimble murdered his girlfriend and her seven-year-old son at their home and then fled into the woods. Shortly thereafter, Trimble broke into Sarah Positano’s residence and took her hostage. Trimble then shot Positano in the neck and killed her. These facts establish a horrific crime without any mitigating features. ... Trimble’s diagnosed bipolar personality disorder and his drug and alcohol abuse undoubtedly played a role in his crimes and are entitled to weight under the catchall provision of R.C. 2929.04(B)(7). On the other hand, there is no evidence that Trimble is mentally retarded or mentally deficient. Trimble’s full-scale IQ of 107 shows that he is ‘slightly above midpoint of the average range’ of intelligence. We also give weight to other mitigating evidence under R.C. 2929.04(B)(7)(other relevant factors). This evidence includes testimony that he is a good and dependable worker and that he served four years in the Air Force. Trimble’s assistance to elderly members of his church and the support that Trimble shares with his mother are also entitled to weight. Finally, Trimble’s apologies and expressions of remorse during his unsworn statement are entitled to weight.”
“Upon independent weighing,” the Chief Justice wrote, “we find that the aggravating circumstance or circumstances as to each count outweigh the mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt. As to Count 13, Trimble’s murder of Renee occurred during a course of conduct involving the murder of two or more people. This constitutes a grave aggravating circumstance. As to Count 14, the two aggravating circumstances attached to Dakota’s murder are extremely serious. In particular, the R.C. 2929.04(A)(9) child-murder specification is entitled to great weight because it involves the murder of a young and vulnerable victim. Finally, as to Count 15, the three aggravating circumstances attached to Positano’s murder constitute grave circumstances. Trimble’s murder of a young college student after kidnapping her and taking her hostage is a particularly egregious circumstance. In contrast, we find that as to each of these counts, Trimble’s mitigating evidence has little significance. Therefore, we find that the death sentence in this case is appropriate.”
Chief Justice Moyer’s opinion was joined by Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Maureen O’Connor, Terrence O’Donnell, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Robert R. Cupp.
Justice Paul E. Pfeifer entered a separate opinion expressing concern that the state was permitted to display to the jury “19 firearms that were not involved in the murders and dozens of pictures that were repetitive. I am troubled by the inclusion of evidence that was so rife with potential prejudice.” He concluded, however: “Although whether the jury was prejudiced by this evidence is a close call, I reach the same conclusion as the majority and therefore concur in affirming the sentence of death.”
Contacts
Victor V. Vigluicci, 330.297.3850, for the state and Portage County prosecutor’s office.
Lawrence J. Whitney, 330.253.7171, for James Trimble.