## Facts

- Robert Mitzel and Randall Ralston grew up together and were friends.
- Ralston was depressed and asked Mitzel whether he would “shoot someone for him.” Mitzel understood that Ralston meant himself.
- Mitzel and Ralston retrieved Mitzel’s .22-caliber rifle, purchased ammunition, drove to a building, and walked into the woods behind it.
- The first shot was fired either by Ralston or with Mitzel assisting Ralston in pulling the trigger.
- After the first shot, Ralston rolled on the ground and asked Mitzel to shoot him until he was dead.
- Mitzel then fired three additional shots after the initial shot.
- The rifle was not semi-automatic; each shot required separate manual actions, including opening the chamber to eject the spent casing, inserting a new round, closing the chamber, cocking the hammer, aiming, and pulling the trigger.
- Mitzel was charged and convicted of murder in Ohio.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court err by failing to instruct the jury on “aiding and abetting a suicide” where the defense theory was that Mitzel assisted Ralston’s suicide?
2. Was Mitzel denied effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not request an “aiding and abetting a suicide” jury instruction?

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed Mitzel’s murder conviction.
- The court rejected the claim that the jury had to be instructed on “aiding and abetting a suicide,” reasoning that the proposed instruction did not correspond to a recognized Ohio offense.
- The court also rejected the ineffective-assistance claim because counsel was not required to request an instruction that was not legally available.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court is not required to instruct the jury on an offense or theory that is not recognized as a crime under state law.
- A requested jury instruction must correctly state the law; a court may refuse an instruction that misstates the law or rests on a legally nonexistent offense.
- Ineffective assistance of counsel requires deficient performance and prejudice; counsel is not deficient for failing to request a legally unavailable or meritless instruction.
- When the evidence supports a finding that the defendant personally and purposely caused death, the case may be submitted to the jury on murder without reframing the conduct as “assisting suicide.”

## Conclusion

State v. Mitzel affirmed a murder conviction arising from a planned suicide scenario where, after an initial shot, the defendant repeatedly reloaded and fired additional shots at the victim’s request. On direct appeal, the court held that Ohio did not recognize “aiding and abetting a suicide” as a crime that could support a jury instruction, and it therefore found no instructional error and no ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to request that instruction.


State v. Mitzel, 1989 WL 110827 (1989)