Case Title: State v. Owens

Citation: 2020-Ohio-4616

Docket Number: 2019-0980

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2020-09-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
v. Owens, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4616.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2020-OHIO-4616 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. OWENS, APPELLANT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State v. Owens, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4616.] 
Criminal law—Lesser included offenses—Because felony murder, R.C. 2903.02(B), 
has no mens rea requirement in regard to the death of a victim and reckless 
homicide, R.C. 2903.041, has a mens rea of recklessness, reckless homicide 
is not a lesser included offense of felony murder. 
(No. 2019-0980—Submitted June 17, 2020—Decided September 30, 2020.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 107494, 
2019-Ohio-2221. 
_________________ 
DEWINE, J. 
{¶ 1} A jury convicted Ursula Owens of felony murder after she beat a five-
year-old girl causing the child to die of a brain injury.  We must decide whether 
Owens was entitled to a jury instruction for reckless homicide as a lesser included 
offense to the felony-murder charge.  Because felony murder has no mens rea 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
requirement in regard to the death of a victim, whereas reckless homicide has the 
mens rea of recklessness, reckless homicide is not a lesser included offense of 
felony murder.  As a consequence, the trial court did not err in refusing to provide 
the requested instruction.  The court of appeals reached the same conclusion, so we 
affirm its judgment. 
Ursula Owens is convicted of felony murder 
{¶ 2} On the evening of March 17, 2017, a five-year-old girl was admitted 
to a hospital.  She died a day later from a traumatic brain injury. 
{¶ 3} At the time of her death, the victim lived with her mother, Tequila 
Crump, and Owens, her mother’s fiancée.  Owens’s son testified at trial about the 
events leading to the child’s tragic death.  On the morning in question, he awoke to 
the sound of Owens and Crump screaming at the child.  He recounted that Crump 
“popped” the child several times in the arm.  Apparently thinking this was 
insufficiently harsh discipline, Owens proceeded to punch the child’s stomach, 
arms, and head, and stepped on the child’s back.  During the beating, Owens picked 
the child up and threw her twice—first against the wall and then against a dresser.  
The child lost consciousness.  Crump and Owens placed the child on a bed and tried 
to wake her but were unsuccessful.  It was not until later in the evening that Crump, 
upon noticing that the child’s heartbeat had slowed, called 9-1-1 and the child was 
taken to a hospital.  She died the following morning. 
{¶ 4} Owens was charged with aggravated murder, felony murder, and child 
endangering.  Owens’s trial attorney asked the court to instruct the jury on reckless 
homicide as a lesser included offense of the murder charges.  The court gave the 
instruction but only with regard to aggravated murder, not felony murder.  Owens’s 
counsel did not object to the failure to give the instruction. 
{¶ 5} The jury found Owens guilty of felony murder based on the felonious 
assault of the child, which caused the child’s death.  As to the aggravated-murder 
January Term, 2020 
 
3
charge, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty, instead finding her guilty of the 
lesser included offense of reckless homicide. 
{¶ 6} Owens appealed to the Eighth District Court of Appeals.  She argued 
there, as here, that the trial court erred by not giving a reckless-homicide instruction 
as a lesser included offense of felony murder.  The court of appeals rejected this 
argument.  Referencing this court’s decision in State v. Nolan, 141 Ohio St.3d 454, 
2014-Ohio-4800, 25 N.E.3d 1016, ¶ 9, the court reasoned that felony murder was a 
kind of strict-liability offense, because it does not include a culpable mental state 
with regard to causing another’s death.  Reckless homicide, in contrast, requires 
that one recklessly cause the death of another.  Because an offense can be a lesser 
included offense of another only if it is not possible to commit the greater offense 
without also committing the lesser offense, the court concluded that reckless 
homicide was not a lesser included offense of felony murder. 
Because Owens did not object to the jury instructions, we review for plain error 
{¶ 7} At the outset, we note that Owens’s attorney did not object to the jury 
instructions provided by the trial court.  Under Crim.R. 30(A), “[o]n appeal, a party 
may not assign as error the giving or the failure to give any instructions unless the 
party objects before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating specifically the 
matter objected to and the grounds of the objection.”  When a defendant fails to 
object to the jury instructions, she waives all but plain error.  See State v. Diar, 120 
Ohio St.3d 460, 2008-Ohio-6266, 900 N.E.2d 565, ¶ 127.  As we explain, we find 
no error, plain or otherwise, in the trial court’s instructions on felony murder. 
Reckless homicide is not a lesser included offense of felony murder with a 
felonious-assault predicate 
{¶ 8} A criminal defendant is sometimes entitled to a jury instruction that 
allows the jury to consider convicting the defendant of a lesser included offense as 
an alternative to convicting for the offense for which the defendant was charged.  
State v. Thomas, 40 Ohio St.3d 213, 216-218, 533 N.E.2d 286 (1988).  An offense 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
qualifies as a lesser included offense when “the greater offense as statutorily 
defined cannot be committed without the lesser offense as statutorily defined also 
being committed.”  State v. Evans, 122 Ohio St.3d 381, 2009-Ohio-2974, 911 
N.E.2d 889, ¶ 26.  In making this assessment, a court compares the elements of 
each crime.  Id. at ¶ 14.  An offense that includes an element that another offense 
lacks cannot be a lesser included offense of that other offense. 
{¶ 9} Looking to the felony-murder and reckless-homicide statutes, it is 
apparent that reckless homicide is not a lesser included offense of felony murder.  
Ohio’s felony-murder statute, R.C. 2903.02(B), provides: “No person shall cause 
the death of another as a proximate result of the offender’s committing or 
attempting to commit an offense of violence that is a felony of the first or second 
degree and that is not [voluntary or involuntary manslaughter].”  Offenses of 
violence are defined, in part, by referring to a specified list of Revised Code 
provisions.  R.C. 2901.01(A)(9)(a).  Felonious assault, R.C. 2903.11, is on that list 
and hence can serve as a predicate offense for a felony-murder charge.  A person 
commits felonious assault when one “knowingly” causes “serious physical harm to 
another or to another’s unborn.”  R.C. 2903.11(A)(1).  So, taken together, a person 
commits felony murder with a felonious-assault predicate when she knowingly 
causes serious physical harm to another and that conduct is the proximate cause of 
another’s death. 
{¶ 10} Thus, to prove felony murder, no mens rea element with regard to 
the death of the victim need be shown.  State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163, 2010-
Ohio-1017, 926 N.E.2d 1239, ¶ 43 (“R.C. 2903.02(B), the felony-murder statute, 
does not contain a mens rea component”).  While the defendant must satisfy all the 
elements of the qualifying predicate offense—including any mens rea element 
specific to that criminal act—the felony-murder statute imposes no additional mens 
rea element with regard to the victim’s death.  For this reason, we have 
characterized “[t]he felony-murder statute [as imposing] what is in essence strict 
January Term, 2020 
 
5
liability.”  State v. Nolan, 141 Ohio St.3d 454, 2014-Ohio-4800, 25 N.E.3d 1016,  
¶ 9. 
{¶ 11} In contrast, R.C. 2903.041, the reckless-homicide statute, contains a 
mens rea element with regard to the death of the victim.  The statute defines reckless 
homicide as “recklessly caus[ing] the death of another or the unlawful termination 
of another’s pregnancy.” 
{¶ 12} It is evident then that reckless homicide has an element that felony 
murder lacks—recklessness with regard to the death of the victim.  As a result, 
reckless homicide is not a lesser included offense of felony murder. 
{¶ 13} This all seems clear enough.  But despite the statutory definitions of 
the two crimes, Owens insists that the mens rea for the predicate felony-assault 
offense gets imported into the felony-murder provision, so that in this case, the 
felony-murder statute has a mens rea of “knowingly” causing the victim’s death.  
Thus, she claims, reckless homicide is a lesser included offense of felony murder 
with a felony-assault predicate because “reckless” is a lesser culpable mental state 
than “knowing.” 
{¶ 14} But that’s not right.  The elements of each crime are defined by 
statute.  To commit felonious assault, a person must knowingly cause serious 
physical harm.  Whereas to commit reckless homicide, a person must recklessly 
cause the death of another.  For the felony-murder offense, the mens rea element 
(knowingly) applies only to the predicate felonious-assault charge.  There is no 
separate mens rea requirement with regard to the victim’s death. 
{¶ 15} Obviously one can knowingly cause serious physical harm without 
knowingly—or even recklessly—causing another’s death.  To see why, consider 
that substantial physical harm is defined to include, among other things, permanent 
or temporary substantial disfigurement or acute pain resulting in substantial 
suffering, R.C. 2901.01(A)(5).  And one can imagine many acts that may cause 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
extreme pain or disfigurement but are highly unlikely to cause death, and hence 
would fail to even be reckless with regard to the possibility of death. 
{¶ 16} Because reckless homicide includes an element that felony murder 
lacks—being reckless with regard to the possibility of causing a death—it is 
possible for a person to commit felony murder without necessarily committing 
reckless homicide. For that reason, reckless homicide is not a lesser included 
offense of felony murder with a felonious-assault predicate. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 17} Reckless homicide is not a lesser included offense of felony murder 
with a felonious-assault predicate.  As a consequence, the trial court did not err in 
refusing to provide an instruction on reckless homicide.  We affirm the judgment 
of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., concurs in judgment only. 
DONNELLY, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion. 
_________________ 
DONNELLY, J., concurring in judgment only. 
{¶ 18} Based on the facts of this case, an instruction to the jury that reckless 
homicide is a lesser included offense of felony murder was not warranted. 
{¶ 19} I am reluctant, however, to state unequivocally, as the majority 
opinion does, that “reckless homicide is not a lesser included offense of felony 
murder.”  Majority opinion at ¶ 16.  It is unnecessary to make such a sweeping 
declaration in this case, and it also seems unwise to do so without discussing State 
v. Trimble, 122 Ohio St.3d 297, 2009-Ohio-2961, 911 N.E.2d 422, a case in which 
this court stated that reckless homicide is a lesser included offense of aggravated 
felony murder, id. at ¶ 187-191. 
January Term, 2020 
 
7
{¶ 20} I am not convinced that reckless homicide can never be a lesser 
included offense of felony murder.  The better course is to simply decide the case 
before us, without handicapping all future defendants seeking a reckless-homicide 
instruction in a felony-murder case.  Accordingly, I concur in judgment only. 
_________________ 
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
Brandon A. Piteo, Jennifer M. Meyer, and Anna Faraglia, Assistant Prosecuting 
Attorneys, for appellee. 
Law Office of Timothy Farrell Sweeney and Timothy F. Sweeney, for 
appellant. 
_________________