State v. Henley (2000)

A division of this court reversed, relying in part on the following policy reasons explained in State v. Henley, 740 N.E.2d 1113, 1116 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)5: To hold that an individual cannot act in self-defense for fear of incurring a charge of criminal damaging or another related charge when the action behind the charge is so intertwined with the attack necessitating self-defense would be to produce an inane legal paradox; it would be illogical, for example, to hold that a…

Even [if] an accused is financially able, in whole or in part, to obtain the assistance of counsel, but is unable to do so for whatever reason, appointed counsel must be provided, or no sentence of incarceration may be 9 imposed.” State v. Henley, 138 Ohio App. 3d 209, 219-20 (9th Dist. 2000) (quoting State v. Domers, 9th Dist.

See, e.g., State v. Crawford, 308 Md. 683, 701 , 521 A.2d 1193 (1987) (“it is common sense that the legislature could not have intended that a man, who has been attacked and shot and lies injured . . . cannot pick up a handgun that, as luck would have it, falls next to him when he hears what he believes are his aggressors in hot pursuit”); State v. Henley, 138 Ohio App. 3d 209, 214 , 740 N.E.2d 1113 (2000) (“[t]o hold that an individual cannot act in self-defense for fear of…

Haag, 1976 WL 188795 at *3 ; State v. Henley, 138 Ohio App. 3d 209, 220 (9th Dist. 2000).

We agree for the reasons stated in State v. Henley, 138 Ohio App.3d 209 , 740 N.E.2d 1113, 1116 (2000): To hold that an individual cannot act in self-defense for fear of incurring a charge of criminal damaging or another related charge when the action behind the charge is so intertwined with the attack necessitating self-defense would be to produce an inane legal paradox; it would be illogical, for example, to hold that an individual may be innocent of assault or an even mor…