2020 Ohio 5045
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Rubin L. Williams (defendant-appellant) moved to certify a conflict under App.R. 25, asserting this court’s affirmance of his involuntary manslaughter conviction conflicted with the Fifth District’s decision in State v. Kosto.
- Williams was convicted for supplying fentanyl that led to a victim’s death; the coroner testified the fentanyl dose was lethal and that the victim would not have died but for the fentanyl.
- Kosto involved a mixed-drug overdose (heroin and cocaine) where the defendant did not supply all drugs; the Fifth District reversed for insufficient evidence that the defendant’s heroin caused death.
- This court reviewed Kosto, criticized parts of its interpretation of Burrage v. United States, but found Williams’s case factually distinguishable from Kosto.
- The court held the record here supported a finding that fentanyl was either an independent lethal cause or a but-for cause of death, and therefore denied Williams’s motion to certify a conflict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this court’s judgment conflicts with Kosto such that certification is required | No true conflict; cases differ on facts and legal rule not disturbed | There is a conflict: Kosto allegedly bars conviction when death is mixed overdose and defendant didn’t supply all drugs | Denied — no actual conflict on a rule of law; cases are factually distinguishable |
| Whether a coroner may opine a supplied drug was an independent (lethal) cause despite mixed drugs in system | Coroner’s opinion that fentanyl was lethal and would have prevented death absent it is admissible and sufficient | Coroner cannot isolate cause in mixed overdose; conviction improper if not charged with all drugs | Held coroner may so opine; evidence here supported independent or but-for causation |
| Whether Kosto misinterpreted Burrage’s but‑for causation test | Kosto misread Burrage; but-for asks whether death would not have occurred without the drug, not the narrowed phrasing Kosto quoted | Kosto’s reading requires expert to say the drug alone would have killed | Court agreed Kosto misinterpreted the quoted language from Burrage |
| Whether issue presented is proper and dispositive for certification under App.R. 25 | Certification reserved for true conflicts on a rule of law that are dispositive; this issue is not suitable | The proposed issue (inability to identify causal drug in mixed overdose) is dispositive and warrants certification | Denied — proposed issue not dispositive here and certification inappropriate due to factual distinctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014) (discusses but-for causation in drug-related death cases)
- Whitelock v. Gilbane Bldg. Co., 66 Ohio St.3d 594 (1993) (conflict certification requires true legal conflict; factual differences insufficient)
- State ex rel. Davet v. Sutula, 963 N.E.2d 811 (Ohio 2012) (issue proposed for certification must be dispositive)