Ashford thompson trial

The opinion then claimed to sentence Thompson on the dismissed escape offense, which carried a longer prison term. The entry eliminated any reference to the dismissed escape charge and the incorrect prison sentence.

Together, the documents met the necessary requirements for a final appealable order. Thompson also made several claims of prosecutorial misconduct, which he argued deprived him of due process and a fair trial. Justice French concluded that some statements made by the prosecutor were inappropriate. Thompson was a licensed practical nurse who assisted patients who lived in difficult neighborhoods.

As a result, he obtained a license to carry a concealed weapon to protect himself. He had a stable upbringing and was close to his family. He did not have a significant criminal history, and he expressed remorse for the murder. However, the court found that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating factors , and the death penalty in this case was proportionate to death sentences imposed in other similar cases.

Justice Paul E. In a separate opinion, Justice William M. He took issue with contention that Thompson killed the officer to escape detection or punishment for another offense. Instead, he added, the evidence indicated that Thompson was confused and frightened and incorrectly thought that Miktarian was going to release his police dog or shoot him. Thompson, 27, was convicted of aggravated murder with various death penalty specifications after a six-day trial. Both suspects, who were arrested Tuesday by the U.

Peter J. None of the complaints included the source of the information provided or explained why Hoffman was thought to have committed the violations. The warrants were issued without any official making a probable cause determination finding a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed. Two weeks later, during a police investigation of the murder of Scott Holzhauer, Hoffman became a person of interest in the case, and the investigating officers learned of his active arrest warrants when they searched his name in their database.

They went to his house to execute the warrants, and during the arrest, police discovered Hoffman had a gun that was later determined to belong to Holzhauer. He was eventually charged with aggravated murder and aggravated robbery, and prior to his trial, Hoffman asked the court to suppress evidence, arguing that the arrest warrants for his misdemeanor charges were invalid because no probable cause determination had been made.

He believed the police had, therefore, obtained the evidence illegally. The trial court agreed that the arrest warrants were invalid, but found that the arresting officers, in good faith, reasonably relied on the warrants. Hoffman appealed to the Sixth District Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress.

The court of appeals agreed with the trial court, concluding that suppressing the evidence, given the facts of this case, would not meet the requirement that excluding evidence must deter police officers from engaging in deliberate, reckless, or illegal conduct in the future. Hoffman then filed a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

Constitution and Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution provide that warrants cannot be issued without a probable cause determination. He maintains that the validity of an arrest warrant depends on a neutral judicial officer finding that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed by the person named on the warrant. Citing the U. Supreme Court decision in U.