State v. Johnson

395 N.E.2d 368, 60 Ohio App. 2d 45, 14 Ohio Op. 3d 24, 1977 WL 199760, 1977 Ohio App. LEXIS 7118
Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided November 9, 1977·No. C-76437·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause came on to be heard upon the appeal, the transcript of the docket, journal entries and original papers from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Ohio, the transcript of the proceedings, the assignments of error, the briefs, and the arguments of counsel.

On November 1,1975, 61 year old Otto Baum arrived at an apartment building he owned at 215 East University Avenue in Cincinnati to collect the monthly rents from his tenants. As was his customary practice, Baum first visited the tenants residing on the ground and second floor apartments, cashed checks for them and collected their rent money. He then walked up a flight of stairs to the third floor apartment of Willie Johnson, the appellant, and knocked on his door. Appellant and his brother, Bobby Johnson, sprang from their hiding place behind an attic door and ordered Baum to hand over his wallet. Both assailants were wearing ski masks and the appellant was armed with a sawed-off *46 shotgun that was cocked and ready to fire. When Baum futilely attempted to grab the weapon, a struggle ensued which ended when appellant twice smashed the rifle into the left side of Baum’s skull. Baum slumped to the stairs and appellant then handcuffed his right arm to the banister railing, took his wallet containing approximately $500 and fled the building with his brother.

A life squad unit which had been summoned by a resident of the building arrived a short time later and transported the vomiting and bleeding victim to nearby General Hospital. Upon his admittance to the hospital, Baum was still conscious, although unable to communicate, but his condition rapidly worsened during the day. By evening he had lapsed into a coma and his right side was almostly completely paralyzed. X-rays revealed numerous skull fractures 1 and a blood clot that was expanding and pressing against Baum’s brain. The attending physician, Dr. Walus, decided that surgery was immediately required to remove the clot.

Surgery began at 1 a.m. on November 2 and lasted four to five hours. Although the blood clot was successfully removed, Baum bled profusely during the operation and suffered a brief cardiac arrest. Manual resuscitation restored his heartbeat and respiration only seconds after the arrest, but huge amounts of blood for transfusion were required to maintain adequate blood pressure. It was not known how much time elapsed before circulation was restored, and the extent of damage, if any, to the brain resulting from oxygen loss was indeterminable. 2

Following the surgery, a test designed to monitor the electrical activity in Baum’s brain was conducted and showed no activity whatsoever; i.e., the patient’s brain had permanently ceased to function. On the morning of November 2, Dr. Walus wrote in his notes, “No hope for recovery now.”

*47 With a respirator machine regulating his breathing and supplying oxygen, Baum lay in this comatose state for several more days. His condition never changed. At 12:40 p.m. on November 6, after consultation with Baum’s immediate family, Dr. Walus discontinued the supplemental oxygen that Baum was receiving through the respirator. Baum’s blood pressure began to weaken and moments later his heart stopped. He was pronounced dead by an associate of Dr. Walus’ at 1:03 p.m.

Appellant and his brother were both indicted by the Hamilton County Grand Jury for aggravated murder (including a specification of aggravating circumstances) and aggravated robbery, violations of R.C. 2903.01 and 2911.01, respectively. The cases were tried separately before juries.

Appellant’s brother was found not guilty of aggravated murder, guilty of the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter and guilty of aggravated robbery. He received concurrent sentences of six to twenty-five years in the Ohio Reformatory.

Appellant was convicted of the original charges of aggravated murder and aggravated robbery. The trial court, finding that no mitigating factors had been shown, sentenced appellant to death on the murder charge and to a term of seven to twenty-five years on the aggravated robbery charge. In this appeal, he challenges the aggravated murder conviction and the imposition of the death sentence therefor.

Appellant’s first two assignments of error, which revolve around the same issue, will be consolidated for the purposes of discussion herein. They state as follows:

I. “The Trial Court Substantially Erred to the Prejudice of the Appellant When it Denied the Appellant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal pursuant to Criminal Rule 29.”
II. “The Verdict of the Jury was Against the Manifest Weight of the Evidence.”

The argument advariced under these two assignments is that the state failed to prove that Otto Baum’s death was caused by appellant. While conceding his participation in the robbery and beating of Baum, appellant nevertheless asserts that his acts were not the proximate cause of Baum’s death. *48 In essence, he contends that the trial court should have held as a matter of law that Dr. Walus’ act in ceasing to supply supplemental oxygen to Baum was an independent intervening cause of death. He argues that since “brain death” is not “death” in Ohio, Baum was “alive” until Dr. Walus acted and it was this act of Dr. Walus which proximately caused “clinical death.” Appellant advances the same argument in support of the proposition that the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. To understand appellant’s theory, some discussion of the state of the law on “death” is helpful.

There are presently no statutory provisions in the Ohio Revised Code which define death. Case law discloses a similar dearth of authority. The only reported decision which even alludes to the subject was In re Myers (1925), 26 N.P. (N.S.) 57, dealing with the construction of the words “contemplation of death” under Ohio’s inheritance tax statutes. In the opinion, at page 64, Judge Graven, by way of dictum, defined death as “ *** cessation of life; that state of being animal or vegetable, in which there is a total and permanent cessation of all vital functions.” Judge Graven’s view of death comports with the traditional legal definition which has been widely recognized throughout the United States. 3

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Johnson, 395 N.E.2d 368, 60 Ohio App. 2d 45, 14 Ohio Op. 3d 24, 1977 WL 199760, 1977 Ohio App. LEXIS 7118 (Ohio Ct. App. 1977).

395 N.E.2d 368 (State v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Pennington
2024 Ohio 5681 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
State v. Pinkerman
2024 Ohio 1150 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
State v. Carpenter
2019 Ohio 58 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2019)
State v. Caldwell, Unpublished Decision (7-12-2006)
2006 Ohio 3560 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2006)
State v. Beaver
695 N.E.2d 332 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1997)
State v. Olson
435 N.W.2d 530 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1989)
Strachan v. John F. Kennedy Memorial Hosp.
507 A.2d 718 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1986)
Barber v. Superior Court
147 Cal. App. 3d 1006 (California Court of Appeal, 1983)
State v. Meints
322 N.W.2d 809 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1982)
Cowan v. State
399 So. 2d 1346 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1981)