{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-ca2025-04-005-2026-02-02","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-ca2025-04-005-2026-02-02)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-17","fingerprint":"ewai:us:e7344b","proof":"sha256:52449dd8f9572235ffd342a6596f87d23fc83c579b6fae37939dffcacea07f38","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ohioctapp-ca2025-04-005-2026-02-02","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"","paragraphs":["para_1"]},{"title":"IN THE COURT OF APPEALS","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"BROWN COUNTY","paragraphs":["para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15"]},{"title":"CASE NO. CA2025-04-005","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"OPINION AND","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"JUDGMENT ENTRY","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"5/4/2026","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BROWN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Case No. CRI2024-2063","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Zachary A. Corbin, Brown County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mary McMullen, Assistant","paragraphs":["para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26"]},{"title":"O P I N I O N","paragraphs":["para_28","para_29","para_30"]},{"title":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraphs":["para_32"]},{"title":"I. Factual and Procedural Background","paragraphs":["para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41"]},{"title":"Trafficking in Drugs.\" Both involuntary manslaughter counts cited R.C. 2903.04(A), the","paragraphs":["para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57"]},{"title":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraphs":["para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68"]},{"title":"II. Analysis","paragraphs":["para_70","para_71"]},{"title":"Second, Barnett argues that his convictions for involuntary manslaughter and trafficking","paragraphs":["para_73"]},{"title":"A. Degree of Involuntary Manslaughter","paragraphs":["para_75"]},{"title":"BECAUSE THE VERDICT FORM FOR COUNT TWO","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"FOUND MR. BARNETT GUILTY OF ONLY THIRD-DEGREE","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, THE TRIAL COURT","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"ERRED BY CONVICTING HIM OF FIRST-DEGREE","paragraphs":["para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83"]},{"title":"Barnett argues that because the verdict form failed to state either the degree of the","paragraphs":["para_85","para_86"]},{"title":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraphs":["para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91"]},{"title":"1. Standard of Review","paragraphs":["para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102"]},{"title":"2. Whether R.C. 2945.75 Applies to Involuntary Manslaughter","paragraphs":["para_104","para_105","para_106"]},{"title":"(A) No person shall cause the death of another or the unlawful","paragraphs":["para_108","para_109"]},{"title":"(B) No person shall cause the death of another or the unlawful","paragraphs":["para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114"]},{"title":"(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of involuntary","paragraphs":["para_116","para_117"]},{"title":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraphs":["para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127"]},{"title":"(A) When the presence of one or more additional elements","paragraphs":["para_129","para_130"]},{"title":"(2) A guilty verdict shall state either the degree of the","paragraphs":["para_132","para_133"]},{"title":"Otherwise, a guilty verdict constitutes a finding of guilty","paragraphs":["para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146"]},{"title":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraphs":["para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162"]},{"title":"2945.75(A), holding that he was convicted of misdemeanor possession of drugs only","paragraphs":["para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173"]},{"title":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraphs":["para_175"]},{"title":"State v. Howze, 2024-Ohio-5447, ¶ 56-60 (7th Dist.), the Seventh District addressed","paragraphs":["para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180"]},{"title":"(\"aggravated possession of drugs\"), rather than an enhanced form of general drug","paragraphs":["para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190"]},{"title":"State v. Pelfrey, 2007-Ohio-256. In Pelfrey, the defendant was convicted of tampering","paragraphs":["para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198"]},{"title":"2913.42(B)(2)(a) but for the additional element that the records at issue were government","paragraphs":["para_200"]},{"title":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraphs":["para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215"]},{"title":"Additional Enhancing Element. Division (D)(1)(a) of the statute states that felonious","paragraphs":["para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226"]},{"title":"R.C. 2919.27(B)(2). But the offense becomes a fifth-degree felony if the offender has","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraphs":["para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238"]},{"title":"(C)(5) contains an Additional Enhancing Element that increases the offense level from a","paragraphs":["para_240","para_241"]},{"title":"Additional Enhancing Element does not define a Distinct Offense. Rather, it enhances the","paragraphs":["para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254"]},{"title":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraphs":["para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265"]},{"title":"The question is whether the varying element is an Additional Enhancing Element that","paragraphs":["para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281"]},{"title":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraphs":["para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292"]},{"title":"2921.331 (failure to comply), where division (A) creates a single prohibition and division","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(C)(5) enhances the penalty based on the risk of harm caused. In those statutes, the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Additional Enhancing Elements operate on a single prohibition (i.e., single offense). But","paragraphs":["para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299"]},{"title":"R.C. 2903.04 mirrors that in R.C. 2925.11 (drug possession), where Eafford found Distinct","paragraphs":["para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308"]},{"title":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraphs":["para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315","para_316","para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322"]},{"title":"2925.11(C)(2) defines \"possession of drugs\" (Schedule III, IV, or V substances), while","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"R.C. 2925.11(C)(4) defines \"possession of cocaine.\" The type of drug determines which","paragraphs":["para_325","para_326"]},{"title":"Additional Enhancing Element within a single offense. R.C. 2925.11(C)(4) establishes","paragraphs":["para_328","para_329","para_330","para_331","para_332"]},{"title":"Whether the predicate offense was a felony or a misdemeanor determines which of two","paragraphs":["para_334","para_335"]},{"title":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraphs":["para_337","para_338","para_339","para_340","para_341","para_342","para_343","para_344","para_345","para_346","para_347","para_348","para_349","para_350","para_351","para_352","para_353"]},{"title":"R.C. 2903.04(C) uses the single label \"involuntary manslaughter\" for violations of both","paragraphs":["para_355","para_356","para_357","para_358"]},{"title":"(7th Dist.). In Thomas, divisions (A) and (B) of R.C. 2911.12 happened to have different","paragraphs":["para_360","para_361"]},{"title":"Instead, it turned on the fact that the legislature had created separate prohibitions with","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraphs":["para_364","para_365","para_366"]},{"title":"Each begins with \"No person shall\" and each specifies a different type of predicate","paragraphs":["para_368","para_369"]},{"title":"Distinct Offenses as mere degrees. Assault and felonious assault share elements and","paragraphs":["para_371"]},{"title":"(assault: \"physical harm\") with R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) (felonious assault: \"serious physical","paragraphs":["para_373","para_374","para_375","para_376","para_377","para_378","para_379","para_380","para_381","para_382"]},{"title":"2945.75, then, depends on whether the legislature created Distinct Offenses or merely","paragraphs":["para_384","para_385","para_386","para_387","para_388","para_389"]},{"title":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraphs":["para_391","para_392","para_393","para_394","para_395","para_396","para_397","para_398","para_399"]},{"title":"3. Application to this Case","paragraphs":["para_401","para_402"]},{"title":"Compton's death \"was the proximate result of Brian Conley Barnett committing or","paragraphs":["para_404","para_405","para_406","para_407","para_408"]},{"title":"Involuntary Manslaughter, in violation of R.C. §2903.04(C) of the Ohio Revised Code as","paragraphs":["para_410"]},{"title":"(A) was clearly erroneous, as division (C) contains only penalty provisions, not elements","paragraphs":["para_412","para_413","para_414","para_415","para_416"]},{"title":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraphs":["para_418","para_419"]},{"title":"R.C. 2903.04(A). This approach is consistent with the approach used by the Ohio","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Supreme Court in Eafford. There, having concluded that the identity of the drug was an","paragraphs":["para_422","para_423","para_424","para_425"]},{"title":"While the review in Eafford benefited the defendant, Eafford's review method is a neutral","paragraphs":["para_427","para_428"]},{"title":"Barnett's first-degree conviction). Accordingly, we follow the same approach here. Given","paragraphs":["para_430","para_431","para_432","para_433","para_434"]},{"title":"Offenses of involuntary manslaughter predicated on the commission of a felony versus","paragraphs":["para_436","para_437","para_438","para_439","para_440","para_441","para_442","para_443"]},{"title":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraphs":["para_445","para_446","para_447","para_448"]},{"title":"Barnett's substantial rights. The jury was instructed only on R.C. 2903.04(A), found","paragraphs":["para_450","para_451","para_452","para_453"]},{"title":"Offense of involuntary manslaughter predicated on the commission of a felony, as","paragraphs":["para_455","para_456","para_457"]},{"title":"Enhancing Elements of the same offense. The commission of a felony as opposed to a","paragraphs":["para_459","para_460","para_461","para_462","para_463","para_464","para_465","para_466"]},{"title":"B. Merger of Allied Offenses","paragraphs":["para_468","para_469"]},{"title":"BARNETT TWICE FOR THE SAME CONDUCT WHEN IT","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"CONVICTED HIM OF BOTH INVOLUNTARY","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraphs":["para_473","para_474","para_475","para_476","para_477","para_478"]},{"title":"2941.25. The State responds that no merger is required because the offenses involve","paragraphs":["para_480","para_481"]},{"title":"1. Standard of Review","paragraphs":["para_483","para_484","para_485","para_486","para_487","para_488","para_489","para_490","para_491","para_492"]},{"title":"2. Governing Law","paragraphs":["para_494","para_495"]},{"title":"(A) Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed","paragraphs":["para_497","para_498","para_499"]},{"title":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraphs":["para_501"]},{"title":"(B) Where the defendant's conduct constitutes two or more","paragraphs":["para_503","para_504","para_505","para_506","para_507"]},{"title":"In State v. Ruff, 2015-Ohio-995, the Ohio Supreme Court established the framework for","paragraphs":["para_509","para_510","para_511","para_512","para_513","para_514","para_515","para_516","para_517","para_518","para_519","para_520"]},{"title":"3. No Merger","paragraphs":["para_522","para_523","para_524","para_525","para_526","para_527","para_528"]},{"title":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraphs":["para_530","para_531"]},{"title":"2024-Ohio-839, ¶ 87 (8th Dist.) (the victim of drug trafficking offenses is \"society in","paragraphs":["para_533","para_534","para_535","para_536","para_537","para_538","para_539","para_540","para_541","para_542","para_543","para_544","para_545","para_546","para_547"]},{"title":"The fact that Barnett's conduct violated both statutes means that his conduct caused","paragraphs":["para_549","para_550","para_551","para_552","para_553","para_554","para_555"]},{"title":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraphs":["para_557","para_558","para_559"]},{"title":"22-23 (12th Dist.). The Fourth District reached the same conclusion in Bontrager, holding","paragraphs":["para_561","para_562","para_563","para_564","para_565","para_566"]},{"title":"Williams, 2020-Ohio-4430 (7th Dist.). But the fact that some courts have ordered merger","paragraphs":["para_568","para_569","para_570","para_571","para_572","para_573","para_574","para_575"]},{"title":"2015-Ohio-995, at ¶ 25. The criteria are disjunctive. Because Barnett's drug-trafficking","paragraphs":["para_577","para_578","para_579","para_580","para_581","para_582"]},{"title":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraphs":["para_584","para_585","para_586","para_587","para_588","para_589"]},{"title":"III. Conclusion","paragraphs":["para_591","para_592","para_593"]},{"title":"J U D G M E N T E N T R Y","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The assignments of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is","paragraphs":["para_596","para_597"]},{"title":"It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Brown County Court of Common","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Pleas for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and","paragraphs":["para_600","para_601","para_602","para_603","para_604"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"[Cite as State v. Barnett, 2026-Ohio-1604.]","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"IN THE COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"BROWN COUNTY","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"STATE OF OHIO,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"Appellee,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"vs.","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"BRIAN CONLEY BARNETT,","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"CASE NO. CA2025-04-005","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"OPINION AND","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"JUDGMENT ENTRY","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"5/4/2026","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BROWN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Case No. CRI2024-2063","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"Zachary A. Corbin, Brown County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mary McMullen, Assistant","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"Prosecutor, for appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"Elizabeth Miller, Ohio Public Defender, and Russell Patterson, Assistant Public Defender,","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"for appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"O P I N I O N","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"M. POWELL, J.","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"{¶ 1} Brian Conley Barnett appeals his convictions for involuntary manslaughter","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"and trafficking in fentanyl. For the following reasons, we affirm.","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"- 2 -","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"I. Factual and Procedural Background","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"{¶ 2} In April 2024, a neighbor discovered Vickie Compton and Darrell Nease","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"dead in their bedroom. Police officers found drugs and paraphernalia near the bodies.","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"Autopsies determined that both victims died from mixed-drug overdoses.","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"{¶ 3} Barnett was charged in an 11-count indictment with, among other offenses,","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"two counts of involuntary manslaughter and one count each of trafficking in fentanyl and","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"illegal conveyance of drugs. The involuntary manslaughter counts alleged that Barnett","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"caused the deaths of Compton and Nease \"as a proximate result of [Barnett] committing","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"or attempting to commit the felony offense of Corrupting Another with Drugs . . . and/or","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"Trafficking in Drugs.\" Both involuntary manslaughter counts cited R.C. 2903.04(A), the","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"substantive provision, and R.C. 2903.04(C), the penalty provision specifying that","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"\"[v]iolation of division (A) . . . is a felony of the first degree.\"","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"{¶ 4} At trial, the State presented evidence, including text messages, establishing","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"that Compton had agreed to travel to and meet with Barnett to purchase drugs shortly","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"before she was found dead with Nease. The trial court instructed the jury on the elements","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"of first-degree involuntary manslaughter under R.C. 2903.04(A), explaining that","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"conviction required proof that Barnett \"did cause the death of [the victim] and such death","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"was the proximate result of Brian Barnett committing or attempting to commit the felony","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"offense of Corrupting Another with Drugs, in violation of 2925.02(A)(3), and/or Trafficking","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"in Drugs, in violation of 2925.03(A)(1).\"","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"{¶ 5} The jury returned guilty verdicts on both involuntary-manslaughter counts","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"and the trafficking count, among others. The verdict form for Count One, concerning the","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"death of Nease, stated: \"We the Jury, in the issue joined, find Brian Conley Barnett guilty","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"of Involuntary Manslaughter, in violation of R.C. §2903.04(A) of the Ohio Revised Code","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"as charged in Count One of the Indictment.\" The verdict form for Count Two, concerning","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"- 3 -","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"the death of Compton, contained different language: \"We the Jury, in the issue joined,","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"find Brian Conley Barnett guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter, in violation of R.C.","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"§2903.04(C) of the Ohio Revised Code as charged in Count Two of the Indictment.\" Thus,","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"whereas the verdict form for Count One cited R.C. 2903.04(A), the substantive provision,","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"the verdict form for Count Two cited only R.C. 2903.04(C), the penalty provision.","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"{¶ 6} Neither party objected to the verdict forms at trial. The trial court found that","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"the involuntary-manslaughter counts did not merge with the trafficking count and","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"sentenced Barnett to consecutive prison terms totaling 16 to 19 years.","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"{¶ 7} Barnett appealed.","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"II. Analysis","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"{¶ 8} Barnett raises two assignments of error. First, he contends that the trial","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"court erred by convicting him of first-degree involuntary manslaughter on Count Two.","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"Second, Barnett argues that his convictions for involuntary manslaughter and trafficking","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"in fentanyl should have merged for sentencing purposes.","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"A. Degree of Involuntary Manslaughter","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"{¶ 9} The first assignment of error alleges:","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"BECAUSE THE VERDICT FORM FOR COUNT TWO","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"FOUND MR. BARNETT GUILTY OF ONLY THIRD-DEGREE","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, THE TRIAL COURT","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"ERRED BY CONVICTING HIM OF FIRST-DEGREE","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER.","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"{¶ 10} In his first assignment of error, Barnett contends that the trial court erred by","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"convicting him of first-degree involuntary manslaughter for Count Two when the jury-","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"verdict form cited only the penalty provision of the involuntary-manslaughter statute.","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"Barnett argues that because the verdict form failed to state either the degree of the","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"offense or that an additional element was present, R.C. 2945.75(A)(2) required the trial","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"court to treat the verdict as a finding of guilt for only third-degree involuntary","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"- 4 -","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"manslaughter, the least degree of the offense. The State concedes that the verdict form","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"contained an error but maintains that the error was merely clerical and did not affect","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"Barnett's substantial rights.","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"1. Standard of Review","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"{¶ 11} Barnett failed to raise an objection to the verdict form for Count Two, so he","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"forfeited all but plain error on appeal. See State v. Mays, 2024-Ohio-4616, ¶ 26. Under","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"Crim.R. 52(B), \"[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed,\" but","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"\"three elements must be met in order to find reversible error.\" Id. at ¶ 27. \"There must","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"[first] be a deviation from a legal rule, that deviation must be an obvious defect in the trial","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"proceedings, and the deviation must have affected substantial rights.\" (Citation omitted.)","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"Id. \"'Notice of plain error under Crim.R. 52(B) is to be taken with the utmost caution, under","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.'\" State","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"v. Nicholson, 2024-Ohio-604, ¶ 114, quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978),","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"paragraph three of the syllabus.","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"2. Whether R.C. 2945.75 Applies to Involuntary Manslaughter","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"{¶ 12} Before applying R.C. 2945.75 to this case, we must first determine whether","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"the statute applies to involuntary manslaughter at all.","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"{¶ 13} The involuntary-manslaughter statute, R.C. 2903.04, pertinently provides:","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"(A) No person shall cause the death of another or the unlawful","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"termination of another's pregnancy as a proximate result of","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"the offender's committing or attempting to commit a felony.","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"(B) No person shall cause the death of another or the unlawful","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"termination of another's pregnancy as a proximate result of","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"the offender's committing or attempting to commit a","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"misdemeanor of any degree, a regulatory offense, or a minor","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"misdemeanor . . . .","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of involuntary","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"manslaughter. Violation of division (A) of this section is a","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"felony of the first degree. Violation of division (B) of this","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"- 5 -","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"section is a felony of the third degree.","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"The statute creates two different forms of involuntary manslaughter. Division (A) prohibits","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"causing death as a proximate result of committing or attempting to commit a felony, and","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"a violation constitutes a first-degree felony. Division (B) prohibits causing death as a","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"proximate result of committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanor or certain other","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"lesser offenses, and a violation constitutes a third-degree felony.","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"{¶ 14} R.C. 2945.75 addresses the requirements for verdict forms when an offense","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"may be charged at different degrees. The statute pertinently provides:","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"(A) When the presence of one or more additional elements","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"makes an offense one of more serious degree:","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":". . .","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"(2) A guilty verdict shall state either the degree of the","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"offense of which the offender is found guilty, or that","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"such additional element or elements are present.","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"Otherwise, a guilty verdict constitutes a finding of guilty","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"of the least degree of the offense charged.","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"{¶ 15} The statute applies only \"[w]hen the presence of one or more additional","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"elements makes an offense one of more serious degree.\" R.C. 2945.75(A). So the key","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"question is whether the predicate felony in division (A) of the involuntary-manslaughter","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"statute, as opposed to the predicate misdemeanor in division (B), operates as an","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"\"additional element\" that \"makes an offense one of more serious degree\" within the","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"meaning of R.C. 2945.75(A), or whether it constitutes an essential element that defines","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"a distinct offense.","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"{¶ 16} Neither party briefed this issue. The State conceded that the verdict form","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"failed to satisfy R.C. 2945.75 and argued only that the error was clerical and subject to","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"plain-error review. Barnett assumed that R.C. 2945.75 governed. But whether a statute","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"applies to the facts of a case is a legal question that an appellate court may address","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"- 6 -","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"regardless of whether the parties have raised it. Appellate courts are not bound by the","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"parties' agreement on matters of law and may determine the correct legal framework to","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"apply. The applicability of R.C. 2945.75(A) is a pure question of statutory interpretation,","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"which is a question of law.","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"i. Distinct Offense Versus Additional Enhancing Element","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"{¶ 17} R.C. 2945.75(A) governs only cases in which an \"additional element\"","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"elevates the degree of the same offense (an \"Additional Enhancing Element\"). See State","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"v. Armbruster, 2024-Ohio-2763, ¶ 70 (12th Dist.) (Powell, J., concurring in part and","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"dissenting in part). It does not reach cases in which the legislature has defined separate","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"offenses with their own elements (each a \"Distinct Offense\").","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"{¶ 18} The Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Eafford, 2012-Ohio-2224,","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"shows how to distinguish Additional Enhancing Elements from Distinct Offenses. In","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"Eafford, the defendant was convicted and sentenced for felony possession of cocaine. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"at ¶ 1. The Eighth District Court of Appeals vacated Eafford's felony conviction under R.C.","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"2945.75(A), holding that he was convicted of misdemeanor possession of drugs only","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"because the jury-verdict form failed to state the degree of the offense or to specify that","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"Eafford had possessed cocaine.","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"{¶ 19} The State appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing that because the","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"indictment, evidence, and jury instructions all concerned cocaine, the verdict must have","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"encompassed possession of cocaine as a fifth-degree felony. The Court concluded that","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"the identity of the drug is an essential element of a possession offense. Id. at ¶ 13-15. \"In","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"other words, possession of cocaine is a distinct offense and not an enhanced specie[s]","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"of possession of drugs.\" Armbruster at ¶ 70 (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissenting","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"in part), citing Eafford at ¶ 15. In short, the identity of the drug defines a Distinct Offense.","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"{¶ 20} Decisions from other Ohio appellate courts support this understanding. In","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"- 7 -","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"State v. Howze, 2024-Ohio-5447, ¶ 56-60 (7th Dist.), the Seventh District addressed","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"whether R.C. 2945.75(A) applied to aggravated possession of drugs where the verdict","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"form did not specify that methamphetamine is a Schedule II controlled substance. The","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"appellate court noted that the case did not involve an additional enhancing element","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"because methamphetamine possession is a distinct offense under R.C. 2925.11(C)(1)","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"(\"aggravated possession of drugs\"), rather than an enhanced form of general drug","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"possession (\"possession of drugs\"). Similarly, in State v. Cunningham, 2020-Ohio-3586,","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"¶ 27 (8th Dist.), the Eighth District addressed a verdict form for corrupting another with","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"drugs that failed to specify heroin as the controlled substance. The appellate court","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"concluded that R.C. 2945.75(A) did not apply because \"'it is not an additional element","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"that changes the degree of the offense; it is the statutorily classified character of the drug","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"involved.'\" Cunningham at ¶ 27, quoting State v. Emerson, 2016-Ohio-8509, ¶ 15 (2d","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"ii. The Pelfrey Distinction","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"{¶ 21} The Ohio Supreme Court in Eafford distinguished its earlier decision in","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"State v. Pelfrey, 2007-Ohio-256. In Pelfrey, the defendant was convicted of tampering","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"with government records. Tampering with records is ordinarily a first-degree","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"misdemeanor under R.C. 2913.42(B)(2)(a), but the offense becomes a third-degree","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"felony when \"the writing, data, computer software, or record is kept by or belongs to a","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"local, state, or federal governmental entity.\" R.C. 2913.42(B)(4). The Court held that the","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"governmental nature of the records constituted an Additional Enhancing Element subject","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"to R.C. 2945.75(A), not a Distinct Offense. The Court emphasized that \"Pelfrey's offense","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"of tampering with records would have constituted a misdemeanor under R.C.","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"2913.42(B)(2)(a) but for the additional element that the records at issue were government","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"records.\" Pelfrey at ¶ 13.","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"- 8 -","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"{¶ 22} Contrast Eafford with Pelfrey. In Pelfrey, the defendant committed the same","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"underlying criminal act, tampering with records, but the governmental character of those","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"records elevated the offense from a misdemeanor to a felony. The defendant's conduct","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"was identical regardless of whether the records were governmental—only the penalty","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"changed. But in Eafford, possession of cocaine and possession of Schedule III, IV, or V","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"substances are entirely Distinct Offenses with different elements, even though both fall","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"under R.C. 2925.11. The identity of the controlled substance defines which offense has","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"been committed.","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"iii. Comparing Involuntary Manslaughter to Other Offenses","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"{¶ 23} To determine whether involuntary manslaughter follows Pelfrey or Eafford,","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"we examine the statutory structure and compare it to other offenses that Ohio courts have","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"analyzed under R.C. 2945.75(A).","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"{¶ 24} R.C. 2903.11, the felonious-assault statute, provides an example of an","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"Additional Enhancing Element. Division (D)(1)(a) of the statute states that felonious","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"assault \"is a felony of the second degree\" but then provides: \"If the victim of a violation of","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"division (A) of this section is a peace officer or an investigator of the bureau of criminal","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"identification and investigation, felonious assault is a felony of the first degree.\" The","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"offense remains felonious assault either way. The identity of the victim as a peace officer","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"is a circumstance that increases the degree. This structure plainly falls within R.C.","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"2945.75(A)'s scope. See Armbruster, 2024-Ohio-2763, at ¶ 74 (12th Dist.) (Powell, J.,","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"concurring in part and dissenting in part).","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"{¶ 25} Similarly, R.C. 2919.27, the protection-order-violation statute, defines a","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"single offense and enumerates circumstances that function as Additional Enhancing","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"Elements. The basic offense of violating a protection order is a first-degree misdemeanor.","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"R.C. 2919.27(B)(2). But the offense becomes a fifth-degree felony if the offender has","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"- 9 -","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"certain prior convictions, R.C. 2919.27(B)(3), and a third-degree felony \"if the offender","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"violates a protection order or consent agreement while committing a felony offense,\" R.C.","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"2919.27(B)(4). The Ohio Supreme Court in Mays, 2024-Ohio-4616, at ¶ 13-14,","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"considered this statute and recognized that R.C. 2945.75(A) applies in such cases","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"because the prior convictions and the commission of a concurrent felony offense are","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"Additional Enhancing Elements that elevate the degree of the same offense.","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"{¶ 26} R.C. 2921.331, the failure-to-comply statute at issue in our recent decision","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"in State v. Palma, 2025-Ohio-1318 (12th Dist.), follows the same pattern. That statute","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"creates a single conduct prohibition in division (A), and the penalty provision in division","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"(C)(5) contains an Additional Enhancing Element that increases the offense level from a","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"first-degree misdemeanor to a third-degree felony if the offender's operation of a motor","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"vehicle \"caused a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons or property.\" The","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"Additional Enhancing Element does not define a Distinct Offense. Rather, it enhances the","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"penalty for the same offense of fleeing a police officer. We accordingly applied R.C.","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"2945.75 to the verdict form. Palma at ¶ 18-21.","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"{¶ 27} The common feature running through felonious assault, protection-order","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"violations, and failure to comply is that each statute creates a single conduct prohibition,","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"and the Additional Enhancing Element operates on that single prohibition to increase the","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"penalty. But the structure of the involuntary-manslaughter statute is different.","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"{¶ 28} The Seventh District's decision in State v. Thomas, 2021-Ohio-2350 (7th","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"Dist.), shows why. In Thomas, the court addressed R.C. 2911.12, the burglary statute,","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"which contains in division (A) three ways of committing \"burglary,\" a second- or third-","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"degree felony, and in division (B) the separate offense of \"trespass in a habitation when","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"a person is present or likely to be present,\" a felony of the fourth degree. The court","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"concluded that the offense in division (B) was not a lesser degree of burglary but a","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"- 10 -","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"different offense altogether. Thomas at ¶ 33. Importantly, Thomas recognized that R.C.","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"2945.75 \"'applies to different degree levels within \"an offense,\" not to different offenses","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"altogether.'\" Id., quoting State v. Evans, 2015-Ohio-3161, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.). The court","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"applied R.C. 2945.75 to distinguish between second- and third-degree burglary within","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"division (A), where Additional Enhancing Elements elevated the same offense. But the","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"court refused to extend the statute to the Distinct Offense defined in division (B). Id. at ¶","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"27-35.","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"{¶ 29} Thomas thus shows that a single statute can contain both degrees of the","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"same offense—where R.C. 2945.75 applies—and Distinct Offenses—where it does not.","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"The question is whether the varying element is an Additional Enhancing Element that","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"changes the degree of a single offense or an essential element that defines a Distinct","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"Offense.","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"iv. Involuntary Manslaughter: Essential Elements Defining Distinct Offenses","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"{¶ 30} The involuntary-manslaughter statute, R.C. 2903.04, does not establish a","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"single base offense that is enhanced by additional circumstances. Instead, it creates two","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"separate prohibitions with different elements from the outset. Division (A) of the statute","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"prohibits causing death \"as a proximate result of the offender's committing or attempting","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"to commit a felony.\" Division (B) prohibits causing death \"as a proximate result of the","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"offender's committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanor of any degree, a regulatory","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"offense, or a minor misdemeanor.\" These are not the same criminal act distinguished only","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"by aggravating circumstances. They are different forms of culpable conduct altogether.","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"{¶ 31} The predicate offense, whether felony or misdemeanor, is part of the","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"prohibited act itself. The statute does not say \"no person shall cause death\" with an","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"enhancement for deaths resulting from felonies. Rather, it separately prohibits causing","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"death through commission of a felony and causing death through commission of a","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"- 11 -","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"misdemeanor. Each prohibition stands independently with its own elements. Several","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"features of the statute show that divisions (A) and (B) create separate offenses rather","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"than degrees of the same offense.","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"{¶ 32} As we said, the statutory structure creates separate prohibitions. Divisions","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"(A) and (B) each begin with \"No person shall,\" creating different prohibitions on conduct.","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"This is the critical feature. In R.C. 2919.27 (protection-order violation), by contrast, the","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"single conduct prohibition appears in division (A) (\"No person shall recklessly violate the","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"terms of\" a protection order), and division (B) then assigns different penalties based on","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"Additional Enhancing Elements (aggravating circumstances). The same is true for R.C.","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"2921.331 (failure to comply), where division (A) creates a single prohibition and division","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"(C)(5) enhances the penalty based on the risk of harm caused. In those statutes, the","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"Additional Enhancing Elements operate on a single prohibition (i.e., single offense). But","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"in the manslaughter statute, divisions (A) and (B) contain separate and independent","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"prohibitions, each defining different conduct. Division (C) then states, \"Whoever violates","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"this section is guilty of involuntary manslaughter,\" followed by separate penalty provisions","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"for \"[v]iolation of division (A)\" and \"[v]iolation of division (B).\" The language structure in","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"R.C. 2903.04 mirrors that in R.C. 2925.11 (drug possession), where Eafford found Distinct","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"Offenses.","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"{¶ 33} Also, the predicate felony or misdemeanor is a Distinct Offense. Trafficking","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"in fentanyl, the predicate felony in this case, contains its own elements, culpable mental","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"state, and penalties. It can be prosecuted independently of any resulting death. This","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"differs from circumstances like \"victim is a peace officer\" in felonious assault, which is not","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"itself a Distinct Offense.","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"{¶ 34} In addition, the felony/misdemeanor distinction reflects different types of","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"culpability. The legislature apparently determined that causing death through inherently","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"- 12 -","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"more dangerous conduct (felonies) warrants first-degree penalties, while causing death","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"through less dangerous conduct (misdemeanors) warrants third-degree penalties. These","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"are not different punishments for the same wrong. Rather, they indicate that the two forms","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"of involuntary manslaughter are different wrongs that share the same result.","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"{¶ 35} Lastly, \"proximate result of committing a felony\" describes an essential","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"element of a Distinct Offense. The felony is not an add-on to a base involuntary-","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"manslaughter offense. Instead, it is critical to defining which specific prohibition in R.C.","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"2903.04 applies.","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"v. The Analogy to Drug-Possession Offenses","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"{¶ 36} Looking at the parallel to drug-possession offenses under R.C. 2925.11 is","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"helpful. In that context, the type of drug determines which Distinct Offense has been","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"committed. These are Distinct Offenses with different elements. For example, R.C.","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"2925.11(C)(2) defines \"possession of drugs\" (Schedule III, IV, or V substances), while","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"R.C. 2925.11(C)(4) defines \"possession of cocaine.\" The type of drug determines which","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"of several Distinct Offenses has been committed.","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"{¶ 37} By contrast, the amount or weight of a controlled substance operates as an","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"Additional Enhancing Element within a single offense. R.C. 2925.11(C)(4) establishes","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"possession of cocaine as a Distinct Offense, then provides, \"The penalty for the offense","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"shall be determined as follows,\" followed by subdivisions that increase the degree based","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"on weight. The weight is an \"additional element\" that \"makes an offense one of more","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"serious degree\" under R.C. 2945.75(A).","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"{¶ 38} Involuntary manslaughter under R.C. 2903.04 follows the drug-type pattern.","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"Whether the predicate offense was a felony or a misdemeanor determines which of two","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"separately codified prohibitions has been violated, just as whether the substance","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"possessed was a Schedule III drug or cocaine determines which of two different offenses","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"- 13 -","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"has been committed. The predicate felony in R.C. 2903.04(A) is an essential element","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"defining a Distinct Offense.","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"vi. The Counterargument","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"{¶ 39} It could be argued that because both violations are called \"involuntary","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"manslaughter\" and share the same result (death) and same causal element (proximate","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"result), they should be treated as degrees of the same offense with the","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"felony/misdemeanor distinction serving as an Additional Enhancing Element. We think","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"this argument is unpersuasive for several reasons.","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"{¶ 40} First, this reading would stretch R.C. 2945.75 beyond the language of the","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"statute. The statute applies when \"the presence of one or more additional elements","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"makes an offense one of more serious degree.\" R.C. 2945.75(A). But when the legislature","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"creates separate conduct prohibitions in separate divisions and designates violations of","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"each as constituting the offense, it has created multiple Distinct Offenses with the same","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"name. It has not simply made \"an offense\" more serious.","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"{¶ 41} We acknowledge that unlike R.C. 2925.11, where the statute gives the","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"distinct offenses different names (\"possession of drugs\" versus \"possession of cocaine\"),","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"R.C. 2903.04(C) uses the single label \"involuntary manslaughter\" for violations of both","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"divisions. But the shared label does not mean that divisions (A) and (B) define degrees","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"of the same offense. As the Seventh District recognized in Thomas, the critical feature is","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"not the name assigned in the penalty provision but whether the statute creates separate","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"conduct prohibitions with distinct elements. See Thomas, 2021-Ohio-2350, at ¶ 33-35","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"(7th Dist.). In Thomas, divisions (A) and (B) of R.C. 2911.12 happened to have different","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"names—\"burglary\" and \"trespass in a habitation when a person is present or likely to be","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"present.\" Id. at ¶ 34. But the court's reasoning did not turn on the naming convention.","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"Instead, it turned on the fact that the legislature had created separate prohibitions with","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"- 14 -","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"distinct elements in separate divisions of the statute. Id. at ¶ 33. In the present case,","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"divisions (A) and (B) of R.C. 2903.04 are similarly structured as separate prohibitions.","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"Each begins with \"No person shall\" and each specifies a different type of predicate","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"offense.","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"{¶ 42} Second, accepting this argument would require treating many clearly","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"Distinct Offenses as mere degrees. Assault and felonious assault share elements and","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"differ primarily in the severity of harm or circumstances. Compare R.C. 2903.13(A)","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"(assault: \"physical harm\") with R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) (felonious assault: \"serious physical","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"harm\"). But the law treats them as Distinct Offenses, not degrees of a single offense.","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"{¶ 43} Third, Eafford's reasoning about drug offenses applies with equal force","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"here. If possession of cocaine is a \"separate offense,\" Eafford, 2012-Ohio-2224, at ¶ 15,","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"and not an enhanced species of possession of drugs because they are codified in","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"separate divisions despite sharing common elements, then involuntary manslaughter","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"predicated on felony commission should be distinct from involuntary manslaughter","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"predicated on misdemeanor commission for the same reason.","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"vii. Distinguishing Elements","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"{¶ 44} How to distinguish essential elements of Distinct Offenses not subject to","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"R.C. 2945.75 from Additional Enhancing Elements for the same offense subject to R.C.","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"2945.75, then, depends on whether the legislature created Distinct Offenses or merely","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"included Additional Enhancing Elements of the same offense. Distinct Offenses are","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"indicated by different statutory divisions, each designating violations as constituting an","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"offense, with predicates defining which offense applies. Additional Enhancing Elements","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"of the same offense are indicated by a single prohibition with specified circumstances that","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"elevate punishment.","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"{¶ 45} The difference can be illustrated by comparing R.C. 2903.04 as enacted","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"- 15 -","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"with a hypothetical alternative. Had the legislature wanted to create a single involuntary-","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"manslaughter offense with a felony enhancement, it could have drafted one conduct","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"prohibition (causing death as a proximate result of committing any offense) with a penalty","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"provision that increased the degree when the predicate was a felony. That structure,","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"analogous to the felonious-assault, protection-order, and failure-to-comply statutes","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"discussed above, would plainly trigger R.C. 2945.75. But the legislature did not do that.","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"It created two separate \"No person shall\" prohibitions with separate violation designations","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"in division (C).","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"3. Application to this Case","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"{¶ 46} Barnett was charged with violating R.C. 2903.04(A), which prohibits causing","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"death as the proximate result of committing a felony. The indictment alleged that","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"Compton's death \"was the proximate result of Brian Conley Barnett committing or","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"attempting to commit\" either corrupting another with drugs or trafficking in drugs, both","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"felony offenses. The jury was instructed on the elements of R.C. 2903.04(A), and the jury","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"found Barnett guilty of the predicate felonies of corrupting another with drugs and","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"trafficking in fentanyl.","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"{¶ 47} The verdict form for Count Two stated that the jury found Barnett \"guilty of","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"Involuntary Manslaughter, in violation of R.C. §2903.04(C) of the Ohio Revised Code as","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"charged in Count Two of the Indictment.\" The citation to division (C) rather than division","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"(A) was clearly erroneous, as division (C) contains only penalty provisions, not elements","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"of the offense. Nevertheless, the verdict form referred to the indictment, which charged a","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"violation of R.C. 2903.04(A).","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"{¶ 48} Because, as we have concluded, R.C. 2945.75(A) does not apply to","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"involuntary manslaughter, the deficiency in the verdict form does not mandate entry of","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"conviction for a \"lesser degree\" of the offense. Rather, the question is simply whether the","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"- 16 -","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"verdict, considered in context, adequately reflects the jury's finding that Barnett violated","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"R.C. 2903.04(A). This approach is consistent with the approach used by the Ohio","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"Supreme Court in Eafford. There, having concluded that the identity of the drug was an","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"essential element rather than an additional enhancing element, the Court did not simply","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"stop its analysis. Instead, it evaluated the verdict in context under a plain-error analysis,","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"examining the indictment, the evidence, and the jury instructions to determine whether","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"the verdict was adequate despite its deficiency. Eafford, 2012-Ohio-2224, at ¶ 17-25.","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"While the review in Eafford benefited the defendant, Eafford's review method is a neutral","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"way to identify which offense the jury actually convicted on, and it can be used regardless","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"of which party benefits from the clarification (here, the prosecution's position, maintaining","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"Barnett's first-degree conviction). Accordingly, we follow the same approach here. Given","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"that the jury was instructed solely on R.C. 2903.04(A), found Barnett guilty of the predicate","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"felonies, and the verdict form referred to the charge \"as charged in . . . the Indictment,\"","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"we conclude that the jury's finding of guilt for first-degree involuntary manslaughter is","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"sufficiently established.","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"{¶ 49} This conclusion rests on the inapplicability of R.C. 2945.75(A) to the Distinct","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"Offenses of involuntary manslaughter predicated on the commission of a felony versus","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"involuntary manslaughter predicated on the commission of a misdemeanor. The rule","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"established in Pelfrey, prohibiting courts from looking beyond the four corners of a verdict","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"form, applies when R.C. 2945.75 governs. See Pelfrey, 2007-Ohio-256, at ¶ 14. Here,","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"the statute does not govern.","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"{¶ 50} Because R.C. 2945.75 does not govern the Distinct Offenses in the","paragraph_id":"para_440"},{"text":"involuntary-manslaughter statute, the citation to division (C) rather than division (A) in the","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"verdict form did not constitute a deviation from a legal rule within the meaning of the first","paragraph_id":"para_442"},{"text":"prong of the plain-error standard. The verdict form was deficient in that it cited the wrong","paragraph_id":"para_443"},{"text":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraph_id":"para_444"},{"text":"- 17 -","paragraph_id":"para_445"},{"text":"statutory division, but that deficiency does not implicate R.C. 2945.75(A)'s automatic","paragraph_id":"para_446"},{"text":"consequence of reduction to the least degree of the offense charged. And even assuming","paragraph_id":"para_447"},{"text":"that the erroneous citation constituted a deviation from a legal rule, the error did not affect","paragraph_id":"para_448"},{"text":"Barnett's substantial rights. The jury was instructed only on R.C. 2903.04(A), found","paragraph_id":"para_449"},{"text":"Barnett guilty of the predicate felonies, and returned a verdict expressly incorporating the","paragraph_id":"para_450"},{"text":"indictment's charge. Under these circumstances, there is no reasonable probability that","paragraph_id":"para_451"},{"text":"the outcome of the trial would have been different.","paragraph_id":"para_452"},{"text":"{¶ 51} In sum, we conclude that R.C. 2945.75(A) does not apply to the Distinct","paragraph_id":"para_453"},{"text":"Offense of involuntary manslaughter predicated on the commission of a felony, as","paragraph_id":"para_454"},{"text":"charged in this case. The statutory structure of R.C. 2903.04, the completeness of the","paragraph_id":"para_455"},{"text":"predicate offenses, and the analogy to drug-possession offenses under Eafford all","paragraph_id":"para_456"},{"text":"support treating R.C. 2903.04(A) and (B) as Distinct Offenses rather than Additional","paragraph_id":"para_457"},{"text":"Enhancing Elements of the same offense. The commission of a felony as opposed to a","paragraph_id":"para_458"},{"text":"misdemeanor is not an Additional Enhancing Element but a fundamental component of","paragraph_id":"para_459"},{"text":"the Distinct Offense under R.C. 2903.04(A). Because R.C. 2945.75(A) does not apply,","paragraph_id":"para_460"},{"text":"the deficiency in the verdict form does not require entry of conviction for third-degree","paragraph_id":"para_461"},{"text":"involuntary manslaughter. The verdict form's failure to specify the degree of the offense","paragraph_id":"para_462"},{"text":"or to state that the death resulted from a felony does not trigger the statutory consequence","paragraph_id":"para_463"},{"text":"that \"a guilty verdict constitutes a finding of guilty of the least degree of the offense","paragraph_id":"para_464"},{"text":"charged,\" R.C. 2945.75(A)(2).","paragraph_id":"para_465"},{"text":"{¶ 52} The first assignment of error is overruled.","paragraph_id":"para_466"},{"text":"B. Merger of Allied Offenses","paragraph_id":"para_467"},{"text":"{¶ 53} The second assignment of error alleges:","paragraph_id":"para_468"},{"text":"THE TRIAL COURT UNLAWFULLY PUNISHED MR.","paragraph_id":"para_469"},{"text":"BARNETT TWICE FOR THE SAME CONDUCT WHEN IT","paragraph_id":"para_470"},{"text":"CONVICTED HIM OF BOTH INVOLUNTARY","paragraph_id":"para_471"},{"text":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraph_id":"para_472"},{"text":"- 18 -","paragraph_id":"para_473"},{"text":"MANSLAUGHTER AND TRAFFICKING IN FENTANYL.","paragraph_id":"para_474"},{"text":"{¶ 54} In his second assignment of error, Barnett contends that the trial court erred","paragraph_id":"para_475"},{"text":"by failing to merge his involuntary-manslaughter convictions with his conviction for","paragraph_id":"para_476"},{"text":"trafficking in fentanyl. Barnett argues that because all offenses arose from a single drug","paragraph_id":"para_477"},{"text":"transaction, the offenses were allied and subject to mandatory merger under R.C.","paragraph_id":"para_478"},{"text":"2941.25. The State responds that no merger is required because the offenses involve","paragraph_id":"para_479"},{"text":"separate and distinct victims—Nease and Compton for involuntary manslaughter and the","paragraph_id":"para_480"},{"text":"public at large for drug trafficking. We agree with the State.","paragraph_id":"para_481"},{"text":"1. Standard of Review","paragraph_id":"para_482"},{"text":"{¶ 55} We note at the outset that Barnett did not request merger at sentencing, nor","paragraph_id":"para_483"},{"text":"did he object to the trial court's determination that the offenses did not merge. \"An","paragraph_id":"para_484"},{"text":"accused's failure to raise the issue of allied offenses of similar import in the trial court","paragraph_id":"para_485"},{"text":"forfeits all but plain error, and a forfeited error is not reversible error unless it affected the","paragraph_id":"para_486"},{"text":"outcome of the proceeding and reversal is necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of","paragraph_id":"para_487"},{"text":"justice.\" State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459, ¶ 3. Thus, Barnett must \"demonstrate a","paragraph_id":"para_488"},{"text":"reasonable probability that the convictions are for allied offenses of similar import","paragraph_id":"para_489"},{"text":"committed with the same conduct and without a separate animus; absent that showing,","paragraph_id":"para_490"},{"text":"[he] cannot demonstrate that the trial court's failure to inquire whether the convictions","paragraph_id":"para_491"},{"text":"merge for purposes of sentencing was plain error.\" Id.","paragraph_id":"para_492"},{"text":"2. Governing Law","paragraph_id":"para_493"},{"text":"{¶ 56} Ohio's allied offense statute, R.C. 2941.25, prohibits the imposition of","paragraph_id":"para_494"},{"text":"multiple punishments for the same criminal conduct. The statute provides:","paragraph_id":"para_495"},{"text":"(A) Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed","paragraph_id":"para_496"},{"text":"to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the","paragraph_id":"para_497"},{"text":"indictment or information may contain counts for all such","paragraph_id":"para_498"},{"text":"offenses, but the defendant may be convicted of only one.","paragraph_id":"para_499"},{"text":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraph_id":"para_500"},{"text":"- 19 -","paragraph_id":"para_501"},{"text":"(B) Where the defendant's conduct constitutes two or more","paragraph_id":"para_502"},{"text":"offenses of dissimilar import, or where his conduct results in","paragraph_id":"para_503"},{"text":"two or more offenses of the same or similar kind committed","paragraph_id":"para_504"},{"text":"separately or with a separate animus as to each, the","paragraph_id":"para_505"},{"text":"indictment or information may contain counts for all such","paragraph_id":"para_506"},{"text":"offenses, and the defendant may be convicted of all of them.","paragraph_id":"para_507"},{"text":"In State v. Ruff, 2015-Ohio-995, the Ohio Supreme Court established the framework for","paragraph_id":"para_508"},{"text":"analyzing allied offenses. The Court held that offenses do not merge, and a defendant","paragraph_id":"para_509"},{"text":"may be convicted and sentenced for multiple offenses, if any of the following is true: \"(1)","paragraph_id":"para_510"},{"text":"the offenses are dissimilar in import or significance—in other words, each offense caused","paragraph_id":"para_511"},{"text":"separate, identifiable harm, (2) the offenses were committed separately, or (3) the","paragraph_id":"para_512"},{"text":"offenses were committed with separate animus or motivation.\" Id. at ¶ 25. If the answer","paragraph_id":"para_513"},{"text":"to any of these inquiries is yes, multiple convictions are permissible.","paragraph_id":"para_514"},{"text":"{¶ 57} Critically, Ruff also explained that \"two or more offenses of dissimilar import","paragraph_id":"para_515"},{"text":"exist within the meaning of R.C. 2941.25(B) when the defendant's conduct constitutes","paragraph_id":"para_516"},{"text":"offenses involving separate victims or if the harm that results from each offense is","paragraph_id":"para_517"},{"text":"separate and identifiable.\" Id. at ¶ 23. The Court emphasized that \"[a]t its heart, the allied-","paragraph_id":"para_518"},{"text":"offense analysis is dependent upon the facts of a case because R.C. 2941.25 focuses on","paragraph_id":"para_519"},{"text":"the defendant's conduct.\" Id. at ¶ 26.","paragraph_id":"para_520"},{"text":"3. No Merger","paragraph_id":"para_521"},{"text":"{¶ 58} We conclude that Barnett's involuntary-manslaughter convictions and his","paragraph_id":"para_522"},{"text":"fentanyl-trafficking conviction do not merge because the offenses involved separate","paragraph_id":"para_523"},{"text":"victims and caused separate, identifiable harms.","paragraph_id":"para_524"},{"text":"{¶ 59} This court and others have recognized that drug-trafficking offenses and","paragraph_id":"para_525"},{"text":"offenses causing harm to specific individuals involve different victims. The victim of a","paragraph_id":"para_526"},{"text":"drug-trafficking offense is not the particular person who purchases or consumes the drugs","paragraph_id":"para_527"},{"text":"but the public or society as a whole. See State v. Workman, 2017-Ohio-2802, ¶ 23 (12th","paragraph_id":"para_528"},{"text":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraph_id":"para_529"},{"text":"- 20 -","paragraph_id":"para_530"},{"text":"Dist.) (stating that \"the victim of the trafficking was the public at large\"); State v. Stubbs,","paragraph_id":"para_531"},{"text":"2024-Ohio-839, ¶ 87 (8th Dist.) (the victim of drug trafficking offenses is \"society in","paragraph_id":"para_532"},{"text":"general\"); State v. Bontrager, 2022-Ohio-1367, ¶ 16, 30 (4th Dist.). Involuntary","paragraph_id":"para_533"},{"text":"manslaughter, by contrast, is an offense against the person killed. Here, Nease and","paragraph_id":"para_534"},{"text":"Compton were the victims of the involuntary-manslaughter offenses.","paragraph_id":"para_535"},{"text":"{¶ 60} Barnett urges us to reject this analysis as inconsistent with Ruff's mandate","paragraph_id":"para_536"},{"text":"that merger determinations depend on the facts of each case. He argues that treating","paragraph_id":"para_537"},{"text":"drug trafficking as having a different victim from involuntary manslaughter creates a","paragraph_id":"para_538"},{"text":"categorical rule that drug trafficking can never merge with a person-specific offense. But","paragraph_id":"para_539"},{"text":"offenses involving the same transaction and the same people can involve \"separate","paragraph_id":"para_540"},{"text":"victims.\"","paragraph_id":"para_541"},{"text":"{¶ 61} The allied-offense analysis in Ruff asks not simply whether the same","paragraph_id":"para_542"},{"text":"individuals were incidentally involved in both offenses but whether the harm each offense","paragraph_id":"para_543"},{"text":"is designed to address runs to the same or different victims. Drug-trafficking laws protect","paragraph_id":"para_544"},{"text":"society from the corrosive effects of drug distribution. These harms exist regardless of","paragraph_id":"para_545"},{"text":"whether any particular buyer suffers a fatal overdose. Involuntary-manslaughter statutes,","paragraph_id":"para_546"},{"text":"by contrast, protect individuals from death caused by another's commission of a felony.","paragraph_id":"para_547"},{"text":"The fact that Barnett's conduct violated both statutes means that his conduct caused","paragraph_id":"para_548"},{"text":"multiple types of harm to multiple victims.","paragraph_id":"para_549"},{"text":"{¶ 62} In applying Ruff's analysis to the facts of this case, we conclude that as a","paragraph_id":"para_550"},{"text":"factual matter, the victim of Barnett's trafficking offense (the public) is different from the","paragraph_id":"para_551"},{"text":"victims of his involuntary-manslaughter offenses (Nease and Compton). Our conclusion","paragraph_id":"para_552"},{"text":"is a case-specific application of Ruff.","paragraph_id":"para_553"},{"text":"{¶ 63} Barnett attempts to distinguish Workman and Bontrager on factual grounds,","paragraph_id":"para_554"},{"text":"but the principle those cases articulate applies with equal force here. In Workman, we","paragraph_id":"para_555"},{"text":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraph_id":"para_556"},{"text":"- 21 -","paragraph_id":"para_557"},{"text":"declined to merge corrupting-another-with-drugs and drug-trafficking offenses,","paragraph_id":"para_558"},{"text":"recognizing that the offenses involved different victims. Workman, 2017-Ohio-2802, at ¶","paragraph_id":"para_559"},{"text":"22-23 (12th Dist.). The Fourth District reached the same conclusion in Bontrager, holding","paragraph_id":"para_560"},{"text":"that involuntary manslaughter and drug trafficking do not merge because they involved","paragraph_id":"para_561"},{"text":"the decedent (manslaughter) and the public (drug trafficking). Bontrager, 2022-Ohio-1367","paragraph_id":"para_562"},{"text":"at ¶ 30. (4th Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_563"},{"text":"{¶ 64} Barnett cites cases in which trial courts, often by agreement of the parties,","paragraph_id":"para_564"},{"text":"have merged involuntary-manslaughter or corrupting-another-with-drugs offenses with","paragraph_id":"para_565"},{"text":"drug-trafficking offenses. See, e.g., State v. White, 2024-Ohio-5158 (11th Dist.); State v.","paragraph_id":"para_566"},{"text":"Williams, 2020-Ohio-4430 (7th Dist.). But the fact that some courts have ordered merger","paragraph_id":"para_567"},{"text":"in particular cases does not establish that merger was legally required in those cases,","paragraph_id":"para_568"},{"text":"especially where, as in White, the State agreed to merger. Such cases provide little","paragraph_id":"para_569"},{"text":"guidance because they do not analyze the separate-victim issue that Ruff, Workman, and","paragraph_id":"para_570"},{"text":"Bontrager identify as dispositive.","paragraph_id":"para_571"},{"text":"{¶ 65} Finally, we address Barnett's contention that the offenses were committed","paragraph_id":"para_572"},{"text":"with the same conduct and animus. Even assuming this were true, it would not compel","paragraph_id":"para_573"},{"text":"merger. Under Ruff, multiple convictions are permissible if any one of the three criteria is","paragraph_id":"para_574"},{"text":"satisfied, namely, dissimilar import, separate commission, or separate animus. Ruff,","paragraph_id":"para_575"},{"text":"2015-Ohio-995, at ¶ 25. The criteria are disjunctive. Because Barnett's drug-trafficking","paragraph_id":"para_576"},{"text":"and involuntary-manslaughter offenses involve separate victims and therefore are of","paragraph_id":"para_577"},{"text":"dissimilar import, it is unnecessary to analyze whether they were committed with the same","paragraph_id":"para_578"},{"text":"conduct or animus. See Armbruster, 2024-Ohio-2763, at ¶ 16 (12th Dist.) (concluding","paragraph_id":"para_579"},{"text":"offenses need not merge because they involved separate victims without addressing","paragraph_id":"para_580"},{"text":"whether offenses were committed with same conduct or animus).","paragraph_id":"para_581"},{"text":"{¶ 66} Barnett has not demonstrated a reasonable probability that his involuntary-","paragraph_id":"para_582"},{"text":"Brown CA2025-04-005","paragraph_id":"para_583"},{"text":"- 22 -","paragraph_id":"para_584"},{"text":"manslaughter and drug-trafficking convictions are allied offenses of similar import. The","paragraph_id":"para_585"},{"text":"offenses involved separate victims and caused separate, identifiable harms. Ohio law","paragraph_id":"para_586"},{"text":"permits punishment for both. The trial court did not err, plainly or otherwise, by declining","paragraph_id":"para_587"},{"text":"to merge the offenses.","paragraph_id":"para_588"},{"text":"{¶ 67} The second assignment of error is overruled.","paragraph_id":"para_589"},{"text":"III. Conclusion","paragraph_id":"para_590"},{"text":"{¶ 68} We have overruled the two assignments of error presented. The trial court's","paragraph_id":"para_591"},{"text":"judgment is affirmed.","paragraph_id":"para_592"},{"text":"BYRNE, P.J., and SIEBERT, J., concur.","paragraph_id":"para_593"},{"text":"J U D G M E N T E N T R Y","paragraph_id":"para_594"},{"text":"The assignments of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is","paragraph_id":"para_595"},{"text":"the order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same","paragraph_id":"para_596"},{"text":"hereby is, affirmed.","paragraph_id":"para_597"},{"text":"It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Brown County Court of Common","paragraph_id":"para_598"},{"text":"Pleas for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and","paragraph_id":"para_599"},{"text":"Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.","paragraph_id":"para_600"},{"text":"Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24.","paragraph_id":"para_601"},{"text":"/s/ Matthew R. Byrne, Presiding Judge","paragraph_id":"para_602"},{"text":"/s/ Mike Powell, Judge","paragraph_id":"para_603"},{"text":"/s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge","paragraph_id":"para_604"}],"word_count":6362,"cites":[],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"287f3a3d698f248abce2bfcc7206ecc4867d39e5d231ae2829de835a2e4d4c55","source_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/12/2026/2026-Ohio-1604.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-17T21:11:28.068+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ohioctapp-ca2025-04-005-2026-02-02","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-ca2025-04-005-2026-02-02","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-ca2025-04-005-2026-02-02","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohioctapp-ca2025-04-005-2026-02-02","verification":{"stored_sha256":"287f3a3d698f248abce2bfcc7206ecc4867d39e5d231ae2829de835a2e4d4c55","recomputed_sha256":"287f3a3d698f248abce2bfcc7206ecc4867d39e5d231ae2829de835a2e4d4c55","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-18T01:07:46.080Z"}},"hash":"sha256:52449dd8f9572235ffd342a6596f87d23fc83c579b6fae37939dffcacea07f38","version":"legal-2026-10-17","expires":"2026-10-19T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-17+legal-2026-10-17+2026-10-17T17:42:33","content_hash":"sha256:52449dd8f9572235ffd342a6596f87d23fc83c579b6fae37939dffcacea07f38","revalidate_after":"2026-10-18T02:07:46.648Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-ca2025-04-005-2026-02-02","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-ca2025-04-005-2026-02-02"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-ca2025-04-005-2026-02-02"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohioctapp-ca2025-04-005-2026-02-02"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ohioctapp-ca2025-04-005-2026-02-02","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-a9584791286d5021a7ebb4af13f2c0eb","response_hash":"sha256:52449dd8f9572235ffd342a6596f87d23fc83c579b6fae37939dffcacea07f38"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-04T07:04:52.385Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aohioctapp-ca2025-04-005-2026-02-02&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":28642}}