Login | April 18, 2024
Convicted murderer not too drunk to waive Miranda rights
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: March 21, 2017
Trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective in a Jefferson County murder case, the 7th District Court of Appeals recently ruled.
A jury found Jeffrey Spring guilty of murder, a firearm specification and tampering with evidence in the death of Stephen Boyer. Spring was sentenced to 18 years to life in prison.
According to appellate records, Boyer was shot in the head and abdomen. His body was found outside Spring’s home.
On the 911 call, Spring claimed Boyer was trying to break into his house with a knife. Police found no signs of forced entry and no signs of a struggle. They also discovered the victim’s jacket and cell phone in Spring’s living room.
Evidence showed both Spring and Boyer had been drinking alcohol on the day the victim was killed.
Boyer’s body was lying in front of Spring’s front door, but there was a bloodstain several feet away that appeared to have been swept up with a broom. In addition, a bloodstained broom was found outside.
The victim had a knife in his hand, but officers found the placement of the weapon strange. No DNA was found from the victim on the knife but there was DNA from Spring.
At the scene, Spring told police, “I shot him once, went outside and shot him again in the head to make sure he was dead.”
After a search of the appellant’s home, police found the .38 revolver used in the shooting inside of a concealed kitchen cabinet. The .38 caliber bullet found in the victim’s body was fired from the revolver found in the kitchen, according to crime lab officials.
About 10 hours after making the 911 call, Spring admitted he tried to clean up the blood with a broom and that he put the knife in the victim’s hand after he shot him.
At trial, Spring testified he shot Boyer by accident through his closed front door. He admitted lying about an attempted break-in.
Spring testified the two were at his home for about 30 minutes when they began to argue. He claimed he pushed the victim out of his house after suspecting Boyer tried to steal his prescription medicine. He claimed he shot two times through the closed front door, believing the victim had already left his property.
Spring called 911 after trying to clean up the blood.
On appeal, Spring said his attorney failed to file a motion to suppress his statements to sheriff’s deputies. He also claimed he was too drunk to validly waive his Miranda rights.
Spring testified he had 15 beers on the shooting, plus prescription painkillers and Valium. Officers said Spring smelled of alcohol and had slurred speech.
However, 7th District Judge Mary DeGenaro noted in her 3-0 opinion that Spring sounded calm and coherent on the 911 call as well as the videotaped interview with the sheriff.
Judge DeGenaro also noted that other courts have addressed the issue of a defendant’s intoxication and its effect on the Miranda waiver.
For instance, in State v. Stanberry, 11th Dist. No. 2002-L-028, 2003-Ohio-5700, the defendant had nine Valiums, three doses of acid and eight beers about five hours before waiving his Miranda rights and being questioned by police.
“The Eleventh District concluded there was no evidence to suggest that the defendant’s ability to reason was sufficiently impaired so as to invalidate his Miranda waiver,” Judge DeGenaro wrote.
Spring also argued that his attorney should have objected to prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument and to witness opinion not based on firsthand knowledge or expertise.
However, the appellate court found counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s rebuttal closing comment that Spring was “a snake.”
Judge DeGenaro called the prosecutor’s comment “a reasonable rebuttal” to defense counsel’s closing statement referring to the victim as “a snake in this case that came to a place that he wasn’t invited to where he didn’t belong.”
The appellate panel also took no issue with the sheriff’s testimony that the victim had most likely gone outside to urinate when he was shot.
“Here there were arguably only one or perhaps two minor errors made by counsel,” Judge DeGenaro stated. “The evidence against Spring, in contrast, was overwhelming.”
Appellate judges Cheryl L. Waite and Carol Ann Robb concurred that the trial court’s decision should be affirmed.
The case is cited State v. Spring, 2017-Ohio-768.