State v. Pierce

64 Ohio St. 2d 281 (1980)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

As early as November 11, 1976, D threatened LaPorte with serious bodily harm because LaPorte was spending time with D's wife. Also, as of that same date, D and his wife were contemplating legal separation. Several days later, D agreed to a divorce on the condition that his wife would not see LaPorte or any other man for two months. Shortly thereafter, D agreed to permit his wife to see LaPorte in public. Upon seeing them together in public, D became upset and decided to leave Massillon for a while. On the night of December 16, 1976, with D's return to Massillon, D admitted telephoning his wife at her home. LaPorte was there and D threatened him with serious bodily harm. D's wife telephoned the police. The police report includes (1) D's wife's statement that D was holding a gun to the telephone and clicking it during his conversation with her; and (2) LaPorte's statement that D had threatened to kill him. While the police were still on the scene, D telephoned a second time. Defendant admitted that he conversed with the police during this second call and that he informed them that he owned a .22 caliber weapon. Four witnesses testified that D had threatened LaPorte sometime during the months of November and December 1976. In a handwritten last will and testament dated December 18, 1976, D left his property to his sisters and his life insurance to his stepdaughter. The next day D purchased a Winchester 30-30 rifle from a local store. On December 22, 1976, D spoke to his wife, LaPorte, and some of his wife's relatives and friends on the telephone. During these calls, a fight between D and LaPorte, which never materialized, was discussed. At approximately 6:00 a.m. on December 23, D went hunting for LaPorte at his place of work. D learned from LaPorte's brother that LaPorte was still at home where he was preparing to depart for the restaurant. D drove to LaPorte's home. D arrived around 6:30 a.m. as LaPorte had just entered his vehicle. D repeatedly fired a long-barreled automatic weapon containing 30-30 ammunition at LaPorte, killing him. The killing was witnessed by LaPorte's mother. D fled the scene and admitted the killing to a Massillon newspaper editor. In 1977, D moved to Florida, and, in 1978, emigrated to Australia. Following ex-tradition proceedings, defendant was returned to the United States in 1979. D pleaded not guilty to aggravated murder. The jury was instructed on aggravated murder; on the lesser-included offenses of murder, R. C. 2903.02; on voluntary manslaughter, R. C. 2903.03; and on the defense of insanity. D was found guilty of aggravated murder and appealed. It was affirmed. D appealed. D claims the court's instruction on voluntary manslaughter was prejudicial because it included inadequate definitions of both extreme emotional distress and serious provocation. The appeals court held that D was not entitled to an instruction on voluntary manslaughter.