Opinion

State v. Trimble

  • 122 Ohio St. 3d 297
  • 911 N.E.2d 242
  • 2009 Ohio 2961
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Jun 30, 2009
Status
Published
Author
Pfeifer
On the bench
Moyer, Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, Pfeifer
Cited by
288 cases

concluding that Reckless Homicide is a lesser-included offense of felony murder, because, among other things, “a defendant cannot cause the death of a person under R.C. 2903.01(B) without also causing the death of that person under R.C. 2903.041. In purposely causing the death of another, one has to first become reckless in causing the death of another.”

How later courts described this case

  • concluding that Reckless Homicide is a lesser-included offense of felony murder, because, among other things, “a defendant cannot cause the death of a person under R.C. 2903.01(B) without also causing the death of that person under R.C. 2903.041. In purposely causing the death of another, one has to first become reckless in causing the death of another.”
  • holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel’s motion for a mistrial because “[n]othing in the record shows that the outburst had any effect on the jury” and “the trial court’s admonitions focused the jury on the evidence and away from the outburst.”
  • determining that defendant could not establish prejudice resulting from trial counsel’s failure to excuse jurors when jurors indicated that they could decide the case based upon the facts presented at trial and could fairly and impartially decide the case
  • concluding that, even if trial court’s refusal to instruct on reckless homicide was error, it was harmless because the jury could have found defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter instead of aggravated murder

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Pfeifer, J.,

concurring.

{¶ 332} At trial, the prosecutor presented and the trial court allowed unnecessary evidence, including 19 firearms that were not involved in the murders and dozens of pictures that were repetitive. I am troubled by the inclusion of evidence that was so rife with potential prejudice. See Evid.R. 401 and 403. Although whether the jury was prejudiced by this evidence is a close call, I reach the same conclusion as the majority and therefore concur in affirming the sentence of death.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.