Portage County Legal News

Life sentence stands for man who brutally murdered farm wife

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: April 15, 2014

The 4th District Court of Appeals recently ruled that it did not have the authority to review a man’s sentence of life imprisonment and affirmed his sentence and aggravated murder conviction.

The three-judge appellate panel found that Lee Hawkins was properly given effective assistance of counsel and found that it lacked the authority to review the Gallia County Court of Common Pleas sentencing decision.

Hawkins convictions were based on the February 2012 murder of a Gallia County woman.

Case summary states that David Ball worked a double shift at a power plant on Feb. 29, 2012.

When he returned to his home and cattle farm around midnight that day he immediately noticed that something was wrong.

Specifically, Ball noted signs of a disturbance in his garage, including a piece of fabric and scratches on the hood of his wife’s car, a shoe under that car, and his wife’s glasses and cell phone on the floorboard of that car.

Ball quickly discovered that his wife, Betsy, was missing and notified the local sheriff’s office.

Investigators found Betsy’s body the following day in a secluded field near the Ball home.

When they found her, Betsy was naked from the waist down and her shirt and bra had been lifted up to expose her torso. Betsy had bruises and scratches on her face and arms and ligatures were visible around her neck and wrists.

Officers noted a large cut, about an inch deep, extending from hip to hip on Betsy’s abdomen and a laceration to her right wrist that nearly severed it completely.

They further stated that tire tracks ran across her jaw and upper body and her body had been doused in gasoline.

An autopsy report indicated that Betsy died of strangulation and the manner of death was homicide.

Searching the field, officers discovered visible tire tracks that were consistent with a vehicle having two front all-terrain tires and two rear “mudder tires.”

They also found a partial hand towel that was stained with bodily fluids.

Hawkins had known the Ball family for about 20 years and had worked as a farmhand on their property, according to the facts of the case.

He also drove a truck with tires matching the tracks found near Betsy’s body.

When investigators questioned him, Hawkins denied knowing anything about the disappearance or the murder.

As the investigation continued, however, he contradicted himself and indicated that he witnessed the event but did not participate.

Later he claimed that a third person forced him to put Betsy in his truck and help dispose of the body.

Hawkins’ fingerprints were found on Betsy’s car and investigators found other evidence linking him to the field in question.

“Moreover, it was determined that the partial hand towel found in the field contained a mixture of Hawkins’ semen and Mrs. Ball’s blood. A swab of Mrs. Ball’s vagina also revealed the presence of Hawkins’ semen,” case summary stated.

Two weeks after Betsy was found, Hawkins was indicted on counts of aggravated murder, murder, tampering with evidence and abuse of a corpse.

He pleaded not guilty to all counts and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.

After hearing all the facts, the jury found Hawkins guilty of aggravated murder, tampering with evidence and abuse of a corpse.

The latter two charges merged as allied offenses of similar import for sentencing.

The trial court ordered Hawkins to serve life in prison without the possibility of parole for the aggravated murder conviction and 36 months for the remaining count, with the two sentences running consecutively.

Hawkins appealed his sentencing to the 4th District and argued that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a maximum sentence.

“Specifically, Hawkins contends that the sentence is unreasonable because he ‘lived a primarily law-abiding life’ and is a ‘quiet, hard-working, decent person.’

Hawkins characterizes his actions against Mrs. Ball as ‘an aberration from his normal, quiet self,’” Judge Marie Hoover wrote for the court.

After review, however, the appellate panel held that R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) states that a sentence imposed for aggravated murder or murder is not subject to review.

The appellate judges noted that neither Hawkins nor the state discussed the applicability of that statute but that the 5th District Court of Appeals and the 2nd District Court of Appeals recently held that they lacked the authority to review similar sentences under the law.

While stating that they were not bound by those judgments, the judges found them persuasive.

“It is evident that the General Assembly intended to treat sentencing on aggravated murder and murder convictions differently from other felony sentences,” Judge Hoover stated, overruling Hawkins’ assignment of error.

Hawkins further argued that his counsel was ineffective by failing to move for a waiver of court costs.

While recognizing that Hawkins may struggle to pay such costs in the future due to his incarceration, the judges found no reason why he should not be able to pay the costs at present.

“It was adduced at trial, inter alia, that Hawkins had been employed by Mr. and Mrs. Ball as a farmhand for at least 15 of the previous 20 years; that Hawkins is married and owns a trailer home; and that Hawkins owns a pick-up truck. Therefore, we cannot conclude that a reasonable probability exists that Hawkins would have been found indigent had his counsel raised the issue,” Judge Hoover wrote.

After overruling both assignments of error, the appellate judges affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

Presiding Judge Peter Abele and Judge Matthew McFarland concurred.

The case is cited State v. Hawkins, 2014-Ohio-1224.

[Back]