 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Smith12/9/2004
{ } Defendant-appellant, Tyrone Smith, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas convicting him, following a jury trial, of voluntary manslaughter with a firearm specification. Defendant sets forth the following five assignments of error:
Assignment of Error No. 1
Defendant-Appellant was denied his right to due process and a fundamentally fair jury trial as well as his right to a meaningful opportunity to present a defense under U.S. Const. mend. V, VI and XIV, Ohio Const. rt. I, §10 and 16, and the common law of this state, as a result of (a) the trial court's instruction to the jury that "the affirmative defense of self-defense is not available for the lesser [included] offense of voluntary manslaughter" and (b) the arguments by the prosecutor to the same effect.
Assignment of Error No. 2
Defendant-Appellant was denied his right to due process and a fundamentally fair jury trial as well as his right to a meaningful opportunity to present a defense under U.S. Const. mend. V, VI and XIV, Ohio Const. rt. I, §10 and 16, and the common law of this state, as a result of (a) the misstatements of law by the prosecutor during closing argument to the effect that to be entitled to exercise the privilege of self-defense in his own home, Defendant-Appellant had a duty to remain confined in his bedroom while his assailant waited for him outside the bedroom door with a weapon in his hand and (b) the omission of a "Peacock" instruction in the general charge on self-defense regarding the accused's right to use deadly force, if necessary, to repel his assailant from his home.
Assignment of Error No. 3
Defendant-Appellant was denied his right to due process and a fundamentally fair jury trial under U.S. Const. mend. V, VI and XIV and Ohio Const. rt. I, §10 and 16 as a result of the prosecutor's decision to wait until the close of the State's case before revealing that he was not prepared to prove the felony conviction underlying the two weapons under disability counts of the indictment. Proceeding on the assumption that evidence regarding the prior conviction would be introduced into evidence to prove those counts, defense counsel and the trial judge made disclosures and comments to the prospective jurors during the voir dire proceedings that exposed them to otherwise inadmissible and damaging information regarding Defendant-Appellant's character and infringed upon his constitutional right to remain silent.
Assignment of Error No. 4
Defendant-Appellant was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed to him under U.S. Const. mend. VI and XIV as a result of defense counsel's failure
(a) to take the corrective action necessary to protect his client's rights with respect to the errors that are the subject of Assignments of Error Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and (b) to request an instruction on the lesser included offense of reckless manslaughter.
Assignment of Error No. 5
The maximum prison term imposed by the court of common pleas is not supported by the evidence and is contrary to law.
{ } In spring 2002, defendant and Joanne Hayes moved to Columbus from Youngstown and lived together as a couple in an apartment on the city's west side. Braeon Kitchen, Hayes' eight-year-old grandson, lived with them. By summer 2003, problems had surfaced in the couple's relationship; however, they continued to live together and remained somewhat romantically involved.
{ } In mid-July 2003, Hayes' 13-year-old great-nephew, Joshua Walker, came to visit for a few days. Around the same time, Mark Williams, a self-employed h
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|