encounter claim in Ohio

2026Additionally, “[a] person may not provoke an assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self-defense.” Eddy at ¶ 16, quoting State v. Elam, 2022-Ohio-1895, ¶ 16 (12th Dist.). {¶17} Importantly, a “heightened standard” exists when non-deadly force is used against a law enforcement officer.

2026Additionally, “[a] person may not provoke an assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self-defense.” Eddy at ¶ 16, quoting State v. Elam, 2022-Ohio-1895, ¶ 16 (12th Dist.). {¶17} Importantly, a “heightened standard” exists when non-deadly force is used against a law enforcement officer.

2026Regarding the element of fault, “Ohio courts have long recognized that a person cannot provoke [an] assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self-defense.” State v. Woodson, 2022-Ohio-2528, ¶ 82 (6th Dist.).

2026Regarding the element of fault, “‘Ohio courts have long recognized that a person cannot provoke [an] assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self-defense.’” (Emphasis deleted.) State v. Woodson, 2022-Ohio-2528, ¶ 82 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Nichols, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 329 , *7 (4th Dist.

2026See also State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-4976, ¶ 53 (1st Dist.) (holding that “a person may not provoke an assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self-defense”).

2026See also State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-4976, ¶ 53 (1st Dist.) (holding that “a person may not provoke an assault or voluntarily enter into an encounter and then claim a right of self-defense”).

2026But see State v. Gaston, 2013-Ohio-2331, ¶ 17 (8th Dist.) (A person cannot provoke an assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self-defense after the other person responds with violence.); State v. Sekic, 2011-Ohio-3978, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Nichols, 2002-Ohio-415 (4th Dist.) (recognizing that a person cannot provoke assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self-defense when the other person responds).

2024See State v. Sekic, 2011-Ohio-3978, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.) (“‘Ohio courts have long recognized that a person cannot provoke assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self-defense.’”), quoting State v. Nichols, 2002-Ohio-415 , (4th Dist.); see also State v. Walker, 2021-Ohio-2037, ¶ 19 (“Generally, a defendant, having willingly advanced toward a volatile situation cannot rely on the affirmative defense of self-defense.”).

2025State v. Patterson, 2025-Ohio-280, ¶ 41 (10th Dist.), quoting State v. Ellis, 2012-Ohio-3586 , ¶ 15 (10th Dist.); see State v. Walker, 2021-Ohio-2037, ¶ 19 (“Generally, a defendant, having willingly advanced toward a volatile situation cannot rely on the affirmative defense of self-defense.”).

2024See State v. Sekic, 2011-Ohio-3978, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.) (“‘Ohio courts have long recognized that a person cannot provoke assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self-defense.’”), quoting State v. Nichols, 2002-Ohio-415 , (4th Dist.); see also State v. Walker, 2021-Ohio-2037, ¶ 19 (“Generally, a defendant, having willingly advanced toward a volatile situation cannot rely on the affirmative defense of self-defense.”).

2025No. 11AP-939, 2012-Ohio-3586 , ¶ 15. {¶ 42} The second element of a self-defense claim employs “a combined subjective and objective test.” State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323, 330 (1997).

2024No. 11AP-939, 2012-Ohio-3586 , ¶ 15. {¶ 45} The second element of a self-defense/defense of another claim employs “a combined subjective and objective test.” State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323, 330 (1997).

2026But see State v. Gaston, 2013-Ohio-2331, ¶ 17 (8th Dist.) (A person cannot provoke an assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self-defense after the other person responds with violence.); State v. Sekic, 2011-Ohio-3978, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Nichols, 2002-Ohio-415 (4th Dist.) (recognizing that a person cannot provoke assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self-defense when the other person responds).

2025A person may not provoke an assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self-defense.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Gaston, 2013-Ohio-2331, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Nichols, 2002-Ohio- 415 (4th Dist.).

2026Ross at ¶ 46 ; Patterson at ¶ 41 . “ ‘A person may not provoke an assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self-defense.’ ” Ross at ¶ 46 , quoting State v. Cumberlander, 2024-Ohio-2431, ¶ 44 (10th Dist.).

2025“A person may not provoke an assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right No. 24AP-613 15 of self-defense.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) Id. “ ‘[A] multitude of courts have found that a defendant is at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray * * * when he chooses to confront the victim, chooses to knowingly go to a place where the victim will be[,] or refuses to move in a direction away from the victim, even when the defendant’s action was otherwise completely lawful.’ ” Id., quoting State v. Ellis, 2012-Ohio-3586 , ¶ 15 (10th Dist.). {¶ 47

2025See Ridley, 2022-Ohio-2561, at ¶ 15 (1st Dist.). “[A] person may not provoke an assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self-defense.” State v. Jackson, 2024-Ohio-2728, ¶ 13 (1st Dist.), quoting Smith, 2020-Ohio-4976, at ¶ 53 (1st Dist.).

2023Hamilton No. C-210458, 2022-Ohio-2561, ¶ 15 . {¶30} As to the first element of self-defense, “Ohio courts have long recognized that a person cannot provoke [an] assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self-defense.” State v. Woodson, 6th Dist.

2025“A person may not provoke an assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self- defense.” Patterson, 2025-Ohio-280, at ¶ 41 .

2025State v. Patterson, 2025-Ohio-280, ¶ 41 (10th Dist.), quoting State v. Ellis, 2012-Ohio-3586 , ¶ 15 (10th Dist.); see State v. Walker, 2021-Ohio-2037, ¶ 19 (“Generally, a defendant, having willingly advanced toward a volatile situation cannot rely on the affirmative defense of self-defense.”).

2026Additionally, “[a] person may not provoke an assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self-defense.” Eddy at ¶ 16, quoting State v. Elam, 2022-Ohio-1895, ¶ 16 (12th Dist.). {¶17} Importantly, a “heightened standard” exists when non-deadly force is used against a law enforcement officer.

2026Additionally, “[a] person may not provoke an assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self-defense.” Eddy at ¶ 16, quoting State v. Elam, 2022-Ohio-1895, ¶ 16 (12th Dist.). {¶17} Importantly, a “heightened standard” exists when non-deadly force is used against a law enforcement officer.

2026State v. Shepherd, 2006-Ohio-4315, ¶ 31 (11th Dist.).

2026State v. Shepherd, 2006-Ohio-4315, ¶ 31 (11th Dist.).

2025A person may not 42. provoke an assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self- defense.” State v. McClain, 2025-Ohio-577, ¶ 25 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Elam, 2022-Ohio-1895, ¶ 14 (12th Dist.); State v. Mitchell, 2023-Ohio-3543, ¶ 37 (6th Dist.) (“[I]t is well established that a person cannot provoke a fight or voluntarily enter combat and then claim self-defense.”).

2025A person may not 42. provoke an assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self- defense.” State v. McClain, 2025-Ohio-577, ¶ 25 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Elam, 2022-Ohio-1895, ¶ 14 (12th Dist.); State v. Mitchell, 2023-Ohio-3543, ¶ 37 (6th Dist.) (“[I]t is well established that a person cannot provoke a fight or voluntarily enter combat and then claim self-defense.”).

2025See Ridley, 2022-Ohio-2561, at ¶ 15 (1st Dist.). “[A] person may not provoke an assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self-defense.” State v. Jackson, 2024-Ohio-2728, ¶ 13 (1st Dist.), quoting Smith, 2020-Ohio-4976, at ¶ 53 (1st Dist.).

2025A person may not provoke an assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self-defense.” (Internal citations omitted.)); State v. McElroy, . . . 2003-Ohio-6762, ¶ 30-31 [(11th Dist.)] (Defendant could not claim self-defense because “his testimony demonstrated that he was at least partially at fault for creating the situation giving rise to the affray . . .”). {¶ 83} In Woodson, this court ruled that Woodson did not meet her initial burden of presenting evidence which tended to support each element of the claim of self-defense, as she was “at fault (or, at a bare minimum,

2025Jefferson at ¶ 13. -10- Case No. 1-25-07 {¶26} “[A] person cannot provoke an assault or voluntarily enter an encounter and then claim a right of self-defense.” State v. Bender, 2024-Ohio-1750, ¶ 27 (3d Dist.), citing State v. Woodson, 2022-Ohio-2528, ¶ 82 (6th Dist.).