Defense: Man did kill SWAT officer, but not purposely
The defense in the death penalty trial of Lincoln S. Rutledge admitted Tuesday that Rutledge caused the death of Columbus police Officer Steven Smith during a standoff with a SWAT team last year.
But Rutledge didn’t purposely kill the officer, defense attorney Jefferson Liston told jurors in his closing argument, so he should be convicted of murder rather than aggravated murder.
If the jury, which began deliberating Rutledge’s fate Tuesday afternoon, returns the verdict being sought by the defense, it would take the death penalty off the table as a possible sentence.
The mandatory sentence for murder is life in prison with a chance of parole after 15 years, although convictions on other counts could add many additional years in prison.
An aggravated murder conviction for purposely killing a police officer, attempting to kill two or more people or purposely killing someone to escape apprehension would make Rutledge eligible for the death penalty. Such a verdict would require jurors to participate in a sentencing phase during which they would consider mitigating factors before recommending death or life in prison.
The jurors deliberated for about three hours before being taken by bus Tuesday evening from the Franklin County Common Pleas courthouse to a hotel to be sequestered overnight. They were to return to the court to resume deliberations at 9 a.m. Wednesday.
Assistant Prosecutor Daniel Hogan and Warren Edwards said in their closing arguments that Rutledge’s purpose was clear when he fired several shots from a rear window of his Clintonville apartment as SWAT officers tried to remove glass and blinds from the window to get a better look inside.
One of the shots struck Smith in the head as he stood in the turret of an armored vehicle providing cover for officers who were using a curved pole to clear the window at 2:33 a.m. on April 10, 2016.
Rutledge, 45, had been barricaded inside the apartment, refusing to cooperate with officers and firing occasional shots from a 9 mm handgun, for more than two and a half hours before the fatal shot was fired, Hogan said.
“He had from midnight till 2:30 to ponder all this and figure out what he’s going to do,” Hogan told jurors. “There’s prior calculation and design all over this case — two and a half hours’ worth.”
Rutledge had told officers who broke down his front door to serve an arrest warrant that he was invoking the Castle Doctrine, a law that allows citizens to use deadly force to defend themselves against illegal intrusions into their homes.
Although officers explained that the warrant made their entry lawful, Hogan said, Rutledge announced his intention to use deadly force.
Liston argued that Rutledge was shooting at the pole that was shoved into his bedroom window, not the officers outside.
“This was blind firing, at the window, at the pole and, unfortunately, it resulted in the death of Officer Smith,” Liston said.
The warrant that officers were attempting to serve on Rutledge at his apartment, on West California Avenue near North High Street, accused him of setting his estranged wife’s house on fire.
He also is charged with four counts of attempted murder for other officers who were in the line of fire during the standoff. Liston argued that Rutledge wasn’t trying to kill those officers either, saying it would be more appropriate for jurors to convict him offelonious assault in those shootings.
Each of the counts, except the aggravated arson charge, includes a gun specification.
The courtroom was packed during the closing arguments. The spectators included Smith’s wife, son, daughter and sister.
Rutledge sat motionless and stared straight ahead, as he has throughout the trial, not looking at the attorneys as they delivered their closings. He did not testify.