## Facts

- Homer Pierce, Jr. learned his wife was having an affair with Jeffrey LaPorte and, over roughly six weeks, made threats and had repeated confrontations connected to the affair.
- In November 1976, Pierce threatened LaPorte with serious bodily harm; Pierce and his wife later agreed to separate.
- Pierce again threatened LaPorte during a phone call while his wife was with LaPorte; police were contacted.
- Days before the homicide, Pierce prepared a handwritten will and purchased a Winchester .30-30 rifle, generating a firearms transaction record; police later seized these items along with an empty rifle box from Pierce’s rented residence.
- On the night of December 22, 1976, Pierce engaged in multiple phone calls with his wife, relatives, friends, and LaPorte; a possible fight was discussed but did not occur.
- Early on December 23, 1976, Pierce went to LaPorte’s workplace, then to LaPorte’s home, and shot LaPorte multiple times as LaPorte sat in a vehicle in the driveway.
- Pierce argued he acted under “extreme emotional stress” caused by the marital breakdown and related events, entitling him to a voluntary manslaughter instruction.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence of “extreme emotional stress brought on by serious provocation” required a voluntary manslaughter instruction in an aggravated-murder trial under R.C. 2903.03(A).
2. Whether admitting items seized in a warrantless search violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and, if so, whether the error required reversal or was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the conviction in a per curiam decision.
- The court held Pierce was not entitled to a voluntary manslaughter instruction because the evidence did not support “extreme emotional stress” as a matter of law.
- The court declined to decide whether the warrantless search was unconstitutional, holding that any error in admitting the seized items was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- In an aggravated-murder prosecution, a voluntary manslaughter instruction is required only if the defendant produces some evidence of the mitigating circumstance in R.C. 2903.03(A): extreme emotional stress brought on by serious provocation reasonably sufficient to incite the use of deadly force.
- “Extreme emotional stress” requires a killing under sudden passion or heat of blood, without time and opportunity for reflection or for passions to cool.
- The mitigation for voluntary manslaughter does not apply to a deliberate, calculated killing merely because emotional stress contributed to planning.
- A reviewing court may affirm despite a federal constitutional error if the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Pierce’s aggravated-murder conviction, concluding the time between any alleged provocation and the next-morning shooting defeated the statutory basis for a voluntary manslaughter instruction, and concluding that any constitutional error from admitting items seized in a warrantless search did not affect the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.


State v. Pierce, 64 Ohio St. 2d 281 (Ohio 1980)