State v. Price (Slip Opinion), 166 N.E.3d 1155

On Aug. 1–2, 2016, Mark Price sold a gram of heroin (later shown to contain fentanyl) via an intermediary to James Dawson; Dawson was found dead the next morning and toxicology identified fentanyl as the primary cause of death.
Price was arrested after a controlled purchase; authorities found matching powder containing heroin and fentanyl in multiple locations.
Indictment charged Price with, inter alia, corrupting another with drugs (R.C. 2925.02(A)(3)) and involuntary manslaughter; at trial Price sought a jury instruction based on Burrage v. United States.
The trial court rejected Price’s requested Burrage-form instruction but instructed the jury using a but-for causation definition and language that the existence of other causes is not a defense.
The jury acquitted on manslaughter but convicted on corrupting-another-with-drugs counts; the Eighth District affirmed the instruction as not an abuse of discretion and sua sponte certified a conflict with the Fifth District’s Kosto decision.
The Ohio Supreme Court (1) held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the jury instruction, (2) found no true conflict with Kosto and dismissed that certified-conflict case as improvidently certified, and (3) explained Burrage is persuasive but not controlling Ohio law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2925.02(A)(3)’s "cause serious physical harm" requires instructing the jury that the distributor’s drug use must be both a but-for cause and an independently sufficient cause of harm	State: Trial court’s instruction (but-for definition plus other-causes-not-a-defense language) adequately conveyed required causation and did not permit conviction on mere contribution	Price: Jury must be instructed that the distributor’s drug ingestion was either an independently sufficient cause or, if not, a but-for cause (relying on Burrage)	The court affirmed: trial court did not abuse its discretion; its instructions required but-for causation and addressed independently sufficient causes; Burrage persuasive but not binding and did not mandate the specific instruction Price sought

Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014) (federal statute construed to require but-for causation unless the distributed drug use was independently sufficient to cause death)
State v. White, 142 Ohio St.3d 277 (2015) (trial courts have broad discretion in jury instructions but must give all relevant and necessary instructions)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (2002) (failure to make a specific objection to jury-instruction language forfeits that complaint on appeal)
State v. Burnett, 93 Ohio St.3d 419 (2001) (U.S. Supreme Court statutory interpretations do not bind state courts on state-law issues)
State v. Comen, 50 Ohio St.3d 206 (1990) (trial court must fully and completely give jury instructions relevant to the facts)
State v. Griffin, 141 Ohio St.3d 392 (2014) (courts should avoid redundant or confusing jury instructions)