Since 1897 when Ohio’s justice system initially performed public hangings as its method for capital punishment, the Buckeye State has executed 393 individuals for crimes involving aggravated murder.
At this time, there are 119 prisoners living on death row today, 121 death sentences pending, and Gov. Mike DeWine placed a pause on executions in late 2020 with legislative instructions for lawmakers to select a new method. Fifty-six individuals had been put to death by lethal injection between 2008 and 2018, but three in four years were botched between May 2006 and September 2009.
Many now wonder if 32-year-old defendant Andrew Isaac Griffin, the man charged with 14 counts connected to the Sept. 21, 2021 murders of Tom and Angela Strussion in Belmont, Ohio, could be the next resident of Ohio’s Death Row at the Ross Correctional Institution near Chillicothe if found guilty of the charges now levied against him. Ohio’s capital executions take place at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville.
The simple answer is, “Yes,” according to Belmont County Prosecutor Kevin Flanagan
“Ultimately, the indictment speaks for itself, and the charges will give any jury the opportunity to consider the death penalty following a guilty verdict,” he said. “Now, the judge (Chris Berhalter) will make that final decision under state law, but for the jury and the judge to have that option, there are specifications that we have presented in this Griffin case that will allow them to make that decision. If those specifications were not present, the option would not be there.
“There are very specific reasons why this Griffin case is a capital murder case, and that is why we have 14 counts against the defendant at this time,” he explained. “The specifications necessary under Ohio law are in the indictment.”
Ohio’s death penalty law is very specific as far as which aggravated murder cases qualify for possible death penalty punishment, and that’s why county prosecutors do not factor in on those decisions.
“That’s why, as a prosecutor, I cannot just say that I believe this case deserve to be a death penalty case. There are requirements in the law that trigger cases to move to the next level,” Flanagan explained. “There is the course of conduct to consider, and that would involve the death of two or more people. That is considered on those specifications that would make a case a capital murder case. Plus, the statute states that the commission of a homicide in addition to an aggravated burglary, an aggravated robbery, an aggravated arson or a rape is eligible for the4 death penalty.
“Those are all considered specifications and, again, that’s why there is a 14-count indictment. Twelve of the counts deals with the homicide side, and the other two are about aggravated burglary and aggravated arson,” he said. “With this situation, there were two people who were homicide victims, so that makes it a capital case right there, but we have the other specifications that add on.”
Understanding Statutes
Griffin became a business partner with Tom Strussion in May 2021 when the two opened a second Salsa Joe’s Smokehouse location in the Elm Grove area of Wheeling.
The eatery was located inside the former location of Undo’s Family Restaurant and the Tony & Cleo’s Lounge. Strussion had opened his first Salsa Joe’s location near the couple’s home in Belmont in late 2020 despite the coronavirus pandemic, and the restaurateur quickly became involved with local charitable events, too.
The defendant was charged with two counts of aggravated murder, he was arrested in Hilo, Hawaii, on February 18th, and he was extradited to Belmont County one week ago. Griffin entered a plea of not guilty to all charges Monday and is incarcerated without bond in the Belmont County Jail.
During its February session/Spring Term, a Belmont County Grand Jury did return a 14-count indictment that included charges for aggravated murder, aggravated burglary, firearm specifications, and aggravated arson.
“I have received a number of calls from media members asking for an explanation about this case and the Ohio laws concerning death penalty cases, and I understand that sometimes it can all be very confusing for those who are not in a position like I am,” Flanagan explained. “So, I have done my best to explain it without disclosing facts of the case beyond the counts in the indictment.
“I am sure there are a lot of people out there who believe if you kill someone, you automatically quality for Ohio’s death penalty,” he said. “If I didn’t do this work, I would think the same thing, but that’s not the case.”
The state of West Virginia abolished the death penalty in 1965 after 112 executions, including 102 by hanging, nine by electrocution, and one by hanging in chains. Ohio, however, is one of 27 states that has retained capital punishment, and so have the federal government and the United States military.
“In the Griffin case, we have two victims and the other counts that elevated it to the death penalty possibility. The specifications listed under the statute are there, and that’s why will proceed with the death penalty as a possibility.”
Law of the Land
Ohio’s Revised Code can be accessed at OhioLaws.gov, including the section that defines the death penalty specifications:
Section 2929.04 | Death penalty or imprisonment – aggravating and mitigating factors
Effective: April 12, 2021 Latest Legislation: House Bill 136 – 133rd General Assembly
(A) Imposition of the death penalty for aggravated murder is precluded unless one or more of the following is specified in the indictment or count in the indictment pursuant to section 2941.14 of the Revised Code and proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) The offense was the assassination of the president of the United States or a person in line of succession to the presidency, the governor or lieutenant governor of this state, the president-elect or vice president-elect of the United States, the governor-elect or lieutenant governor-elect of this state, or a candidate for any of the offices described in this division. For purposes of this division, a person is a candidate if the person has been nominated for election according to law, if the person has filed a petition or petitions according to law to have the person’s name placed on the ballot in a primary or general election, or if the person campaigns as a write-in candidate in a primary or general election.
(2) The offense was committed for hire.
(3) The offense was committed for the purpose of escaping detection, apprehension, trial, or punishment for another offense committed by the offender.
(4) The offense was committed while the offender was under detention or while the offender was at large after having broken detention. As used in division (A)(4) of this section, “detention” has the same meaning as in section 2921.01 of the Revised Code, except that detention does not include hospitalization, institutionalization, or confinement in a mental health facility or intellectual disabilities facility unless at the time of the commission of the offense either of the following circumstances apply:
(a) The offender was in the facility as a result of being charged with a violation of a section of the Revised Code.
(b) The offender was under detention as a result of being convicted of or pleading guilty to a violation of a section of the Revised Code.
(5) Prior to the offense at bar, the offender was convicted of an offense an essential element of which was the purposeful killing of or attempt to kill another, or the offense at bar was part of a course of conduct involving the purposeful killing of or attempt to kill two or more persons by the offender.
(6) The victim of the offense was a law enforcement officer, as defined in section 2911.01 of the Revised Code, whom the offender had reasonable cause to know or knew to be a law enforcement officer as so defined, and either the victim, at the time of the commission of the offense, was engaged in the victim’s duties, or it was the offender’s specific purpose to kill a law enforcement officer as so defined.
(7) The offense was committed while the offender was committing, attempting to commit, or fleeing immediately after committing or attempting to commit kidnapping, rape, aggravated arson, aggravated robbery, or aggravated burglary, and either the offender was the principal offender in the commission of the aggravated murder or, if not the principal offender, committed the aggravated murder with prior calculation and design.
(8) The victim of the aggravated murder was a witness to an offense who was purposely killed to prevent the victim’s testimony in any criminal proceeding and the aggravated murder was not committed during the commission, attempted commission, or flight immediately after the commission or attempted commission of the offense to which the victim was a witness, or the victim of the aggravated murder was a witness to an offense and was purposely killed in retaliation for the victim’s testimony in any criminal proceeding.
(9) The offender, in the commission of the offense, purposefully caused the death of another who was under thirteen years of age at the time of the commission of the offense, and either the offender was the principal offender in the commission of the offense or, if not the principal offender, committed the offense with prior calculation and design.
(10) The offense was committed while the offender was committing, attempting to commit, or fleeing immediately after committing or attempting to commit terrorism.
(B) If one or more of the aggravating circumstances listed in division (A) of this section is specified in the indictment or count in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, if the offender did not raise the matter of age pursuant to section 2929.023 of the Revised Code or the offender after raising that matter was found at trial to have been eighteen years of age or older at the time of the commission of the offense, and if the offender did not raise the matter of the offender’s serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense pursuant to section 2929.025 of the Revised Code or the offender after raising that matter was found by the court to not be ineligible for a sentence of death, the court, trial jury, or panel of three judges shall consider, and weigh against the aggravating circumstances proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history, character, and background of the offender, and all of the following factors:
(1) Whether the victim of the offense induced or facilitated it;
(2) Whether it is unlikely that the offense would have been committed, but for the fact that the offender was under duress, coercion, or strong provocation;
(3) Whether, at the time of committing the offense, the offender, because of a mental disease or defect, lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of the offender’s conduct or to conform the offender’s conduct to the requirements of the law;
(4) The youth of the offender;
(5) The offender’s lack of a significant history of prior criminal convictions and delinquency adjudications;
(6) If the offender was a participant in the offense but not the principal offender, the degree of the offender’s participation in the offense and the degree of the offender’s participation in the acts that led to the death of the victim;
(7) Any other factors that are relevant to the issue of whether the offender should be sentenced to death.
(C) The defendant shall be given great latitude in the presentation of evidence of the factors listed in division (B) of this section and of any other factors in mitigation of the imposition of the sentence of death.
The existence of any of the mitigating factors listed in division (B) of this section does not preclude the imposition of a sentence of death on the offender but shall be weighed pursuant to divisions (D)(2) and (3) of section 2929.03 of the Revised Code by the trial court, trial jury, or the panel of three judges against the aggravating circumstances the offender was found guilty of committing.
