State ex rel. Corrigan v. McMonagle
This text of 465 N.E.2d 382 (State ex rel. Corrigan v. McMonagle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
At issue is whether the venire for jury requirements of R.C. 2945.18 and 2945.19 are applicable to a “capital offense” where the charged offense of aggravated murder is not punishable by death, there being no specifications of aggravating circumstances pursuant to R.C. 2929.04.
Central to our ascertainment of legislative intent is R.C. 2901.02(B) effective January 1,1974, which states that, “[aggravated murder, and any offense for which death may be imposed as a penalty, is a capital offense.” Paragraph one of the syllabus of State v. Henry (1983), 4 Ohio St. 3d 44, stated that “[pjursuant to R.C. 2901.02(B), aggravated murder is a capital offense regardless of whether death may be imposed as a result of the conviction thereof.” The validity of the construction of R.C. 2901.02(B) in Henry, at 46, which recognized “* * * that aggravated murder was a crime independent of whether the death penalty could be imposed” has since been approved in State, ex rel. Johnson, v. Shoemaker (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 215.
Henry recognized that there are statutory safeguards and detriments applicable to those “* * * charged with committing a crime that is classified as a capital offense,” and listed, among those statutes, R.C. 2945.18, venire for jury in capital cases and R.C. 2945.19, special venire in capital cases. Id. at 46, fn. 3. We now hold that the venire and special venire for jury in capital cases, as prescribed by R.C. 2945.18 and 2945.19, respectively, are applicable to one charged with aggravated murder under R.C. 2903.01, irrespective of whether such offense is not punishable by death due to lack of specifications of aggravating circumstances pursuant to R.C. 2929.04.1
For reason of the foregoing, the judgment of the court of appeals granting the writ of mandamus is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
465 N.E.2d 382, 12 Ohio St. 3d 15, 12 Ohio B. 13, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-corrigan-v-mcmonagle-ohio-1984.