ABELE
J.
This
is an appeal from a Pickaway County Common Pleas Court
judgment of conviction and sentence finding Beverly Seymour
defendant below and appellant herein, guilty of voluntary
manslaughter in violation of R.C. 2903.03 with a firearm
specification.
Appellant, through counsel, assigns the following errors:
FIRST
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT
WHEN IT DENIED HER MOTION FOR AN IN CAMERA
INSPECTION OF RELEVANT GRAND JURY TESTIMONY."
SECOND
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT
WHEN IT FAILED TO GRANT HER REQUEST FOR THE VOIR DIRE OF A
JUROR AFTER THE COURT HAD BEEN ADVISED THAT THE JUROR HAD
SPOKEN TO AN OUTSIDE PARTY DURING THE COURSE OF THE
TRIAL."
THIRD
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT
WHEN IT FAILED TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS AND EVIDENCE OBTAINED
AS THE RESULT OF AN ILLEGAL ARREST AND INTERROGATION."
FOURTH
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO SUPPRESS
APPELLANT'S INVOLUNTARY STATEMENTS, WHICH WERE OBTAINED
IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO
COUNSEL AND TO REMAIN SILENT."
FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"THE MISCONDUCT OF THE PROSECUTOR DURING TRIAL AND
CLOSING ARGUMENTS WAS SUCH THAT APPELLANT WAS DENIED A FAIR
TRIAL."
SIXTH
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY
GIVING IMPROPER, INCOMPLETE, AND INACCURATE INSTRUCTIONS TO
THE JURY."
SEVENTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT
WHEN IT ALLOWED APPELLANT TO BE CONVICTED USING EVIDENCE NOT
PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL."
EIGHTH
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE THE
[sic] APPELLANT WHEN IT ALLOWED THE PROSECUTION TO
INTRODUCE IMPROPER REBUTTAL TESTIMONY NOT PROVIDED THROUGH
DISCOVERY."
NINTH
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"OHIO'S REQUIREMENT THAT THE ACCUSED HAS THE BURDEN
OF PROOF REGARDING SELF-DEFENSE (R.C. 2901.05) IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THIS CASE BECAUSE APPELLANT ALSO HAD THE
BURDEN, UNDER THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN, TO PROVE THAT SHE
WAS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF A SUDDEN PASSION OR IN A SUDDEN
FIT OF RAGE, AS RELATED TO THE LESSER OFFENSE OF VOLUNTARY
MANSLAUGHTER, DESPITE THE FACT THAT SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT
CONSTITUTE UNLAWFUL CONDUCT, ALL IN VIOLATION OF ThE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION."
TENTH
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"TRIAL COUNSEL'S CONDUCT WAS SUCH THAT APPELLANT, TO
HER PREJUDICE, WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL, IN VIOLATION OF SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 TO THE OHIO
CONSTITUTION."
ELEVENTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO COMPLY WITH APP.R.
9, THEREBY DENYING APPELLANT HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO A
FULL, FAIR, AND MEANINGFUL APPELLATE REVIEW BASED ON A
COMPLETE RECORD AND EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE
COUNSEL."
TWELFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS PREVENTED APPELLANT FROM
OBTAINING A FULL, FAIR AND MEANINGFUL REVIEW OF HER
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE ON APPEAL AND FROM OBTAINING
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL BY ARBITRARILY
DENYING HER REQUEST TO FILE A BRIEF IN EXCESS OF THIRTY-FIVE
PAGES."
Appellant
raises the following fifteen assignments of errors pro
se:
FIRST
PRO SE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"THE ELEMENTS OF VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER WERE NOT
ESTABLISHED OR PROVED AND THE VERDICT SHOULD BE SET ASIDE, AS
IT VIOLATED DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS."
SECOND
PRO SE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"THE COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT INSTRUCTED THAT
DEFENDANT HAD TO BE `IN FEAR OF DEATH' IN ORDER TO USE
SELF-DEFENSE IN HER OWN HOME (OBJECTED TO BY DEFENSE
COUNSEL). THIS VIOLATED DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
TO DUE PROCESS, AND TO SELF-DEFENSE."
THIRD
PRO SE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"THE COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO FULLY
INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE OHIO LAW OF `NO DUTY TO RETREAT FROM
ONE'S HOME,' VIOLATING HER CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS."
FOURTH
PRO SE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"THE COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR IN ITS JURY
INSTRUCTIONS ON THE MEANING OF `REASONABLE DOUBT.'"
FIFTH
PRO SE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"DEFENSE COUNSEL DISPLAYED INCOMPETENCY WHEN THEY DID
NOT OBJECT TO THE COURT'S DEFINITION OF `REASONABLE
DOUBT.'"
SIXTH
PRO SE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"THE COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING THE TESTIMONY OF SHERIFF
DWIGHT RADCLIFF BECAUSE THE TAKING INTO CUSTODY OF DEFENDANT
OUTSIDE HIS JURISDICTION VIOLATED DUE PROCESS OF LAW."
SEVENTH PRO SE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"THE COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING THE TESTIMONY OF SHERIFF
RADCLIFF BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT KNOWINGLY, WILLFULLY WAIVE
HER MIRANDA RIGHTS NOR `MAKE A STATEMENT'; HER
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE NOT PRESERVED."
EIGHTH
PRO SE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"BEVERLY SEYMOUR WAS ILLEGALLY ARRESTED AND HELD, IN
VIOLATION OF HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS."
NINTH
PRO SE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"THE ADMISSION OF THE GUN AND SEARCH OF SEYMOUR'S
CAR, AND THE MOTEL ROOM, WERE IMPROPER AND VIOLATED DUE
PROCESS OF LAW; AND TESTIMONY PERTAINING TO THE CAR AND ROOM
SEARCH, ROOM SEARCH, [sic] AND EVIDENCE GATHERED,
SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED."
TENTH
PRO SE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE INCOMPETENT IN REPRESENTING A
`SELF-DEFENSE' ARGUMENT FOR DEFENDANT WITHOUT ASKING FOR
PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING TO DETERMINE IF SHE SUFFERED FROM
BATTERED WOMAN'S SYNDROME. IF SO, BATTERED WOMAN'S
SYNDROME EXPERT TESTIMONY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO HELP
THE JURY UNDERSTAND HER `STATE OF MIND' AT THE TIME OF
THE INCIDENT. THEY ALSO REFUSED, UNDER OBJECTION FROM
DEFENDANT, TO CALL HER SISTER, JULIE BUSKIRK, WHO WAS WITH
HER, AND SAW HER `STATE OF MIND' THAT NIGHT."
ELEVENTH PRO SE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE
SEPARATE ARGUMENT AND DELIBERATION ON THE APPLICATION OF A
GUN SPECIFICATION TO HER CASE. THE APPLICATION OF THE GUN
SPEC TO A HOMEOWNER IN HER OWN HOME IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL."
TWELFTH PRO SE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"THE VERDICT IN THIS CASE VIOLATES THE AMERICAN
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF EVERY CITIZEN TO `KEEP AND BEAR
ARMS.' DEFENDANT WAS LITERALLY PUNISHED AN EXTRA THREE
YEARS FOR USING THE ONLY SELF-DEFENSE WEAPON PROTECTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION. SHE WAS NOT PROWLING THE STREETS OR A DANGER TO
HER SOCIETY. SHE WAS A HOMEOWNER, IN HER HOME, AND THE GUN
WAS IN HER HOME."
THIRTEENTH PRO SE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"DEFENDANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN AFTER HER
REQUEST, SHE WAS DENIED APPOINTMENT OF AN ATTORNEY AT HER
ARRAIGNMENT; SHE DID NOT KNOWINGLY WAIVE HER RIGHTS TO AN
ATTORNEY, OR TO A PRELIMINARY HEARING."
FOURTEENTH PRO SE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING THE TESTIMONY OF
DEPUTIES AT THE SCENE AND EVIDENCE GATHERED AT
DEFENDANT'S HOME AS THE SEARCH WAS DONE WITH NO SEARCH
WARRANT, NOT IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ARREST, AND WERE NOT
GIVEN PERMISSION TO ENTER THE PREMISES."
FIFTEENTH PRO SE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
"DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEYS WERE INCOMPETENT FOR NOT
OBJECTING TO THE ILLEGAL SEARCH OF DEFENDANT'S HOME AND
IMPROPERLY GATHERED EVIDENCE."
Appellant married Richard Reams on December 29, 1979. After
finding themselves unable to bear children, appellant and
Reams entered into a contract with Lee Stotski whereby
Stotski would attempt to become impregnated by Reams and bear
a child for appellant and Reams to raise as their own.
Although Stotski's attempts to become pregnant by Reams
failed, she did become pregnant by another man, bore a child
on January 13, 1985, and gave the child to appellant and
Reams. Appellant and Reams named the child Tessa Reams.
On May
19, 1987, appellant filed for divorce from Reams. The divorce
became final in February 1988, but did not resolve the issue
of Tessa's custody. On August 20, 1990, after protracted
litigation on the custody issue, Judge Ronald Solove of the
Franklin County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division,
announced his decision to award custody of Tessa to Richard
Reams. Appellant left the courtroom before Judge Solove
finished announcing his decision. The decision became
journalized at approximately 2:00 p.m. on August 27, 1990.
Richard Reams, traveling with two certified copies of the
judgment entry, arrived at appellant's residence in
Pickaway County sometime between 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. that
same afternoon to obtain custody of Tessa. Neither appellant
nor Tessa were home. Appellant's uncle William Seymour,
who shared the kitchen portion of appellant's apartment,
let Reams inside the apartment, made him a cup of coffee, and
gave him permission to use the telephone. William Seymour
then left appellant's apartment and went into his
adjoining apartment to wash a shirt and read his mail.
Reams
used appellant's telephone to make approximately six
calls. He billed four long distance calls to his mother's
Delaware County residence where he was living at the time. At
4:39 p.m., Reams called his attorney at her home for advice.
She advised Reams to call the sheriff's department to
notify them that appellant had absconded with Tessa. Reams
called the sheriff's department at 4:45 p.m. and notified
them about the situation.
At
4:51 p.m. Reams called his attorney for more advice. She
informed Reams that she would attempt to reach Judge Solove
at home and ask him to call the sheriff's department. At
4:56 p.m. and again at 4:59 p.m., Reams called his
mother's...
