State v. Carreiro
988 N.E.2d 21
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Christine Minnix killed by her adoptive son Michael Carreiro in Middletown; Michael suffers from paranoid schizophrenia with multiple voices.
- Michael was indicted for aggravated murder, found incompetent, competency restored six years later, and reindicted with an insanity plea (NGRI).
- Police-interview evidence: Michael claimed voices commanded him to kill, including a voice he attributed to God, plus a third voice; he planned and executed the murder in a premeditated manner.
- Psychiatrists testified to severe mental illness; defense experts argued lack of moral wrongfulness, others argued Michael understood wrongfulness; dispute centered on defining 'wrongfulness' under R.C. 2901.01(A)(14).
- Trial court refused to give broader 'wrongfulness' instruction (deific decree) and instructed only that defendant must understand the act is legally wrong; jury found guilty of aggravated murder; sentence life with 20 years to serve.
- On appeal, court held no abuse of discretion; Staten-based legal standard for wrongfulness applied; deific-decree/moral-wrongfulness instruction not required; existing instruction was correct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by refusing the deific decree/moral wrongfulness instruction | Carreiro argues wrongfulness includes moral wrongfulness under NGRI. | State argues wrongfulness is solely legal wrongfulness under Staten/WC law. | No abuse of discretion; instruction correctly limited to legal wrongfulness; deific decree not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Staten, 18 Ohio St.2d 13 (1969) (defines wrongfulness for insanity inquiry (legal).)
- State v. Comen, 50 Ohio St.3d 206 (1990) (duty to instruct on applicable law to issues supported by evidence.)
- State v. Brewer, 2003-Ohio-5880 (2003) (distinguishes deific-decree language as dicta; focuses on correct law.)
- State v. Jennings, 2006-Ohio-3704 (2006) (deific decree issues discussed; held wrongfulness not moral regardless of belief.)
- State v. Myers, 2010-Ohio-4602 (2010) (supports limit on moral wrongfulness inquiry.)
- State v. Jakub, 1992 WL 14897 (1992) (early view limiting wrongfulness to legal wrong.)