Prosecutors in Ohio are seeking to overturn an appellate court ruling that vacated a murder conviction for a woman found guilty of brutally killing her mother. They argue that the decision is of great constitutional importance to the state’s criminal justice system and could have far-reaching consequences for trial procedures.
The legal dispute stems from the case of a 24-year-old woman who, in September 2023, was convicted of murdering her mother by striking her with a cast iron skillet and stabbing her over two dozen times. The crime was allegedly committed to prevent her mother from discovering she had been suspended from college.
She had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, asserting that she was suffering from a severe mental health crisis at the time. However, a jury found her guilty of multiple charges, including two counts of murder, felonious assault, and tampering with evidence. She was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison.
In December 2024, an appellate court reversed the conviction, ruling that the trial judge had improperly denied her the opportunity to present a sur-rebuttal expert witness. This expert would have responded to the testimony of the prosecution’s lone expert, who had criticized the methodologies used by the defense’s three expert witnesses. The appeals court found that the defendant had an unconditional right to rebut arguments she could not have preemptively countered.
Prosecutors argue that this ruling deviates from over a century of legal precedent and could disrupt the structure of criminal trials throughout the state. They maintain that the trial court had already allowed extensive expert testimony and that permitting additional rebuttal would set a dangerous precedent, leading to an unending back-and-forth between expert witnesses.
The prosecution’s filing with the state supreme court emphasized that a jury had deliberated for weeks before reaching a guilty verdict, and overturning that decision based on procedural technicalities undermines the judicial process. They further warned that the ruling could lead to drawn-out trials and unnecessary procedural disputes.
At trial, prosecutors contended that the attack was premeditated and deliberate. The victim, a hospital child-life specialist, was on a phone call with university officials when the attack began. The officials later testified that they heard disturbing noises, including loud thuds and screaming, before the call was disconnected. When they called back, someone they believed to be the suspect answered, pretending to be the victim. Suspicious, they quickly contacted authorities, prompting a welfare check at the home.
The defense argued that the suspect was in the midst of a psychotic episode, suffering from schizophrenia, and therefore could not be held legally responsible for her actions. Three psychiatric experts testified in her defense, stating that she was completely detached from reality at the time of the killing. However, the prosecution’s expert, a clinical psychologist, disagreed, arguing that her actions did not align with someone experiencing a true psychotic break.
The case now awaits review by the state supreme court, which will determine whether the appellate court’s ruling should stand or whether the original conviction should be reinstated.
