This article explores and analyzes the two-pronged legal dilemma that confronted the court in State v. Marshall: in Ohio, finding the correct sentencing law is often difficult; and a recent amendment to the resentencing portion of that law, S.B. 258, destroys the efficiency that was characteristic of Ohio's previous resentencing framework. Consequently, Part II of this article examines the facts and holding of State v. Marshall and suggests that finding the applicable law must be simplified. Practitioner handbooks are often confusing and incomplete, in part as the Ohio legislature generates an ever-changing body of law. Justice and the lives of human beings demand remedial steps to avert this problem. Part III describes the evolution of Ohio's resentencing law and the recent adoption of Senate Bill 258, amending Ohio Revised Code section 2929.06. Following a brief description of Ohio's bifurcated capital litigation scheme, Part IV asserts that jury penalty retrials pursuant to Senate Bill 258 will lead to more challenges in the courts, may well waste limited judicial and criminal justice system resources, may prove unworkable in practice, and are not likely to serve the interests of justice. And after concluding with the assertion that Senate Bill 258 is unwise, unworkable, and better left alone, Part V highlights the quite illusory benefits of re-seeking death, while noting that vengeful actions often work against healing.
Margery B. Koosed,
On Seeking Controlling Law and Re-Seeking Death under Section 2929.06 of the Ohio Revised Code ,
46 Clev. St. L. Rev.
available at http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol46/iss2/5