Post v. Ohio

Background

Ronald Ray Post, a man who pleaded no contest to aggravated murder and aggravated robbery for killing a motel desk clerk during an armed robbery, was convicted and sentenced to death by a three-judge panel. The panel received a presentence report containing a written victim impact statement, and the victim’s son also testified and urged a death sentence. The Ohio Supreme Court acknowledged that admitting that victim-impact material was error but ruled the mistake was not prejudicial because judges are presumed to consider only relevant evidence.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court declined to review the Ohio decision, leaving the death sentence in place. In a dissent, Justice Marshall (joined by Justice Brennan) argued that this outcome conflicts with Booth v. Maryland, where the Court held that victim impact statements create an unacceptable risk of arbitrary death sentences. Marshall said Booth’s reasoning applies whether the sentencer is a jury or judges, and that the Ohio panel’s express consideration of the victim-impact material showed the error was not harmless.

Real world impact

Because the Court denied review, Post’s sentence remains intact for now. The dissent signals a clash between the Ohio court’s harmless-error approach and Booth’s ban on victim-impact evidence; that disagreement could prompt future review or changes in how courts treat similar evidence. The decision does not resolve the legal question finally, since the denial of review leaves Booth’s scope unsettled in cases with judicial sentencers.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall also stated his broader view that the death penalty is always unconstitutional and would have vacated the sentence on that ground.