State v. Goff, 2013 Ohio 42

Megan Goff began living near William Goff as a minor, later married him, and alleges years of emotional abuse and threats by William.
By late 2005–early 2006 Megan left the marital home with her children after William threatened to kill them and after domestic violence charges led to removal of firearms from the home.
Megan and children stayed at a Kentucky DV shelter and then in West Virginia; William allegedly tracked them down.
In March 2006 Megan recorded a phone call where William acknowledged prior threats; on March 18, 2006 she drove to William’s home armed with two handguns intending to persuade him, not the children.
William blocked the door; Megan shot him multiple times and called 911 claiming she feared further harm to herself and the children.
Megan was indicted by a grand jury on one count of aggravated murder with a firearm specification; after prior appellate history, she faced a 2011 jury trial on self-defense and battered-woman’s-syndrome defenses, resulting in a murder conviction with a firearm specification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty to retreat in self-defense instruction	Goff: no duty to retreat as cohabitant/home not applicable	State: duty to retreat applicable; instruction should include it	Court did not abuse discretion; instruction permissible as Megan wasn’t a cohabitant at the time
Dismissal for grand jury recording deficiencies	Goff: incomplete grand jury record tainted indictment	State: indictment valid on face; irregular recording plea should have been Crim.R.29 review	Indictment valid on its face; no dismissal; any error was harmless as to outcome
Imperfect self-defense instruction	Goff: imperfect self-defense should mitigate to voluntary manslaughter	Ohio does not recognize imperfect self-defense	No error; court correctly refused to give nonrecognized doctrine instruction
Voluntary manslaughter instruction and prejudice	Goff: murder instruction precluded consideration of voluntary manslaughter	Evidence did not show provocation or sudden passion; no prejudice shown	Even if juries precluded from manslaughter instruction, no reversible prejudice given trial record
Motion to disqualify prosecutor and detective	Goff: prejudice from relationships requires disqualification	No substantial prejudice shown; relationships did not affect defense	Court did not abuse discretion; motion to disqualify denied

State v. Comen, 50 Ohio St.3d 206 (1990) (trial court must give relevant and necessary jury instructions; de novo review for sufficiency of evidence to support instructions)
State v. Redecker, 4th Dist. No. 08CA33 (2010) (standard for determining if a requested instruction is warranted based on evidence)
State v. Mitts, 81 Ohio St.3d 223 (1998) (abuse of discretion in instruction determination; sufficiency standard)
State v. Wolons, 44 Ohio St.3d 64 (1989) (abuse-of-discretion framework for jury instructions)
State v. Hendrickson, 4th Dist. No. 08CA12 (2009) (self-defense standards in Ohio apply to injury/fatality cases)
State v. Rhodes, 63 Ohio St.3d 613 (1992) (voluntary manslaughter elements require provocation and both objective/subjective tests)
State v. Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d 630 (1992) (standard for objective provocation and mitigating instruction)
State v. Benge, 75 Ohio St.3d 136 (1996) (instruction to consider mitigating evidence when voluntary manslaughter is possible)
State v. Grewell, 45 Ohio St.3d 4 (1989) (Crim.R. 22 recording requirements for grand jury proceedings)
State v. Henness, 10th Dist. No. 94APA02-240 (1996) (right to inspect grand jury materials upon showing particularized need)
State v. Murphey, 61 Ohio St.3d 585 (1991) (standard for evaluating requested jury instructions; de novo review)