## Facts

- The State of Ohio prosecuted Sandra Diar for the killing of her young son in Lorain County.
- The state’s theory was that Diar murdered her son and then set fire to her home to conceal the crime and make the death appear accidental.
- Fire investigators and other witnesses presented evidence that the fire was intentionally set using an accelerant, and that the scene suggested staging rather than an accident.
- The state also introduced evidence of a financial motive tied to insurance proceeds, including proof that coverage on the home had been increased shortly before the fire and that a claim was pursued soon after the blaze.
- During the guilt phase, the prosecutor repeatedly used leading questions with a witness to suggest that Diar deliberately set the fire; defense counsel objected multiple times and the trial judge sustained the objections.
- The jury found Diar guilty of aggravated murder (with capital specifications) and additional offenses arising from the fire and related conduct, including aggravated arson, insurance fraud, and tampering with evidence.
- After the penalty phase, the jury recommended a death sentence and the trial court imposed it under Ohio’s capital-sentencing procedure.
- Diar appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Ohio, arguing (among other claims) that the prosecutor’s leading questions amounted to misconduct that unfairly influenced the jury.

## Issues

1. Whether the prosecutor’s repeated leading questions, despite sustained objections, constituted prosecutorial misconduct that denied Diar a fair trial.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient, and the verdicts were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, for aggravated murder and the related offenses.
3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error in admitting Diar’s recorded statement to investigators.
4. Whether the death sentence should be affirmed after independent review, including proportionality review under Ohio law.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed Diar’s convictions for aggravated murder and the related offenses.
- The court held that the prosecutor’s leading questions were improper but did not warrant reversal because the trial judge sustained the objections and the record contained other strong evidence supporting the state’s theory.
- The court rejected Diar’s challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, concluding that a rational juror could find the elements of the charged offenses proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court upheld the admission of Diar’s recorded interview, finding that she was advised of her Miranda rights and that the interview was not custodial until she was informed she was under arrest.
- After conducting Ohio’s required independent review of the aggravating circumstances and mitigating factors and performing proportionality review, the court affirmed the death sentence.

## Legal Principles

- Prosecutorial misconduct warrants reversal only when the conduct is improper and results in material prejudice affecting the defendant’s substantial rights; sustained objections and substantial independent evidence can support a finding of no prejudice.
- Evidence is sufficient if, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational factfinder could find every essential element proved beyond a reasonable doubt; manifest-weight review asks whether the jury clearly lost its way.
- Miranda protections apply to custodial interrogation; a recorded statement may be admitted when the defendant is advised of rights, waives them, and the questioning is noncustodial until formal arrest or restraint equivalent to arrest.
- In a capital case, the Supreme Court of Ohio must independently weigh aggravating circumstances against mitigating factors and must review whether the death sentence is proportionate to penalties imposed in similar cases. 

## Conclusion

State v. Diar affirmed Diar’s aggravated-murder conviction and related convictions and also affirmed the death sentence, holding that the prosecutor’s leading questions—though improper—were not prejudicial in light of sustained objections and other evidence, that the verdicts were supported by sufficient evidence, that Diar’s recorded statement was properly admitted, and that independent weighing and proportionality review supported the capital sentence.


State v. Diar, 900 N.E.2d 565 (2008)