Ohio v. Pierce

I

In proposition of law number three, defendant-appellant argues that the trial court’s instruction on voluntary manslaughter was prejudicial because it included inadequate definitions of both extreme emotional distress and serious provocation.

The Court of Appeals found it unnecessary to consider this argument, ruling that defendant was not entitled to an instruction on voluntary manslaughter. We agree.

R. C. 2903.03, in part, provides:

“(A) No person, while under extreme emotional stress brought on by serious provocation reasonably sufficient to incite him into using deadly force, shall…