State v. Tate, 2016 Ohio 8421

On July 4, 2014, Walter D. Tate shot and killed his cousin James Brown after Brown made an inflammatory comment invoking Tate's childhood sexual assault; Brown died from a single gunshot.
Tate left the scene, fled to Michigan, and was later extradited to Ohio.
Indicted on aggravated murder, murder, and weapons charges with firearm and repeat violent offender specifications; pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter (first-degree felony) with a three-year firearm specification and a four-year repeat violent offender specification; remaining counts dismissed.
Trial court sentenced Tate to a mandatory total of 18 years (11 years for manslaughter, consecutive 3-year firearm term, and 4-year repeat violent offender term), plus five years post-release control and costs.
Tate appealed, challenging the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.12(B) (seriousness factors), arguing (1) the court erred in finding his relationship with the victim "facilitated" the offense, and (2) the court improperly relied on the imminence of the threat in assessing seriousness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court correctly found R.C. 2929.12(B)(6) — that the offender’s relationship with the victim facilitated the offense — applied	State argued the relationship and history between Tate and Brown supported a seriousness finding	Tate argued "facilitated" means "made the crime easier," and the familial relationship did not make commission easier, so the factor should not apply	Court agreed the record did not support application of R.C. 2929.12(B)(6) here (Tate’s first error has merit), but the error was harmless given other aggravating factors and recidivism findings
Whether the court improperly considered imminence of the threat and confused self-defense with manslaughter when assessing seriousness	State argued the non-imminent verbal threat supported a finding the offense was more serious than typical voluntary manslaughter	Tate argued the court conflated self-defense concepts and erred as a matter of law in weighing imminence	Court held the court permissibly considered the non-imminent nature of the threat as an "other relevant factor" under R.C. 2929.12(B); Tate’s challenge fails

Mathis v. Ohio, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006) (trial court need not address each statutory factor individually; may indicate it considered them)
Venes v. Ohio, 992 N.E.2d 453 (Ohio App. 2013) (discussion of appellate standard under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (clarifies appellate review and burden under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))