Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2026 9 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Sturgillgreen1 sentence2026State v. Sturgill, 2020-Ohio-6665, ¶ 19 (12th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ridleygreen1 sentence2025But the trial court prefaced its rejection of Nichols’s self-defense claim with a recitation of the State’s burden of “proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, in defeating a claim of self defense.” That reference matters, because “the prosecution does not assume the burden of persuasion until the defendant first meets his or her burden of production.” State v. Ridley, 2022-Ohio-2561, ¶ 19 (1st Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Corradogreen1 sentence2025So, when the trial court determined that the State successfully disproved Nichols’s claim, it implicitly acknowledged that Nichols cleared her initial hurdle of producing legally sufficient evidence to support her self-defense claim. {¶23} Because there was sufficient evidence supporting Nichols’s self-defense claim, the burden shifted to the State to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one of the elements of self-defense was not met.” State v. Corrado, 2024-Ohio-2575, ¶ 12 (1st Dist.); see R.C. 2901.05(B)(1). | 1 | 1 |
Toledo v. Duckworthgreen1 sentence2024State v. Bonner, 2023-Ohio-4003, ¶ 95 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Messenger, 15 2022-Ohio-4562, ¶ 26 ; see also Toledo v. Duckworth, 2023-Ohio-1412, ¶ 13 (6th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bonnergreen1 sentence2024State v. Bonner, 2023-Ohio-4003, ¶ 95 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Messenger, 15 2022-Ohio-4562, ¶ 26 ; see also Toledo v. Duckworth, 2023-Ohio-1412, ¶ 13 (6th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Howardgreen1 sentence2024State v. Howard, 2024-Ohio-2490, ¶ 17 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Wilson, 2024-Ohio-776, ¶ 20 , citing State v. Messenger, 2022-Ohio-4562 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thompkinsred1 sentence2023See generally State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 390 (1997) (Cook, J., concurring) (“[I]n deciding whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court determines whether the state has appropriately carried its burden of persuasion.). {¶17} Section 2905.01(B) places the burden of persuasion to disprove a claim of self- defense on the State. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davisgreen1 sentence2022Franklin No. 17AP-438, 2018-Ohio-58, ¶ 32 (in rejecting a claim of self- defense, the court “considered the lack of record evidence beyond the cursing and loud talking”). {¶24} Moreover, Heald’s conduct was not reasonable inasmuch as he struck Thompson before he could have ascertained the need to use force. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Melchiorgreen1 sentence2020If the evidence generates only a mere speculation or possible doubt, such evidence is insufficient to raise the affirmative defense, and submission of the issue to the jury will be unwarranted.” Bitting at ¶ 9, quoting State v. Melchior, 56 Ohio St.2d 15, 20 (1978). 1 Demarcus Shealy’s conduct occurred before the March 28, 2019 effective date of R.C. 2901.05(B) “which places the burden on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the force was not used in self-defense when there is ‘evidence presented that tends to support that the [defendant] used the force in self-defense * * *.’” St | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Messenger
green
2 sentences2026“The state’s new burden of disproving the defendant’s self- defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt is subject to a manifest-weight review on appeal[.]” State v. Messenger, 2022-Ohio-4562, ¶ 27 . {¶ 34} When a defendant asserts he used deadly force in self-defense, as in this case, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the following elements to negate the self-defense claim: (1) the accused was at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray, (2) the accused did not have a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm for wh 2024State v. Howard, 2024-Ohio-2490, ¶ 17 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Wilson, 2024-Ohio-776, ¶ 20 , citing State v. Messenger, 2022-Ohio-4562 . | 2 | 2024–2026 |
State v. Bollar
green
1 sentence2024Imposing sentences on two of the firearm specifications, one of which was attendant to a merged offense, is required under the combined application of R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) and State v. Bollar, 2022-Ohio-4370 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Messenger
green
2 sentences2024No. 19AP- 879, 2021-Ohio-2044, ¶ 49 . “ ‘When weighing witness testimony supporting a claim of self- defense [or defense of another], the trier of fact is “free to believe or disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses” and “is in the best position to take into account inconsistences, along with the witnesses’ manner and demeanor, and determine whether the witnesses’ testimony is credible.” ’ ” Id., quoting Lawrence at ¶ 41, quoting Bentley at ¶ 24, citing State v. Haney, 11th Dist. 2024No. 19AP- 879, 2021-Ohio-2044, ¶ 49 . “ ‘When weighing witness testimony supporting a claim of self- defense [or defense of another], the trier of fact is “free to believe or disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses” and “is in the best position to take into account inconsistences, along with the witnesses’ manner and demeanor, and determine whether the witnesses’ testimony is credible.” ’ ” Id., quoting Lawrence at ¶ 41, quoting Bentley at ¶ 24, citing State v. Haney, 11th Dist. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Wilson
green
1 sentence2024State v. Howard, 2024-Ohio-2490, ¶ 17 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Wilson, 2024-Ohio-776, ¶ 20 , citing State v. Messenger, 2022-Ohio-4562 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Haney
green
1 sentence2024No. 2012-L-098, 2013-Ohio-2823, ¶ 43 . {¶ 50} Appellant first contends the state did not disprove that he was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to his use of deadly force against Edwards. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Champion
green
2 sentences2022Self-defense “presumes intentional, willful use of force to repel force or escape force.” State v. Champion, 109 Ohio St. 281, 286-287 , 142 N.E. 141 (1927). {¶ 80} Although the Hubbard case cited by the majority suggests that when an individual asserts that he did not intend to cause harm, it precludes a claim of self- defense, Hubbard rests upon faulty reasoning. 2022Self-defense “presumes intentional, willful use of force to repel force or escape force.” State v. Champion, 109 Ohio St. 281, 286-287 , 142 N.E. 141 (1927). {¶ 80} Although the Hubbard case cited by the majority suggests that when an individual asserts that he did not intend to cause harm, it precludes a claim of self- defense, Hubbard rests upon faulty reasoning. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Barnes
green
1 sentence2009State v. Barnes , 94 Ohio St.3d 21 . {¶ 36} In this case, the trial court instructed the jury as follows: In determining whether or not the affirmative defense of self-defense has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence, you should consider all the evidence bearing upon self-defense, regardless of who produced it. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Robbins
green
2 sentences2008In State v. Robbins (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 74 , 388 N.E.2d 755 , the Supreme Court of Ohio stated that to establish self defense a defendant must demonstrate: {¶ 20} "(1) he was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray;" {¶ 21} "(2) he had a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and his only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force; and" {¶ 22} "(3) he must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid danger." {¶ 23} The evidence established that appellant was at fault in creating the situation which gave ris 2008In State v. Robbins (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 74 , 388 N.E.2d 755 , the Supreme Court of Ohio stated that to establish self defense a defendant must demonstrate: {¶ 20} "(1) he was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray;" {¶ 21} "(2) he had a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and his only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force; and" {¶ 22} "(3) he must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid danger." {¶ 23} The evidence established that appellant was at fault in creating the situation which gave ris | 1 | 2008–2008 |
City of Bucyrus v. Fawley
green
1 sentence1999City of Bucyrus v. Fawley (1988), 50 Ohio App.3d 25 , 26-27 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.