State v. Hart
2016 Ohio 8169
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Houston Hart and victim Joseph Meyers, both residents of the Toledo Gospel Mission, got into a quarrel on August 3, 2013; Hart punched, threw Meyers down stairs, kicked his head, and Meyers later died of his injuries.
- Hart was indicted on two murder counts: under R.C. 2903.02(A) and R.C. 2903.02(B). Trial by jury resulted in acquittal on the (A) count and conviction on the (B) count.
- Defense requested a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter (lesser-included offense), arguing Hart acted in a sudden fit of rage provoked by Meyers’ words and an obscene gesture; the trial court denied the instruction.
- At trial Hart testified he was provoked, ‘‘blacked out,’’ and intended only to ‘‘beat him up’’ not kill; eyewitnesses saw the assault but none saw the obscene gesture.
- At sentencing the court imposed costs (including costs of appointed counsel); Hart argued the court failed to consider his ability to pay.
- The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed Hart’s murder conviction and the imposition of costs.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Hart's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing voluntary manslaughter instruction | No: evidence insufficient to show "serious provocation" or that an ordinary person would be aroused beyond control | Yes: victim’s repeated nagging and obscene gesture caused sudden passion and justified the instruction | Court: No error — provocation was not reasonably sufficient; instruction properly denied |
| Whether court abused discretion by imposing costs without considering ability to pay | Costs of prosecution are mandatory; record supports finding Hart may reasonably be expected to pay | Court failed to consider Hart’s indigency and Social Security/mission residence | Court: No abuse — statute permits assessment; record supported trial court’s finding Hart may have means to pay |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wolons, 44 Ohio St.3d 64 (discretionary review of jury instructions; abuse-of-discretion standard)
- State v. Rhodes, 63 Ohio St.3d 613 (defendant bears burden to persuade factfinder of mitigating elements for lesser offense)
- State v. Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d 630 (provocation must be reasonably sufficient; words alone generally insufficient)
- State v. Mack, 82 Ohio St.3d 198 (two-part provocation inquiry: objective then subjective)
- State v. Harris, 129 Ohio App.3d 527 (definition/examples of sudden passion/rage)