## Facts

- Cornell Rhodes and Annette Akins lived together; Akins died from a stabbing, and Rhodes was indicted for murder under Ohio law.
- Evidence was conflicting on whether Rhodes or Akins was the initial aggressor.
- Testimony indicated Akins had a reputation for violence when intoxicated; toxicology showed alcohol (0.08) and Hydroxyzine.
- Rhodes testified Akins threw a glass figurine at him and then attacked with a knife; he claimed she was stabbed during a struggle over the knife.
- After the stabbing, Rhodes left the apartment and asked a neighbor to call 911.
- At trial, the jury was instructed on murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and self-defense.
- The trial court instructed that the “sudden passion”/“sudden fit of rage” provocation in the voluntary manslaughter statute was a mitigating circumstance Rhodes had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The jury convicted Rhodes of murder; the court of appeals reversed for improper burden-shifting; the state appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether, in a murder or aggravated murder trial, the defendant bears the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the statutory provocation (“sudden passion” or “sudden fit of rage” caused by serious provocation reasonably sufficient to incite deadly force) to obtain a voluntary manslaughter verdict.
2. Whether assigning that burden to the defendant violates due process by requiring the defendant to negate an element of murder.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the court of appeals and reinstated Rhodes’s murder conviction.
- The court held that a defendant bears the burden of persuading the factfinder, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the voluntary-manslaughter mitigating circumstances were present.
- The court concluded this allocation does not relieve the prosecution of proving the elements of murder beyond a reasonable doubt and does not require the defendant to disprove any murder element.
- The trial court’s jury instruction placing the preponderance burden on Rhodes for the mitigating circumstances was correct.

## Legal Principles

- Voluntary manslaughter is an inferior degree of murder: the prosecution must prove the homicide elements (including knowingly causing death) beyond a reasonable doubt, while the defendant must establish statutory mitigating circumstances to reduce the degree of the offense.
- Under the voluntary manslaughter statute, “sudden passion” or “sudden fit of rage” brought on by serious provocation reasonably sufficient to incite deadly force functions as a mitigating circumstance, not an element the state must prove.
- The defendant must prove the mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence to obtain a voluntary manslaughter conviction instead of murder or aggravated murder.
- Due process is satisfied where the state retains the burden to prove every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant’s burden relates only to facts that mitigate punishment/degree rather than negate an element.

## Conclusion

The court held that, to reduce murder or aggravated murder to voluntary manslaughter, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the killing occurred under sudden passion or sudden rage caused by serious, reasonably sufficient provocation; because that burden allocation is constitutional and the jury instruction was proper, the murder conviction was reinstated.


State v. Rhodes, 63 Ohio St. 3d 613 (1992)