[Cite as State v. Stefanko, 2026-Ohio-1143.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 31056
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE ERICA STEFANKO COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO Appellant CASE No. CR-2012-07-1887-B
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: March 31, 2026
CARR, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Erica Stefanko appeals the judgment of the Summit County
Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} On the evening of June 20, 2012, A.B. was working as a pizza delivery driver at a
local Domino’s. Shortly before midnight, a female called in and ordered a pizza to be delivered
to the back door of a nearby business. At the time, only A.B. and the manager were working.
After the pizza was ready, A.B. left to deliver it. When A.B. did not return as expected, the
manager drove out to the delivery address to try to find her. The manager pulled in the parking lot
of the closed business and saw what appeared to be a puddle of blood. The manager left the
parking lot and called the police on his way back to the store. The manager also called A.B.’s
girlfriend, B.D., who met the manager at the shop. 2
{¶3} When the police arrived, B.D. told police that A.B. was in a custody dispute with
Chad Cobb, who was the father of A.B.’s daughter, G.C. Police were also dispatched to the
location of the pizza delivery. The parking lot was empty, but police observed blood and signs of
a struggle. Police then began searching for A.B.’s vehicle. One officer proceeded to Cobb’s
grandparents’ home. At the rear of the property, behind a detached garage, the officer discovered
a running Lincoln Navigator. No one was in the driver’s seat. A woman, later identified as
Stefanko, who was, at the time, married to Cobb, was in the passenger seat, and four small children
were in the rear of the vehicle. The vehicle was registered to Cobb. Stefanko appeared calm and
claimed not to know what was going on. The officer then heard what sounded like heavy footsteps
in the nearby woods. When backup arrived, police discovered Cobb crouching behind a tree in
the wooded area. Cobb was then taken into custody.
{¶4} Later that morning, a woman in Wayne County noticed what appeared to be a
vehicle in the back of a nearby field that had been planted with corn. The woman thought this was
odd and called the sheriff’s department. When police came out, they discovered A.B.’s car. A.B.
was found deceased in the back of the vehicle. She had a zip tie secured around her neck and had
various other injuries. Ultimately, it was determined that her cause of death was strangulation.
{¶5} Cobb’s and Stefanko’s property was searched and items police believed were used
in the attack and murder of A.B. were found there. The items included men’s camouflage clothing,
some pieces which had potential blood staining, zip ties which were three to four feet long, a Taser-
like device, a diving knife, duct tape, and gloves with hardened knuckles.
{¶6} Cobb was indicted on multiple felony counts related to the death of A.B., including
aggravated murder. Death penalty specifications accompanied some of the charges. In exchange 3
for the removal of the death penalty specifications, Cobb pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to life
in prison without the possibility of parole.
{¶7} Years later, after a recording between Cobb’s mother and Stefanko came to the
attention of authorities and an additional witness came forward, Stefanko was charged with
multiple felonies, included aggravated murder, in connection with the death of A.B. Several
charges were later dismissed. A jury found Stefanko guilty of one count of aggravated murder and
one count of murder. Stefanko was sentenced to life in prison with parole eligibility after 30 years.
{¶8} Stefanko appealed, and this Court reversed the judgment of the trial court
concluding that the trial court violated her right to confront witnesses when Cobb was allowed to
testify remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. State v. Stefanko, 2022-Ohio-2569, ¶ 34 (9th
Dist.).
{¶9} In January 2024, the matter proceeded to a second jury trial. The jury was
instructed as to complicity via aiding and abetting. The jury again found Stefanko guilty of
aggravated murder and murder. She was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole
after 30 years.
{¶10} Stefanko has appealed, raising a single assignment of error for our review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE VERDICT IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶11} In her sole assignment of error, Stefanko argues that the findings of guilt are against
the manifest weight of the evidence. Stefanko asserts that only Cobb’s statements at trial directly
implicate her in the murder of A.B. and Cobb denied killing A.B. Thus, according to Stefanko,
Stefanko could not be found to be an accomplice in A.B.’s murder. Stefanko asserts that her 4
statements to Cobb’s mother on the audio recording are “equivocal at best.” She further notes that
there was no DNA evidence to connect her to the crimes.
In determining whether a criminal conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist. 1986). An appellate court should exercise the
power to reverse a judgment as against the manifest weight of the evidence only in exceptional
cases. Id. “We are mindful that the jury is free to believe all, part, or none of the testimony of
each witness. This Court will not overturn a conviction on a manifest weight challenge only
because the jury found the testimony of certain witnesses to be credible.” (Internal quotations and
citations omitted.) State v. Carter, 2024-Ohio-5295, ¶ 22 (9th Dist.).
{¶12} R.C. 2903.01(A) provides that “[n]o person shall purposely, and with prior
calculation and design, cause the death of another . . . .” “The phrase ‘prior calculation and design’
by its own terms suggests advance reasoning to formulate the purpose to kill.” State v. Roberts,
2025-Ohio-5120, ¶ 144, quoting State v. Walker, 2016-Ohio-8295, ¶ 18. “The question is whether
[the] defendant acted with advance reasoning and purpose to kill.” (Internal quotations and
citations omitted.) Roberts at ¶ 146. “And when the evidence presented at trial reveals the
presence of sufficient time and opportunity for the planning of an act of homicide to constitute
prior calculation, and the circumstances surrounding the homicide show a scheme designed to
implement the calculated decision to kill, a finding by the trier of fact of prior calculation and
design is justified.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) Id.
[T]here are three pertinent considerations in determining whether prior calculation and design exist: (1) Did the accused and victim know each other, and if so, was that relationship strained? (2) Did the accused give thought or preparation to 5
choosing the murder weapon or murder site? and (3) Was the act drawn out or an almost instantaneous eruption of events?
(Internal quotations and citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 147.
{¶13} R.C. 2903.02(A) states that “[n]o person shall purposely cause the death of another
. . . .” “A person acts purposely when it is the person’s specific intention to cause a certain result,
or, when the gist of the offense is a prohibition against conduct of a certain nature, regardless of
what the offender intends to accomplish thereby, it is the offender’s specific intention to engage
in conduct of that nature.” R.C. 2901.22(A).
{¶14} “To support a conviction for complicity by aiding and abetting . . . , the evidence
must show that the defendant supported, assisted, encouraged, cooperated with, advised, or incited
the principal in the commission of the crime, and that the defendant shared the criminal intent of
the principal.” State v. Suggs, 2024-Ohio-1961, ¶ 14 (9th Dist.), quoting State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio
St.3d 240 (2001), syllabus. “Such intent may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the
crime, the presence, companionship, and conduct of the defendant before and after the offense is
committed.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) Suggs at ¶ 14.
{¶15} After a thorough and independent review of the voluminous record in this case, we
can only conclude that Stefanko has failed to demonstrate that the jury lost its way in finding her
guilty of the charges. Given the extent and nature of the record, only those portions necessary to
resolve the arguments raised in Stefanko’s assignment of error will be discussed.
{¶16} A.B. and Cobb never married but had a child together who was born in 2005, G.C.
A.B.’s and Cobb’s relationship ended not long after G.C. was born. Ultimately, Cobb began dating
Stefanko, who had a child from a prior relationship around the same age as G.C. G.C. spent much
of her early childhood in the custody of Cobb. In 2009, Cobb and Stefanko had a child together
and married in 2010. A second child was born in 2012, months before the murder. 6
{¶17} Matters became contentious between A.B. and Cobb in late 2011 when A.B.
reentered G.C.’s life and obtained temporary custody. At the time, A.B. was living with her
girlfriend, B.D. Cobb obtained an attorney and hoped to regain full custody of G.C. According
to Cobb, the attorney advised him to contact authorities periodically to conduct wellness checks
on G.C. at A.B.’s and B.D.’s residence. Cobb also had his mother buy a GPS tracker to put on
A.B.’s car to track her movements. Additionally, Cobb and Stefanko were involved in a plot
involving planting drugs in B.D.’s car. Cobb obtained marijuana and it was then planted in B.D.’s
car. Stefanko admitted at trial to calling the police on B.D. so that her car would be searched. The
car was searched but ultimately no charges resulted. Cobb was angry that the plan had failed. He
also became more frustrated as time passed, and the custody battle continued. According to
Stefanko, it reached a tipping point when the guardian ad litem in the custody case indicated that
she did not know who to believe. Cobb was at a loss as to what to do. Stefanko admitted that she
hated A.B. and had a rivalry with her.
{¶18} Stefanko testified that Cobb then planned to obtain some methamphetamine,
secretly plant it in A.B.’s car, and then Stefanko would call the police on her so the police would
find the drugs. To ensure that A.B.’s car would be available for Cobb to plant the drugs, it was
also Stefanko’s role to call the Domino’s where A.B. worked, order a pizza, and have it delivered
to the back of a closed business. Cobb believed this plan would help ensure that he got custody of
G.C. It was Stefanko’s testimony that this is what she believed the plan was on the night A.B. was
killed.
{¶19} Stefanko testified as follows to the events of June 20, 2012, and June 21, 2012. At
some point in the evening, Cobb called her and told her to pick him up at his father’s workplace.
Stefanko took all four children, including G.C., in the Lincoln Navigator and went to meet Cobb. 7
When she got there, Cobb told Stefanko that, “[A.B.’s] about to get arrested.” Cobb was wearing
regular clothes and had a backpack with him. Stefanko did not see that he had any weapons or zip
ties. Stefanko and Cobb each had a burner cell phone; they had purchased minutes for the phones
while they were at Walmart together on June 18, 2012.
{¶20} Cobb drove the family past the Domino’s pizza where A.B. worked and confirmed
that she was in fact working. He then drove to a business on Turkeyfoot Lake Road next to the
closed commercial building where A.B. was murdered. Stefanko placed the pizza order using a
false name and had it delivered to the back door of the building next door. Cobb then headed into
the woods towards the area of the other building. Stefanko was to wait until Cobb called her.
{¶21} About half an hour later, Stefanko received a call from Cobb. Cobb told her to
meet him at a bridge in Wayne County near his parents’ house. He said that he had A.B.’s car.
Stefanko did not understand why Cobb would have A.B.’s car.
{¶22} Stefanko drove out to the bridge and waited for Cobb. Eventually, Cobb came
walking out of a cornfield. It appeared there was blood on Cobb’s shirt. Cobb told Stefanko to
drive them home. When they got home, Cobb went inside and showered. Stefanko then learned
that A.B. was dead. Stefanko felt sick and vomited into the toilet.
{¶23} Cobb then demanded that they all go back to the location of the pizza delivery to
get A.B.’s phone, which Cobb left there. Cobb drove Stefanko and the four children. As they
drove past the business, Cobb noticed police activity there and so did not stop. Cobb then drove
to his grandparents’ house. Police would find Cobb in the surrounding woods and arrest him.
Stefanko was taken to the police station but was not arrested. At trial, Stefanko testified that it
was her belief that Cobb purposefully murdered A.B. Stefanko denied that they ever talked about
killing A.B. 8
{¶24} Cobb, who was offered nothing in exchange for his testimony, testified to a
different version of events. Cobb asserted that on June 20, 2012, in the evening, he was home with
two children and Stefanko was out with the two other children. He got a phone call and went to
meet Stefanko at his father’s place of employment. He was told to bring the camouflage backpack,
but he did not know what was in it aside from a flashlight. Cobb testified he did not pack it. He
was wearing camouflage clothing.
{¶25} Stefanko arrived in the Lincoln Navigator and Cobb got in the passenger seat. The
children were in the back. Stefanko drove them past the Domino’s pizza where A.B. worked. A.B.
was working at the time. Stefanko drove to the closed business where A.B. was ultimately killed.
Stefanko and Cobb got out of the vehicle and had a ten-minute conversation under a tree.
Afterward, Stefanko called the Domino’s pizza and ordered a pizza using a different name. She
asked that the pizza be delivered to the back of the business. The two then had another
conversation under the tree. Stefanko then got into the vehicle and left the scene. Cobb never
mentioned a plan to plant methamphetamine in A.B.’s car during his testimony.
{¶26} A short time later, A.B. arrived. She became “pretty worked up” when she saw
Cobb. A.B. did not leave the parking lot alive. Cobb testified that “that night was done with two
people involved[,]” Cobb and Stefanko. However, Cobb denied killing A.B. He also insinuated
that any plan was Stefanko’s as the only prior calculation and design he had was to go on a
scheduled trip to Disney World. Cobb never identified any plan during his testimony with respect
to A.B. and the events of June 20, 2012. Cobb denied having a plan to kill A.B. Nonetheless,
Cobb admitted to using the Taser-like device on A.B. after she threw her phone at him. Cobb and
A.B. then got into what Cobb described as “a really bad fight.” After the fight, A.B. was barely
moving. 9
{¶27} Cobb claimed that he did not have zip ties on him that evening and that Stefanko
put a zip tie around A.B.’s neck. Cobb stated that his cable installation company did have a lot of
different zip ties that were used in the business but there would be no reason to have the zip ties at
issue in the Lincoln Navigator. Cobb admitted to also having a diving knife on his person and
duct tape on his jacket; although he denied using duct tape on A.B. Cobb testified that he was not
wearing gloves that night.
{¶28} Cobb put A.B.’s body in the back of her car and drove to the bridge in Wayne
County. Stefanko followed behind in the Lincoln Navigator. Stefanko stopped at the bridge, and
Cobb drove A.B.’s vehicle into the far corner of the nearby cornfield. Cobb left the car and walked
back to Stefanko who was waiting for him in the Lincoln Navigator.
{¶29} They then went to their home. Cobb took all his clothes off outside and then went
in to take a shower. After he showered, they all got back in the Lincoln Navigator. They took
cleaning supplies and were going to go back to the crime scene to get A.B.’s phone and clean up
the area. When Cobb arrived in the area, he saw police activity and kept driving. Cobb proceeded
to his grandparents’ house where he was later apprehended. Cleaning supplies were discovered
on the ground near the Lincoln Navigator.
{¶30} When A.B.’s body was discovered in her vehicle, there were zip ties around her
ankles, knees, neck, and mouth. A cartridge from a Taser-like device was discovered along with
a camouflage jacket. Duct tape was found on the jacket. Wires from a Taser-like device were
found attached to A.B. along with duct tape. Other evidence was discovered during a search of
Stefanko’s and Cobb’s property. In the backyard, a sock, a belt, zip ties, a camouflage backpack,
a pair of camouflage boots, a camouflage pair of pants, and a t-shirt with what appeared to be blood
stains were discovered. A Taser-like device in a holster and a diving knife were also found. The 10
backpack contained camouflage face paint, a roll of duct tape, camouflage gloves with hardened
knuckles, a neoprene mask, a flashlight with a lens to assist with night vision, and a camouflage
hat.
{¶31} Further investigation and scientific analysis revealed that the miscellaneous pieces
of duct tape from A.B.’s body and the camouflage jacket found in her car came from the roll of
duct tape found in the backpack discovered on Stefanko’s and Cobb’s property during the search.
The DNA profile found on Cobb’s sock found at the Stefanko and Cobb property was consistent
with A.B.’s DNA profile. No fingerprints of either Cobb or Stefanko were discovered on items of
evidentiary value. There was no DNA linking Stefanko to the crimes. The DNA profile from the
blood found in the parking lot at the pizza delivery location was consistent with A.B.’s DNA
profile
{¶32} In February 2013, Cobb agreed to plead guilty to aggravated murder and other
charges in exchange for the death penalty specifications being dismissed. After Cobb was
sentenced and Stefanko came to visit him in prison, Cobb discovered that Stefanko was pregnant
and had been having an affair with one of Cobb’s best friends, M.S. M.S. and Stefanko later
married. M.S. was also employed by Cobb in Cobb’s cable installation business. M.S. moved
into Stefanko’s and Cobb’s home and Cobb’s business was sold. Cobb and Stefanko were
divorced in 2014.
{¶33} In 2014, after Cobb had threatened to tell police about Stefanko’s involvement in
A.B.’s murder, Stefanko went to Cobb’s mother’s property to have a conversation with her. That
approximately three-hour conversation was recorded by Cobb’s mother. Both Stefanko and
Cobb’s mother had an alcoholic beverage during the conversation. Stefanko was not aware that
she was being recorded. Cobb’s mother stored that recording in a gun safe and came across it 11
years later when she was upgrading the gun safe. Ultimately, that recording was turned over to
the police. That recording contains numerous inculpatory statements by Stefanko. Portions of the
recording were played for the jury, and the entire recording was made available to the jury during
their deliberations. Statements from the recording will be detailed below.
{¶34} In the recording, Stefanko told Cobb’s mother that “if everything had been told
exactly as it happened then [Cobb and I] would both be in prison right now. I don’t disagree with
that. That’s totally the truth.” She then stated that, “[He] came up with how to do it. He executed
almost all of it. The part that he executed went totally awry.” Stefanko also stated that Cobb said
that “if this goes through and I can do this I’m going to keep her skull as a trophy.” Stefanko also
admitted to making the phone call and setting the meeting up and indicated that “[Cobb] said this
is what we’re going to do and this is your part in it and I carry out my part in it.” Stefanko then
stated that “I did exactly what he told me to do. And it wasn’t because he was forcing me to do it
or like he had a gun to my head, it was because he says this is your part and this is what you’re
going to do which is how it always was . . . .” More than once during the conservation, Stefanko
indicated that she did not feel bad about what happened to A.B., including what happened to her
during the last moments of her life. In discussing what to do about the situation with A.B.,
Stefanko told Cobb’s mother that Stefanko told Cobb, “If this is something that you think you can
do, then I’m okay with and I agree with it. If you can’t do it then obviously you shouldn’t do it.”
When Cobb and Stefanko would argue about what to do, Stefanko told him, “[T]his is the only
way the situation is going to go away.” Stefanko told Cobb’s mother that Stefanko should have
told Cobb that it was too risky but did not because she had seen him “get away with so much crazy
sh*t that [she] thought he could get away with anything.” Stefanko acknowledged that she should 12
have had the sense to know that there are some things “you just don’t ever try to do.” Stefanko
observed that Cobb “had a perfect plan, but it didn’t go the way it was supposed to go at all.”
{¶35} Around the time that police obtained the audio recording, another witness who
knew Cobb and Stefanko came forward. That witness and her husband sometimes socialized with
Cobb and Stefanko, although they were more friendly with Cobb. Around July 2012, Stefanko
came over to the home of the witness for dinner. Stefanko told the witness in a somewhat gleeful
manner that the police missed evidence when they came to search the property. With respect to
the night of the murder, Stefanko stated that she had dropped off Cobb where everything happened
and waited for him somewhere else. Stefanko spoke of leaving the car in the cornfield and how,
if it had been a different time of year, the car would have been hidden in the corn and not found.
Stefanko indicated that she knew who made the phone call to the pizza place but did not say more
than that. Stefanko informed the witness that Stefanko and Cobb went to Cobb’s grandparents’
house to hide out. Stefanko also said that she had defecated on A.B.’s grave because of all A.B.
had put Stefanko through. Stefanko told the witness that she hated A.B.
{¶36} While it is true that Stefanko did not specifically state in the recorded conversation
that the plan was to kill A.B. and insisted in her testimony explaining that recorded conversation
that the plan was a plan to plant methamphetamine in A.B.’s car, the jury was not required to
believe that. Even Stefanko acknowledged in her testimony that if the jury believed that the
recorded conversation was about a plan to kill A.B., then she would be complicit.
{¶37} Stefanko also contends that she could not be guilty of complicity to commit
aggravated murder and murder because Cobb himself denied murdering A.B. Once again,
Stefanko seems to ignore the well settled law that “the jury is free to believe all, part, or none of
the testimony of each witness.” Carter, 2024-Ohio-5295, at ¶ 22 (9th Dist.). Given that both Cobb 13
and Stefanko had motivations to be untruthful, the jury would not be unreasonable in only
believing portions of their testimony. Stefanko herself admitted that she lied many times about
matters related to the death of A.B. and the investigation.
{¶38} There was ample evidence to support that Cobb murdered A.B. Cobb pleaded
guilty to aggravated murder and numerous other charges in connection with A.B.’s death. A DNA
profile consistent with A.B.’s was found on Cobb’s clothing and items used in the murder, which
Cobb admitted to possessing, were found at Cobb and Stefanko’s property after the murder. Duct
tape used in the murder was found in Cobb’s backpack.
{¶39} Further, there was abundant evidence that there was a plan to murder A.B. Prior to
the murder, minutes for the burner cell phones were purchased by Cobb and Stefanko at a local
store. The night of the murder, the couple drove by the location of A.B.’s work to ensure that A.B.
was working. Stefanko called A.B.’s work and ordered a pizza using a false name. That pizza
was to be delivered late at night to the back door of a closed business. When A.B. encountered
Cobb, he had a Taser-like device, a diving knife, zip ties, hardened gloves, and was wearing
camouflage clothing. It is difficult to understand why Cobb would need weapons if he was only
there to secretly plant methamphetamine in A.B.’s car without her noticing.
{¶40} While Stefanko maintained at trial that she did not know that Cobb had a plan to
murder A.B. as that was not the plan they had discussed, Stefanko did not make mention of planting
drugs during the three-hour recorded conversation. Moreover, Cobb did not indicate that there
was any plan to plant drugs that night during his testimony and methamphetamine was not found
when the police searched Stefanko’s and Cobb’s property. Given the foregoing, and the
incriminating statements made during the recorded conversation, Stefanko has not demonstrated 14
that the jury lost its way in finding Stefanko guilty of the crimes. The jury could have reasonably
found that Stefanko and Cobb together planned the murder of A.B.
{¶41} Stefanko’s assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶42} Stefanko’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit County
Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period
for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to
mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the
docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
DONNA J. CARR FOR THE COURT 15
FLAGG LANZINGER, J. SUTTON, J. CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
ALAN M. MEDVICK, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
ELLIOT KOLKOVICH, Prosecuting Attorney, and C. RICHLEY RALEY, JR., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.