From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Collins

Supreme Court of Ohio
Aug 11, 1993
67 Ohio St. 3d 115 (Ohio 1993)

Summary

holding that a "minor-misdemeanor," such as the failure to stop at a stop sign, could not be a predicate offence for misdemeanor-manslaughter because it did not show the necessary intent or recklessness

Summary of this case from State v. Yarborough

Opinion

No. 92-2143

Submitted May 18, 1993 —

Decided August 11, 1993.

CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Miami County, No. 91-CA-65.

Defendant-appellee, James A. Collins, Jr., failed to stop his vehicle at a stop sign and collided with another vehicle driven by Rickey R. Allred, resulting in Allred's death. Defendant was charged with aggravated vehicular homicide (R.C. 2903.06[A]) and involuntary manslaughter (R.C. 2903.04[B]).

At his trial, the jury was instructed that failure to stop at a clearly marked stop sign is a violation of R.C. 4511.43 and is a misdemeanor. The defendant did not object to this jury instruction.

Defendant was subsequently convicted of the lesser included offense of vehicular homicide (R.C. 2903.07) and involuntary manslaughter. He appealed and the Second Appellate District reversed the conviction for involuntary manslaughter because the court found that an offense classified as a "minor misdemeanor" is not an underlying predicate offense for purposes of R.C. 2903.04(B).

Finding its decision in conflict with the decision of the Court of Appeals for Lorain County in State v. Montecalvo (Sept. 5, 1990), Lorain App. No. 89CA004653, unreported, 1990 WL 129245, the court of appeals certified the record of the case to this court for review and final determination.

Jeffrey M. Welbaum, Miami County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jane T. Skogstrom, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

John C. Holden, for appellee.


Today we are asked to determine whether an offense classified as a minor misdemeanor is a misdemeanor for purposes of the involuntary manslaughter statute, R.C. 2903.04(B). For the following reasons, we answer this question in the negative.

R.C. 2903.04(B) provides that "[n]o person shall cause the death of another as a proximate result of the offender's committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanor." The underlying "misdemeanor" the jury found defendant committed was a violation of R.C. 4511.43, the failure to stop at a clearly marked stop sign. However, a conviction for R.C. 4511.43 is a minor misdemeanor when it is a first offense. R.C. 4511.99(D).

The state argues that for purposes of the involuntary manslaughter statute, the underlying misdemeanor offense includes offenses classified as minor misdemeanors. The state urges us to follow the conflict case of State v. Montecalvo, supra.

Additionally, the state relies on our decision announced in State v. Chippendale (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 118, 556 N.E.2d 1134. However, Chippendale resolved a very different issue than that presented here.

Chippendale dealt with whether involuntary manslaughter and aggravated vehicular homicide could both be charged from the same conduct. The case did not consider the sufficiency of the underlying violation to support a charge of involuntary manslaughter. Indeed, we did not need to do so as the defendant's involuntary manslaughter charge was predicated upon the first degree misdemeanor offense of driving under the influence. R.C. 4511.19(A).

Instead, we find more persuasive the rationale advanced by the appellate court and the well-reasoned dissents of Judge Cacioppo in State v. Montecalvo, supra, at 7-18, and State v. Westfall (July 31, 1991), Summit App. No. 14930, unreported, at 5-15, 1991 WL 149573. As the appellate court and Judge Cacioppo have concluded, we do not believe the General Assembly intended to include a minor misdemeanor as a predicate misdemeanor offense for purposes of the crime of involuntary manslaughter. In construing the General Assembly's intent, we are guided by various Revised Code provisions.

Throughout R.C. Title 29, minor misdemeanors are distinguished from other misdemeanors. In R.C. 2901.02 (classification of offenses), the General Assembly has delineated various categories of crimes. Misdemeanors are further subdivided into four degrees. Minor misdemeanors have their own category. This same classification is found in R.C. 2929.21, which establishes separate penalties for misdemeanors, up to six months in jail, and for minor misdemeanors, a fine of up to $100 only. In addition, there is no right to a jury trial for a minor misdemeanor offense. R.C. 2945.17. Moreover, a prosecution for a minor misdemeanor must be brought within six months (as opposed to two years for a misdemeanor and six years for a felony). R.C. 2901.13(A). Also, a trial for a minor misdemeanor must be held within thirty days after arrest or the service of summons (once again, different time constraints than those for misdemeanors and felonies). R.C. 2945.71.

The rule of statutory construction is that penal laws "shall be strictly construed against the state, and liberally construed in favor of the accused." R.C. 2901.04(A). Having classified misdemeanors and minor misdemeanors separately, and having provided for several distinctions in various code provisions, the General Assembly cannot be presumed to have intended that they merge into one classification, that of "misdemeanors," for purposes of the involuntary manslaughter statute. Any uncertainty must be resolved against the state.

While we agree that most traffic offenses are minor misdemeanors, this fact alone does not indicate that the General Assembly considered all traffic offenses to be equally culpable. To the contrary, it is evident that the General Assembly felt some traffic offenses were more serious and should be punished more harshly. For example, R.C. 4511.19(A)(1), driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, is a misdemeanor of the first degree for a first-time offense and a court can impose a jail sentence of three days for a first offense. R.C. 4511.99(A)(1). R.C. 4511.99(D) addresses speeding violations and provides that certain violations may be classified as a misdemeanor of the fourth degree for a first offense. Such speeding violations include driving faster than thirty-five m.p.h. in a business district or school zone during recess or arrival or departure times. See Montecalvo, Cacioppo, J., dissenting, at 13-14. Also, a violation of R.C. 4511.251, drag racing, is a misdemeanor of the first degree, R.C. 4511.99(B). These strict liability traffic offenses may serve as valid underlying offenses to R.C. 2903.04(B).

We also find persuasive Judge Cacioppo's quote from LaFave Scott, Criminal Law (2 Ed. 1986) 683, Section 7.13: "* * * There is no logical reason for inflicting manslaughter punishment on one who unintentionally kills another simply because he is committing a traffic violation, unless it makes sense to punish the one-in-a-thousand traffic violation, which by bad luck produces an unexpected death, far more severely than the nine hundred and ninety-nine violations which happily do not produce any such devastating result. * * * It is true that, in the case of crimes defined in terms of bad results, it is often something of an accident whether the specified result occurs or not. Where one seriously wounds another by shooting at him with intent to kill, or severely but unintentionally injures him by reckless driving, chance often takes a hand in deciding whether the victim dies or recovers, and thus whether the defendant receives a greater or lesser punishment. If the bad result which happens is actually intended, or if it is recklessly produced (especially by one conscious of the risk), it does not seem too harsh to make the severity of his punishment depend somewhat on the actual result, however accidental. Where, however, the result is both unintended and produced without any consciousness of the risk of producing it, it seems too harsh and illogical. * * *"

Notwithstanding defendant's failure to object, the appellate court properly recognized the error as plain error: "but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise." State v. Underwood (1983), 3 Ohio St.3d 12, 3 OBR 360, 444 N.E.2d 1332, syllabus. Accordingly, we hold a minor misdemeanor may not serve as the underlying predicate offense for purposes of the involuntary manslaughter statute, R.C. 2903.04(B).

Judgment affirmed.

A.W. SWEENEY, WRIGHT, RESNICK and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.

MOYER, C.J., and DOUGLAS, J., dissent.


Summaries of

State v. Collins

Supreme Court of Ohio
Aug 11, 1993
67 Ohio St. 3d 115 (Ohio 1993)

holding that a "minor-misdemeanor," such as the failure to stop at a stop sign, could not be a predicate offence for misdemeanor-manslaughter because it did not show the necessary intent or recklessness

Summary of this case from State v. Yarborough

finding that minor misdemeanors could serve as the underlying charge in an involuntary manslaughter conviction

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Sanders

In State v. Collins (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 115, the Supreme Court of Ohio concluded that "[a] minor misdemeanor may not serve as the underlying predicate offense for purposes of the involuntary manslaughter statute, R.C. 2903.04(B)."

Summary of this case from State v. Manhart

In Collins, the court found that it was plain error for the defendant to be tried and convicted of involuntary manslaughter with a minor misdemeanor as the predicate for purposes of the crime of involuntary manslaughter.

Summary of this case from State v. Lutman

In Collins, the defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter predicated upon his underlying conviction for failure to stop at a clearly marked stop sign, in violation of R.C. 4511.43, a strict liability minor misdemeanor.

Summary of this case from State v. Szefcyk

In State v. Collins (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 115, 616 N.E.2d 224, the defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter based upon his failure to stop at a stop sign, a minor misdemeanor.

Summary of this case from State v. Szefcyk

In Collins, the Court was asked to determine whether an offense classified as a minor misdemeanor under the Revised Code was a misdemeanor for purposes of the involuntary manslaughter statute.

Summary of this case from Medina v. Hannan
Case details for

State v. Collins

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. COLLINS, APPELLEE

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Aug 11, 1993

Citations

67 Ohio St. 3d 115 (Ohio 1993)
616 N.E.2d 224

Citing Cases

State v. Szefcyk

The Ohio Supreme Court, however, subsequently decided a case involving the same legal question. In State v.…

State v. Campbell

Prior to its September 29, 1994 amendment, R.C. 2903.04(B) provided that "[n]o person shall cause the death…