## Facts

- Moses J. Wilcox and a codefendant burglarized Duane D. Dixon’s home, during which Dixon was shot and killed.
- After Wilcox was arrested months later on an unrelated charge, he admitted participating in the burglary but blamed the shooting on the codefendant.
- Wilcox was indicted for aggravated murder and aggravated burglary, offenses requiring proof of specific intent.
- A court-appointed psychiatrist diagnosed severe mental conditions; Wilcox was initially found incompetent, later treated, and found competent to stand trial.
- Wilcox pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity and presented psychiatric evidence on insanity.
- The trial court excluded additional psychiatric testimony offered solely to show that, even if sane, Wilcox lacked capacity to form the specific intent required for the charged offenses, and refused corresponding jury instructions on a diminished-capacity theory.
- The jury rejected insanity and convicted Wilcox of aggravated murder and aggravated burglary.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio law recognizes a partial defense of diminished capacity allowing expert psychiatric testimony, independent of an insanity defense, to negate the specific intent element of aggravated murder and aggravated burglary.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the convictions.
- The court held Ohio does not recognize diminished capacity as a partial defense.
- The court approved excluding psychiatric testimony offered solely to show inability to form specific intent when not tied to the insanity defense.
- The court approved refusing diminished-capacity jury instructions.

## Legal Principles

- Ohio does not permit a diminished-capacity defense that uses mental disease or defect evidence, short of legal insanity, to negate specific intent.
- Expert psychiatric testimony concerning a defendant’s mental condition is admissible to the extent it is relevant to a properly raised insanity defense, not as a separate theory to defeat mens rea.
- Creating a partial mental-responsibility doctrine is a policy choice for the legislature, not the courts, where Ohio has already set the contours of criminal responsibility through its insanity framework.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that psychiatric evidence may not be offered as an independent diminished-capacity theory to negate specific intent; absent a successful insanity defense, mental abnormality short of insanity does not provide a partial defense to aggravated murder or aggravated burglary in Ohio.


State v. Wilcox, 70 Ohio St. 2d 182 (Ohio 1982)