The Akron Legal News

Woman not entitled to third psych evaluation in child abuse case, judges rule

JESSICA SCHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: September 11, 2014

The 12th District Court of Appeals recently affirmed a lower court’s ruling denying a woman’s request for funding to conduct a third psychiatric evaluation in her child abuse case.

Alexsis Sexton appealed her sentence from the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas and argued that she was entitled to funding for a psychiatric evaluation that could elicit mitigating evidence.

The facts of the case state that Sexton had a significant history of abusing children.

The state showed that Sexton bent one child’s fingers back until the point of fracture, pinched children until they bled, strangled a child until he or she turned blue and broke children’s bones.

On one occasion, Sexton dropped a 13-month-old child about four feet to the ground and then fell on top of the baby, landing with her knee on the child’s torso.

That child suffered skull fractures, epidural and subdural hematoma, and a lacerated liver.

After Sexton’s behavior was reported to police, multiple parents came forward to report injuries that occurred while their children were in Sexton’s care.

“Sexton admitted that she harms other people’s children, and that she takes pleasure from soothing the children after she injures them. When asked how many children she had harmed during her lifetime, Sexton answered, ‘too many to count,’” case summary stated.

Sexton was charged with multiple counts of felonious assault and endangering children.

She pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity and was ordered to undergo a psychiatric examination from Dr. Carla Dreyer.

Dreyer concluded that Sexton was not insane to the degree of legal significance.

Still, she noted that Sexton was sexually abused by her brother and possibly physically abused as a child.

She also explained that Sexton had a 1-year-old child at the time of her arrest, which she conceived with a 40-year-old man while she was 17, and that she was suffering from postpartum depression.

After the birth of the child, Sexton began taking medication for the depression.

Sexton then changed her plea to guilty and moved for a mitigation evaluation. She was further evaluated by Susan Ullman, an experienced social worker.

Ullman reported that Sexton had a major depressive disorder and moderate to severe antisocial personality disorder.

The trial court reviewed both reports, a presentence investigation report, and heard mitigating testimony from eight witnesses.

It denied Sexton’s request for a third psychological evaluation and it ordered Sexton to serve an aggregate term of 15 years in prison, prompting Sexton’s appeal.

“Sexton argues that a third evaluation to mitigation would have been reasonably necessary to assist the trial court by offering mitigation evidence,” Judge Robin Piper wrote for the court.

Specifically, Sexton asserted that only an expert in mental health could discuss her complex mental health history and that Ullman was not qualified to do so.

The appellate judges, however, disagreed. They held that both evaluations were performed by experienced personnel who were qualified to discuss her social history, childhood trauma and behavior.

Both evaluations and the PSI detailed the challenges of Sexton’s childhood, including her mother’s multiple abusive husbands and Sexton’s constant rehoming.

The judges found the information also included Sexton’s troubles with school and the struggles she faced when she was impregnated at 17 by a 40-year-old man.

“All of the details regarding Sexton’s social history, childhood, education and employment, as well as details regarding Sexton’s mental and physical health, were included in the evaluations and report, and the trial court had extensive amounts of information on which to base its sentencing determination,” Judge Piper stated.

The judges further pointed the eight witnesses who spoke on Sexton’s behalf as mitigating evidence and her own testimony that psychiatric help would be more beneficial than a long prison sentence.

The judges ruled that the trial court had plenty of information on which to base its sentencing and did not err in denying funding for a third evaluation.

Presiding Judge Robert Hendrickson and Judge Michael Powell concurred.

The case is cited State v. Sexton, 2014-Ohio-3553.

[Back]