State v. Poole

• Decision Date: 14 March 1973
• Docket Number: No. 72-477,72-477
• Citation: 294 N.E.2d 888,62 O.O.2d 340,33 Ohio St.2d 18
• Parties: , 63 A.L.R.3d 932, 62 O.O.2d 340 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. POOLE, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 18

33 Ohio St.2d 18

294 N.E.2d 888, 63 A.L.R.3d 932, 62 O.O.2d 340

The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v.POOLE, Appellant.

No. 72-477.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

March 14, 1973.

Syllabus by the Court

In a trial upon a charge of murder in the first degree, the defense that the gun used in the killing accidentally discharged is not an affirmative defense, and a charge to the jury that the burden of proving such defense by a preponderance of the evidence rests upon the defendant is erroneous.(Jones v. State, 51 Ohio St. 331, 38 N.E. 79, followed.)

On June 10, 1970, a jury found appellant, Arthur Poole, guilty or murder in the first degree.In the course of his trial, appellant attempted to show that the killing was accidental.Before retiring to consider the matter, the jury was charged by the trial court that 'the burden of proving the defense of accident or accidental homicide in this case is upon the defendant.He must establish such defense by a preponderance of the evidence.'

Upon appeal, appellant contended that the trial court was in 'error in instructing the jury that the defendant must prove accident by a preponderance of the evidence, which error misled the jury as to the nature of the burden relative to the element of intent and which error prejudiced the accused to the extent that it left the jury with the idea that (it) had become the duty of the defendant to establish his innocence to obtain an acquittal.'The Court of Appeals rejected this argument and affirmed the conviction.

The cause is before this court pursuant to our allowance of appellant's motion for leave to appeal.

John T. Corrigan, Pros.Atty., and Curtis L. Smith, Cleveland, for appellee.

Tuma, Kurtz, Gray & Modica, and Donald A. Modica, Cleveland, for appellant.

HERBERT, Justice.

The question which prompted our allowance of the motion for leave to appeal in this first degree under case is whether defendant's contention that the killing was an accident is an affirmative defense, requiring the defendant to establish it by a preponderance of the evidence.

This court has consistently recognized that there are certain 'justification(s) for admitted conduct'¹ allowed to a defendant in a criminal case, provable for the most part under the plea of not guilty, which are referred to as 'affirmative defenses.'As characterized by one authority, they represent not a mere denial or contradiction of evidence which the prosecution has offered as proof of an essential element of the crime charged, but, rather, they represent a substantive or independent matter 'which the defendant claims exempts him from liability even if it is conceded that the facts claimed by the prosecution are true.'²Among those defenses, in Ohio, are self-defense, ³ duress, ⁴ insanity, ⁵ and intoxication.⁶Affirmative defenses must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.State v. Vargo(1927)116 Ohio St. 495, 507, 156 N.E. 600.However it has long been established that accident is not an affirmative defense in this state.Jones v. State(1894), 51 Ohio St. 331, 38 N.E. 79.

By raising the defense of accident, 'the defendant denies any intent * * *.He denies that he committed an unlawful act and says that the result is accidental.'⁷Evidence which he offers in his own behalf to establish such a defense constitutes a denial or contradiction of evidence offered by the prosecution to prove an intent to kill.As this court said in Jones v. State, supra, at pages 342 and 343, 38 N.E. at page 83, in which an accused also raised the defense of accidental shooting to a murder charge:

'* * * The intent or purpose, to kill, being an essential constituent of the offense, should be averred and proven.Fouts v. State, 8 Ohio St. 98;Kain v. State, Id., 306;Hagen v. State, 10 Ohio St. 459.This purpose, like every other material averment of the indictment, is put in issue by the plea of not guilty, and, to authorize a conviction must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.Where the state has shown that the death was the result of design, purpose, or intent,-and these terms in this relation are synonymous,-then the notion of accident is necessarily excluded.That which is designedly or purposely accomplished cannot, in the very nature of things, be accidental.Therefore, when the plaintiff in error introduced evidence tending to prove that the gun was accidentally discharged, he was merely controverting the truth of the averment in the indictment that it was purposely discharged.

'This was not an affirmative defense * * *.

'* * * he set up no other defense than that the state had not established beyond a reasonable doubt the facts constituting the crime charged against him, one of which facts was an intent to kill. * * *'

The defense of accident or accidental homicide does not legally represent a 'justification for admitted conduct.'Like the defenses of alibi ⁸ or entrapment, ⁹ accident trial court's charge was erroneous, the jury with the elements of the offense and the burden imposed upon the state to establish the existence of those elements.

Appellee has argued that if the trial court charge was erroneous, the jury was not misled and no prejudice resulted from the error.However, appellant's sole theory at trial was that the fatal shot was an accident.There were several witnesses whose statements on examination and cross-examination bore upon that theory.The defendant testified in his own behalf to that effect.He obviously defended himself by attempting to create in the minds of the jurors a reasonable doubt that he intentionally shot the decedent.In that light, the error in the charge with respect to the defense of accident was highly prejudicial.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Court of...