## Facts

- William Goff was about 40 years old when 15-year-old Megan Goff and her family moved in next door.
- Megan and William married when Megan was 19 and later had two children.
- The marriage deteriorated, and Megan reported escalating violence and threats, including William’s alleged statement that he would kill Megan and the children and an incident in which he allegedly kicked their son in the stomach.
- Megan took the children to a domestic-violence shelter, pursued criminal charges, and filed for divorce.
- Police removed a large number of firearms from the home (reported as 63 guns).
- After William allegedly tracked Megan down, she and the children moved to an apartment in another state.
- In early 2006, Megan recorded a phone call in which William admitted he had said he was going to kill Megan and the children; Megan also claimed he later repeated the threat in an unrecorded call.
- Megan returned to William’s home carrying two handguns, which she said William had previously told her to carry in case one jammed.
- Megan testified that William let her in, then blocked the door and said Megan’s mother would receive “a dead kid and two dead grandkids” as a birthday present.
- Megan shot William multiple times, killing him, and then called 911 while highly upset and fearful that William could still hurt her despite being shot.
- Megan was charged with murder and asserted self-defense. A psychiatrist testified for the defense that Megan suffered from battered-woman’s syndrome (BWS) and that the syndrome affected her assessment of danger.
- After earlier proceedings and a remand, Megan waived a jury and was convicted of murder in a bench trial. She appealed the conviction.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court applied Ohio self-defense law correctly—especially the requirements of imminent danger and any duty to retreat—when evaluating Megan’s claim of self-defense in light of BWS evidence.
2. Whether Ohio law required recognition or application of “imperfect self-defense” to reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter based on an honest but unreasonable belief in the need for deadly force.
3. Whether the facts warranted treatment of the killing as voluntary manslaughter rather than murder.
4. Whether the murder conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

## Decision

- The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the murder conviction entered after the post-remand bench trial.
- The court held that the factfinder could reject self-defense because Megan did not establish the required elements, including a bona fide belief of imminent danger and compliance with any obligation to avoid the danger when safely possible.
- The court rejected the argument that Ohio recognizes an independent “imperfect self-defense” doctrine that mitigates murder to voluntary manslaughter.
- The court concluded that the evidence did not compel a voluntary-manslaughter finding based on sudden passion or sudden rage caused by legally adequate provocation.
- The court held the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Under Ohio law governing the case, a defendant using deadly force had to prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence, including: (1) the defendant was not at fault in creating the situation, (2) the defendant had a bona fide belief of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that deadly force was the only means of escape, and (3) the defendant did not violate any duty to retreat or avoid the danger when safe to do so.
- BWS evidence may be admitted to help the factfinder assess the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief and the defendant’s reaction to threats and abuse, but it does not remove the imminence requirement or otherwise rewrite the elements of self-defense.
- Ohio does not recognize “imperfect self-defense” as a stand-alone partial defense that reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter; voluntary manslaughter turns on serious provocation that reasonably produces sudden passion or a sudden fit of rage.
- Voluntary manslaughter requires evidence of provocation reasonably sufficient to incite an ordinary person to use deadly force and must be tied to a sudden emotional state rather than planning or a calculated response.
- On appellate review, sufficiency asks whether the evidence, viewed in the state’s favor, could permit a reasonable factfinder to find the elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt; manifest-weight review allows the appellate court to consider credibility and the overall record but gives deference to the factfinder’s resolution of conflicts in the evidence.

## Conclusion

State v. Goff affirmed Megan Goff’s murder conviction after a post-remand bench trial, holding that the trial court could find she failed to prove self-defense—despite evidence of prolonged abuse and BWS—because the record allowed findings that imminent danger and retreat/avoidance requirements were not met, that Ohio law does not provide an “imperfect self-defense” mitigation path to voluntary manslaughter, and that the murder conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and the manifest weight of the evidence.


State v. Goff, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 27; 2013 WL 139545 (2013)