Appeals court judges upheld Leon Aliff’s murder conviction Wednesday, finding the Lawrence County Common Pleas Court made no errors during his March 1999 trial.

Thursday, April 13, 2000

Appeals court judges upheld Leon Aliff’s murder conviction Wednesday, finding the Lawrence County Common Pleas Court made no errors during his March 1999 trial.

"We felt we had presented a good case and thought the trial was error-free," Lawrence County prosecutor J.B. Collier Jr. said. "Sure enough, the court of appeals agreed with us."

Jurors convicted Aliff of murdering his wife, Linda, in September 1998.

Lawrence County prosecutor J.B. Collier Jr. argued for the death sentence, claiming Aliff had planned to kill his wife, but jurors decided Aliff should spend life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Aliff’s attorneys claimed Aliff reacted out of rage and in self-defense Sept. 29, thinking he had shot at his wife’s boyfriend instead of Mrs. Aliff, who he claims fired the first shots.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals revisited the case at the attorneys’ request, issuing a judgment Wednesday that found no merit to any of the assignments of error, which included:

– The court failed to allow the jury to consider a voluntary manslaughter charge or an involuntary manslaughter charge.

– The court accepted inadmissible recorded phone conversations into evidence.

– The court should not have allowed prosecutors to present testimony about Aliff’s "other wrongs or acts."

Writing the court’s majority opinion, Judge William Harsha said judges can ask juries to consider lesser charges only if there has been sufficient evidence to allow the jury to "reasonably reject" the greater offense.

"Based on the threats to appellant’s life, the numerous entry and exit wounds and other evidence of intent, the jury could not reasonably have found that the killing of Mrs. Aliff was anything other than purposeful," Harsha wrote, overruling that part of the appeal.

The prosecution properly established the tape-recorded phone conversations as evidence, Harsha wrote.

"We also note that even if the trial court erred in admitting this piece of evidence, such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt," he wrote. "The state produced other significant evidence establishing appellant’s guilt."

And the prior acts of a person accused of a crime can be considered in court as proof of motive, which is what happened in this case, Harsha wrote.

The testimony of Homer Hager demonstrated that Aliff was "angry that his wife was involved with Mr. Hager," he wrote.

Prosecutors didn’t use the testimony to show Aliff’s character but that Aliff had the motive to commit a crime, and "we do not find that the admission of this evidence confused the issues, misled the jury or was unfairly prejudicial to appellant."

"We were overly careful in this case," Collier said. "They talked about the chain of evidence on the tape, but we went meticulously through it at trial and felt confident it was proper.

"They claimed it was prejudicial and yes it was," Collier added. "He threatened to kill her and he did."