An appeals court has upheld the aggravated murder, murder and tampering with evidence convictions of Doretta Scheffield, who shot and killed her husband in 2011.
Scheffield, 66, murdered Randy Scheffield, her then 53-year-old husband, as he slept in his bed inside the couple’s Newbury Township home on Dec. 27, 2011.
In September 2015, a jury convicted Doretta of the three crimes following a nine-day trial in Geauga County Common Pleas Court.
Characterizing her husband’s murder as “particularly sinister,” Judge David Fuhry sentenced Doretta on Nov. 12, 2015, to 25 years to life in prison.
The judge tacked on an additional 30 months for tampering with evidence; namely, the murder weapon, which was never found.
Doretta filed an appeal the next month and, on April 27, the 11th District Court of Appeals in Warren affirmed each of the three convictions.
“I am very pleased with the Court’s well-reasoned decision,” Geauga County Prosecutor Jim Flaiz said Monday. ” Just as important as obtaining convictions is defending a verdict in post-conviction proceedings.”
Thomas Rein, Doretta’s court-appointed attorney, argued on appeal there was insufficient evidence to convict her of the crimes; that she was denied a fair trial because two prosecution witnesses were permitted to testify on matters that prejudiced her case; that she was denied effective assistance of counsel because her trial attorney failed to object to inadmissible testimony from those witnesses; and that her constitutional right against self-incrimination was violated at sentencing.
During the trial, prosecutors presented their theory of the case: That Doretta shot and killed Randy with his own gun, while he was sleeping, before she left the house between 9-9:30 a.m. on Dec. 27, 2011. They presented evidence that the approximate time of death was between 8:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m., when Doretta was the only other person in the home.
If an unknown intruder had entered the home, the dogs would have barked and woken Randy up before anyone could shoot him, prosecutors argued at trial.
The tampering charge was based on the theory that because the gun was missing and never found, Doretta must have disposed of it after murdering her husband.
The defense argued Randy died later in the day, when Doretta was not home. Video surveillance, phone records and receipts largely corroborated her timeline of activities on Dec. 27.
“Evidence was presented, however, that could support an inference that those actions were taken in order to create an alibi for the murder,” Judge Timothy P. Cannon wrote on behalf of the three-judge panel, comprising Cannon and Presiding Judge Cynthia Westcott Rice and Judge Colleen Mary O’Toole. “The jury clearly accepted the state’s version of events, which we conclude was supported by sufficient and plausible evidence.”
Cannon noted jurors had an opportunity to observe witnesses on both sides and judge their credibility. They also watched a recorded interview of Doretta’s first interview with Geauga County Sheriff’s Office Det. Juanita Vetter and were able to form an opinion about her credibility and veracity firsthand.
“The jury deliberated for nearly five days before rendering its verdict and, in that time, asked many questions of the court,” Cannon said, concluding the jury’s verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
At trial, prosecutors called Tracy Jordan, a sheriff’s office victim advocate, who worked closely with Doretta in the days and weeks following Randy’s death. Jordan testified about Doretta’s behavior and demeanor. Specifically, she said Doretta had little involvement in planning Randy’s funeral and was devoid of emotion.
Doretta also was not interested in grief counseling, Jordan said, adding Doretta did not appear to be grieving.
Cannon found Jordan had personal firsthand knowledge of Doretta’s behavior and demeanor, and her statements were not offered as an expert witness.
“As her opinion were formed on the basis of this personal firsthand knowledge, and not on information provided to her by others in preparation for trial, she was not required to be qualified as an expert witness,” Cannon wrote.
Vetter also testified at trial and Rein argued she improperly expressed her opinion multiple times regarding Doretta’s veracity.
But Cannon said one defense objection at trial was sustained and the other statements were not opinions regarding Doretta’s veracity, but rather statements of fact or explanation.
He also noted Doretta’s trial attorney did not object to much of Vetter’s challenged testimony and, further, that her testimony did not affect the outcome of the trial.
As such, Cannon also found Rein’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument without merit.
The appellate court also rejected the argument Doretta’s rights against self-incrimination were violated because Fuhry imposed a longer prison sentence because she did not acknowledge her guilt or express remorse at sentencing.
If Doretta had expressed remorse, Rein asserted, she would have had to give up her constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Cannon noted a sentencing court cannot use a defendant’s silence at sentencing against her when imposing punishment. However, he also observed a “lack of remorse” is a sentencing factor a trial court is required to consider when fashioning an appropriate sentence.
“Doretta did not give an allocution at her sentencing hearing; her attorney spoke of her behalf, stating Doretta continues to profess her innocence,” Cannon said.
In fashioning his sentence, Fuhry said there was no remorse shown given Doretta’s claim she was innocent.
“This statement indicates the trial court was addressing the statutory sentencing factor on the record while recognizing the reason Doretta did not show remorse,” wrote Cannon. “There is no indication the trial court’s imposition of sentence was based on Doretta’s decision not to allocate and accept guilty but, rather, that Doretta’s lack of remorse was based on her continued claim of innocence.”
