Login | March 28, 2024

Sentencing affirmed for PTSD-afflicted defendant in murder case

TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter

Published: September 28, 2016

A Mahoning County trial judge properly considered a veteran’s military service and resulting post-traumatic stress disorder in a murder case, the 7th District Court of Appeals recently ruled.

Robert Brooks was sentenced to life without parole after agreeing to plead guilty to aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, arson and kidnapping counts if the state dismissed the death penalty specifications.

Court records state that Brooks and two other co-defendants, including his brother, were accused of robbing two Realtors after luring them to properties by pretending to be interested in a showing.

One of the Realtors, Vivian Martin, was murdered and the property she was showing was set on fire.

At sentencing, Brooks called several lay and expert witnesses, including Dr. Thomas Swales, a neuropsychologist who said Brooks was diagnosed with PTSD after being injured by an improvised explosive device in the military. Brooks spent two years in the hospital in Germany for his injuries, and continued treatment in Ohio at Veteran’s Affairs hospitals.

However, Swales testified the VA’s care was inadequate, and that he should have been hospitalized – involuntarily if necessary -- because Brooks expressed thoughts of killing people.

Swales, who also examined Brooks, said the defendant suffered from “one of the worst cases” of PTSD he’d ever seen.

Swales also testified that Brooks had an abusive childhood so horrific that he was forced to change his name and social security number to escape his own father.

Brooks’ aunt and uncle testified Brooks’ mother was mentally ill and his father was so abusive that he had to constantly move around.

Dr. Sandra McPherson, a forensic psychologist, testified that Brooks was less capable of coping with PTSD than others due to his childhood.

Brooks’ mother testified her son was a highly-decorated soldier before the PTSD, earning two Purple Hearts, two Army Commendation Medals and other honors.

On appeal, Brooks argued for a new sentencing hearing on the grounds that the trial court failed to make specific findings under R.C. 2929.12(F).

The appellate court disagreed.

Seventh District Judge Mary DeGenaro wrote: “If the General Assembly had made the policy to require trial courts to make explicit findings under R.C. 2929.12(F), then it could have exercised its constitutional authority to do so. Instead, the statutory language chosen merely guides a trial court’s sentencing authority by directing it to consider a defendant’s military service, his physical/mental condition traceable to his service, and whether that condition was a contributing factor to the commission of the offenses, in the exercise of its independent sentencing discretion. The General Assembly chose not to require a trial court to make such findings, as it has with other sentencing statutes.”

Appellate judges Gene Donofrio and Carol Ann Robb concurred.

The case is cited State v. Brooks, 2016-Ohio-5685.


[Back]