State v. Ramirez (Slip Opinion), 151 N.E.3d 598

Ramirez shot and killed Dale Delauter after an altercation; conflicting testimony existed about whether Delauter pointed a shotgun at Ramirez.
Ramirez was indicted for voluntary manslaughter under R.C. 2903.03, which requires sudden passion or rage provoked by the victim.
At trial the state rested and the court denied two Crim.R. 29 motions for acquittal, applying State v. Rhodes (which treats mitigating circumstances as presumed in a voluntary manslaughter charge).
A jury convicted Ramirez of voluntary manslaughter; Ramirez then moved under Crim.R. 33(A)(4) for a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence of passion/provocation.
The trial court granted the new-trial motion, finding evidence insufficient; the court of appeals dismissed the state’s appeal, reasoning double jeopardy and R.C. 2945.67 barred the appeal.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding the state may appeal the new-trial order (though a retrial is barred if appeal fails).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether double-jeopardy bars the State from appealing a trial court order granting a new trial for insufficient evidence	State: Double-jeopardy prevents retrial but does not bar appellate review to reinstate a jury verdict	Ramirez: Any insufficiency finding functions as an acquittal, so double-jeopardy bars further proceedings including appeal	Court: Double-jeopardy bars retrial but not an appeal to reinstate the jury verdict or impose a lesser included offense
Whether R.C. 2945.67’s "final verdict" bar prevents the State from appealing a Crim.R. 33(A)(4) new-trial order based on insufficiency	State: A new-trial order is not a "final verdict" and is appealable by leave under R.C. 2945.67	Ramirez: Functionally final because double-jeopardy now forbids retrial, so it should be treated as a final verdict and unappealable	Court: "Final verdict" should be read as the term was understood at enactment; a new-trial order is not a final verdict and the State may appeal

Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (holding reversal for insufficiency bars retrial)
Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40 (new-trial grant for insufficiency bars retrial)
Evans v. Michigan, 568 U.S. 313 (any ruling that proof is insufficient is functionally an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes)
Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (appellate imposition of lesser included offense after conviction is permissible)
Martin Linen Supply Co. v. United States, 430 U.S. 564 (substance not form controls what constitutes an acquittal)
State v. Rhodes, 63 Ohio St.3d 613 (dicta relied on at trial regarding presumption of mitigating circumstances in voluntary manslaughter)
State v. Keeton, 18 Ohio St.3d 379 (pre-judgment acquittal under Crim.R. 29(A) is a final verdict under R.C. 2945.67)
State ex rel. Yates v. Montgomery Cty. Court of Appeals, 32 Ohio St.3d 30 (post-verdict Crim.R. 29(C) acquittal treated as final verdict under R.C. 2945.67)
State v. Matthews, 81 Ohio St.3d 375 (suggests state may appeal a trial court’s order granting a new trial)