Appeal court hears Claudia Hoerig case

Defense argues evidence lacking for premeditated murder

WARREN -- Both sides in Claudia Hoerig's appeal of her murder conviction argued the finer points of whether the woman used "prior calculation and design" in the 2007 fatal shooting of her husband, U.S. Air Force Maj. Karl Hoerig, in their Newton Falls home.

Both Hoerig's attorney, Michael Partlow, and Trumbull County Assistant Prosecutor Ashleigh Musick had 15 minutes each Wednesday morning to present arguments before the 11th District Court of Appeals. The court is expected to issue a decision on the appeal later.

Hoerig was found guilty of murder by a Trumbull County jury in January 2019. Common Pleas Judge Andrew D. Logan sentenced her to 28 years to life in prison.

Partlow argued Hoerig didn't receive a fair trial because of five errors, including the prosecutors not presenting sufficient evidence to show Hoerig acted with prior calculation and design, the legal standard for murder in Ohio.

Partlow disputed the state showing that Hoerig's flight to Brazil after the killing showed she had planned the murder.

"If she had got up that morning and made flight reservations before shooting her husband, then you may have something there," Partlow said.

Hoerig had been at large for 11 years after the fatal shooting before the government of Brazil allowed her extradition to Trumbull County early in 2018.

Also, Partlow said Hoerig buying a firearm two days prior to the shooting did not show she was planning to kill her husband.

"She (Hoerig) had testified that she wanted to commit suicide and had built a contraption to do so in front of her husband," Partlow said.

Musick and 11th District Judges Thomas Wright and Mary Jane Trapp pointed out Hoerig also had purchased a laser and had been target shooting before the slaying.

"Why do you need a laser if you are trying to kill yourself?" Wright asked Partlow.

Musick argued Hoerig's statements conflicted with the expert testimony of a doctor who reconstructed the shooting for the trial jury. Hoerig had testified she had shot her husband from the top of the stairs, but the doctor said Hoerig also shot Major Hoerig several times at close range, execution-style.

Some case law in Ohio shows this act to be sufficient alone for prior calculation and design, Musick said, but Wright countered that may be going too far.

Meanwhile, Partlow pointed out this was the doctor's first time doing a reconstruction for a jury and that showed no expertise in this area.

Partlow said trial evidence may have shown Hoerig guilty of premeditation, the previous standard in Ohio, "but that is not current law."

The defense attorney also argued the trial court failed Hoerig by allowing an improper statement by the prosecution during opening statements.

Wright seemed to agree.

"That is a fair comment because the prosecutor said Hoerig admitted to aggravated murder, but she only admitted to killing her husband. We can't dismiss that," Wright said.

Musick argued opening statements, according to state law, are not part of the evidence in a trial.