Opinion ID: 4510045
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: An altercation and a shooting

Text: {¶ 3} A jury found Ramiro Ramirez guilty of voluntary manslaughter for shooting and killing Dale Delauter. The following facts were presented at the trial. {¶ 4} One night, Ramirez and two friends had congregated outside a bowling alley near Ramirez’s car. Delauter lived across the street from the bowling alley. That night, he and his girlfriend were outside, engaged in a drunken argument. Apparently amused by the situation, one of Ramirez’s friends walked toward the couple and started recording the quarrel on his cell phone. The situation quickly escalated: heated words were exchanged, and Delauter hurled a racial slur at the friend. Delauter went into his house; his girlfriend warned that he was getting a gun. In response, Ramirez retrieved a pistol from his car and took cover behind the vehicle. When Delauter emerged from his house with a shotgun, Ramirez fired several shots, killing Delauter. There was conflicting testimony about whether 2 January Term, 2020 Delauter was pointing the gun toward Ramirez and his friends or was holding it down at his side. An unloaded shotgun was found near his body inside the house. B. A jury verdict followed by an order for a new trial {¶ 5} Ramirez was indicted for voluntary manslaughter in violation of R.C. 2903.03. That statute provides, “No person, while under the influence of sudden passion or in a sudden fit of rage, either of which is brought on by serious provocation occasioned by the victim that is reasonably sufficient to incite the person into using deadly force, shall knowingly cause the death of another   .” After the state rested, Ramirez twice moved for a judgment of acquittal under Crim.R. 29, on grounds that there was insufficient evidence that he was under the influence of sudden passion or a sudden fit of rage or that Delauter had provoked the response. See R.C. 2903.03. Relying upon our opinion in State v. Rhodes, the trial court denied the motions. See 63 Ohio St.3d 613, 590 N.E.2d 261 (1992). There, we said, albeit in dicta, that when a defendant is charged with voluntary manslaughter and not murder, “neither party is required to establish either of the mitigating circumstances.” Instead, “the court presumes (to the benefit of the defendant) the existence of one or both of the mitigating circumstances as a result of the prosecutor’s decision to try the defendant on the charge of voluntary manslaughter rather than murder.” Id. at 618. {¶ 6} The jury found Ramirez guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Ramirez then moved for a new trial under Crim.R. 33(A)(4). That provision provides: A new trial may be granted on motion of the defendant    [if] the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence or is contrary to law. If the evidence shows the defendant is not guilty of the degree of crime for which he was convicted, but guilty of a lesser crime included therein, the court may modify the verdict or finding 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO accordingly, without granting or ordering a new trial, and shall pass sentence on such verdict or finding as modified. Again, Ramirez argued that there was insufficient evidence of sudden passion and provocation. This time the trial court appears to have had a change of heart, and refused to apply the passage from Rhodes. Instead, the trial court concluded that when the state brings a stand-alone charge for voluntary manslaughter, it has the burden of proving passion and provocation. Explicitly invoking the sufficiency-ofthe-evidence standard, the trial court determined that after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, no rational trier of fact could have found that the passion and provocation elements had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. {¶ 7} The state was granted leave to appeal, but then the court of appeals refused to reach the merits of its arguments. The court held that after a finding of insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction, double-jeopardy principles prevented “any further proceedings, such as an appeal by the state or a retrial.” In addition, it concluded that the order granting a new trial was not appealable under R.C. 2945.67. That provision allows the state, in criminal cases, to appeal certain trialcourt decisions as a matter of right and any other decision, “except the final verdict,” by leave of court. The court of appeals reasoned that an order granting a new trial based on insufficient evidence was functionally an acquittal, and hence, a final verdict that could not be appealed. {¶ 8} As we explain, both conclusions were in error. Neither the doublejeopardy protection nor R.C. 2945.67 prevents the state from appealing an order granting a new trial based on insufficient evidence. 4 January Term, 2020