 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Smith12/9/2004
ticized defendant about defendant's relationship with Hayes. The evidence further established that Williams, a much larger man than defendant, threw defendant to the floor twice during their first physical altercation and then threatened him with a candlestick. When defendant went into the bedroom, Williams waited for him outside the bedroom door, armed with the candlestick. Defendant did not shoot Williams immediately after he emerged from the bedroom with the gun; rather, the two engaged in a second physical altercation. Although it is unclear exactly what transpired in the moments preceding the shooting, a properly instructed jury might reasonably have inferred from the surrounding facts and circumstances that Williams' aggressive actions leading up to the shooting could have caused defendant to believe that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his only means of escape was the use of deadly force.
{ } In short, construing the facts in a light most favorable to defendant, sufficient evidence was adduced at trial to justify a self-defense charge to voluntary manslaughter. Thus, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court's erroneous instruction, compounded by the prosecution's erroneous statement, completely deprived defendant of his only possible defense to the voluntary manslaughter charge. Defendant admitted that he shot Williams. Since the jury had decided to acquit defendant of aggravated murder and murder, the trial court's instruction left the question of whether he was guilty of voluntary manslaughter open and shut for the jury. In other words, defendant having conceded that he fired the fatal shot, the trial court's instruction assured the prosecution a conviction on voluntary manslaughter, even if the jury were to find that defendant killed Williams in self-defense. The effect of the trial court's erroneous instruction and the prosecution's argument was to completely deprive defendant of his defense-on which he had at least a reasonable possibility of prevailing-and to ensure his conviction.
{ } A criminal defendant has a right under the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense to a properly instructed jury. Barker v. Yukins (C.A.6, 1999), 199 F.3d 867, 875, citing California v. Trombetta (1984), 467 U.S. 479, 485, 104 S.Ct. 2528. Here, instead of having a meaningful opportunity to present a full and vigorous defense, defendant's claim of self-defense was completely eviscerated by the trial court's instruction that self-defense does not apply to voluntary manslaughter. Under the circumstances, it cannot be presumed that the jury would not have acquitted defendant had it been properly instructed. Thus, the trial court's error, compounded by the prosecution's erroneous statement, constituted plain error, resulting in the conclusion that defendant must be given a new trial. Accordingly, the first assignment of error is well-taken.
{ } In his second assignment of error, defendant contends the prosecution improperly asserted in closing argument that defendant's decision to return to his bedroom, retrieve a gun, and then expel Williams from the apartment precluded him from relying on the defense of self-defense. Defendant further contends the trial court erred in omitting from its general charge on the third element of self-defense the "Peacock" instruction found in 4 Ohio Jury Instructions (2003), Section 411.31(4), which delineates the right of a defendant who has been attacked in his own home to use such force as is reasonably necessary, including deadly force, to repel an assailant from the defendant's home.
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.
|
|