11 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2025 7 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. Watsongreen2 sentences2025Therefore, his own testimony contradicts that he subjectively feared A.D. at that point. {¶16} “‘The objective part of the test requires consideration of “whether, considering all of the defendant’s particular characteristics, knowledge, or lack of knowledge, circumstances, history, and conditions at the time of the attack,” a reasonable person would believe that danger was imminent.’” Helmondollar, 2024- Ohio-2077, at ¶ 44 (5th Dist.), quoting Watson, 2023-Ohio-3137, at ¶ 86 (5th Dist.). 2025The objective part of the test requires consideration of "whether, considering all of the defendant's particular characteristics, knowledge, or lack of knowledge, circumstances, history, and conditions at the time of the attack," a reasonable person would believe that danger was imminent.'" Helmondollar, 2024-Ohio-2077, at ¶ 44 , quoting Watson, 2023-Ohio-3137, at ¶ 86 . {¶48} Here, the evidence does not support Appellant's contention he possessed the necessary objective and subjective beliefs he was in imminent or immediate danger of death or great bodily harm. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Shanegreen2 sentences2025Hocking App. No. 24CA7 13 {¶27} “Under the objective part of the inquiry, provocation is reasonably sufficient to bring on a sudden passion or fit of rage if it would ‘arouse the passions of an ordinary person beyond the power of his or her control.’” Id. at ¶ 15, quoting Shane at 635 . “‘If insufficient evidence of provocation is presented, so that no reasonable jury would decide that an actor was reasonably provoked by the victim, the trial judge must, as a matter of law, refuse to give’ an aggravated assault instruction.” State v. Fife, 2021-Ohio-2000, ¶ 65 (10th Dist.), quoting Shane at 63 2021Under the objective part of the inquiry, provocation is reasonably sufficient to bring on a sudden passion or fit of rage if it would "arouse the passions of an ordinary person beyond the power of his or her control." Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d at 635 . | 1 | 4 |
State v. Keith, 08ap-28 (11-25-2008)green2 sentences2025“The person’s belief must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances, and he must subjectively believe he needed to resort to force to defend himself . . . .” State v. Knipp, 2024-Ohio-2143, ¶ 25 (5th Dist.), citing Thomas at 330-331 . “‘The objective part of the test requires consideration of “whether, considering all of the defendant’s particular characteristics, knowledge, or lack of knowledge, circumstances, history, and conditions at the time of the attack,” a reasonable person would believe that danger was imminent.’” Id., quoting State v. Bundy, 2012-Ohio-3934, ¶ 54 (4th Dist.), 2025“The person’s belief must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances, and he must subjectively believe he needed to resort to force to defend himself . . . .” State v. Knipp, 2024-Ohio-2143, ¶ 25 (5th Dist.), citing Thomas at 330-331 . “‘The objective part of the test requires consideration of “whether, considering all of the defendant’s particular characteristics, knowledge, or lack of knowledge, circumstances, history, and conditions at the time of the attack,” a reasonable person would believe that danger was imminent.’” Id., quoting State v. Bundy, 2012-Ohio-3934, ¶ 54 (4th Dist.), | 1 | 2 |
State v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2025Hocking App. No. 24CA7 13 {¶27} “Under the objective part of the inquiry, provocation is reasonably sufficient to bring on a sudden passion or fit of rage if it would ‘arouse the passions of an ordinary person beyond the power of his or her control.’” Id. at ¶ 15, quoting Shane at 635 . “‘If insufficient evidence of provocation is presented, so that no reasonable jury would decide that an actor was reasonably provoked by the victim, the trial judge must, as a matter of law, refuse to give’ an aggravated assault instruction.” State v. Fife, 2021-Ohio-2000, ¶ 65 (10th Dist.), quoting Shane at 63 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fifegreen1 sentence2025Hocking App. No. 24CA7 13 {¶27} “Under the objective part of the inquiry, provocation is reasonably sufficient to bring on a sudden passion or fit of rage if it would ‘arouse the passions of an ordinary person beyond the power of his or her control.’” Id. at ¶ 15, quoting Shane at 635 . “‘If insufficient evidence of provocation is presented, so that no reasonable jury would decide that an actor was reasonably provoked by the victim, the trial judge must, as a matter of law, refuse to give’ an aggravated assault instruction.” State v. Fife, 2021-Ohio-2000, ¶ 65 (10th Dist.), quoting Shane at 63 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Napiergreen1 sentence2025This court previously held that “the trier of fact ‘must consider the entire situation and determine whether the person’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances.’” In re Bumpus, 2003- Ohio-4307, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.), quoting State v. Napier, 105 Ohio App.3d 713, 721 (1st Dist. 1995), citing State v. Smith, 10 Ohio App.3d 99 (10th Dist. 1983). {¶15} In this case, Brunson’s belief was neither objectively nor subjectively reasonable. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Knippgreen2 sentences2025“The person’s belief must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances, and he must subjectively believe he needed to resort to force to defend himself . . . .” State v. Knipp, 2024-Ohio-2143, ¶ 25 (5th Dist.), citing Thomas at 330-331 . “‘The objective part of the test requires consideration of “whether, considering all of the defendant’s particular characteristics, knowledge, or lack of knowledge, circumstances, history, and conditions at the time of the attack,” a reasonable person would believe that danger was imminent.’” Id., quoting State v. Bundy, 2012-Ohio-3934, ¶ 54 (4th Dist.), 2025“The person’s belief must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances, and he must subjectively believe he needed to resort to force to defend himself . . . .” State v. Knipp, 2024-Ohio-2143, ¶ 25 (5th Dist.), citing Thomas at 330-331 . “‘The objective part of the test requires consideration of “whether, considering all of the defendant’s particular characteristics, knowledge, or lack of knowledge, circumstances, history, and conditions at the time of the attack,” a reasonable person would believe that danger was imminent.’” Id., quoting State v. Bundy, 2012-Ohio-3934, ¶ 54 (4th Dist.), | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bundygreen1 sentence2025“The person’s belief must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances, and he must subjectively believe he needed to resort to force to defend himself . . . .” State v. Knipp, 2024-Ohio-2143, ¶ 25 (5th Dist.), citing Thomas at 330-331 . “‘The objective part of the test requires consideration of “whether, considering all of the defendant’s particular characteristics, knowledge, or lack of knowledge, circumstances, history, and conditions at the time of the attack,” a reasonable person would believe that danger was imminent.’” Id., quoting State v. Bundy, 2012-Ohio-3934, ¶ 54 (4th Dist.), | 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. Mack
green
2 sentences2018Id. {¶ 15} Under the objective part of the inquiry, provocation is reasonably sufficient to bring on a sudden passion or fit of rage if it would "arouse the passions of an ordinary person beyond the power of his or her control." Shane at 635, 590 N.E.2d 272 . 2016Id. {¶ 18} Under the objective part of the inquiry, provocation is reasonably sufficient to bring on a sudden passion or fit of rage if it would “arouse the passions of an ordinary person beyond the power of his or her control.” Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d at 635 . | 2 | 2016–2018 |
State v. Deem
green
1 sentence2025“It is only at that point that the ‘ * * * emotional and mental state of the defendant and the conditions and circumstances that surrounded him at the time * * * ’ must be considered.” (Omissions in original.) Shane at 634 , quoting Deem, 40 Ohio St.3d 205 , at paragraph five of the syllabus. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Helmondollar
green
1 sentence2025The objective part of the test requires consideration of "whether, considering all of the defendant's particular characteristics, knowledge, or lack of knowledge, circumstances, history, and conditions at the time of the attack," a reasonable person would believe that danger was imminent.'" Helmondollar, 2024-Ohio-2077, at ¶ 44 , quoting Watson, 2023-Ohio-3137, at ¶ 86 . {¶48} Here, the evidence does not support Appellant's contention he possessed the necessary objective and subjective beliefs he was in imminent or immediate danger of death or great bodily harm. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence2025This court previously held that “the trier of fact ‘must consider the entire situation and determine whether the person’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances.’” In re Bumpus, 2003- Ohio-4307, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.), quoting State v. Napier, 105 Ohio App.3d 713, 721 (1st Dist. 1995), citing State v. Smith, 10 Ohio App.3d 99 (10th Dist. 1983). {¶15} In this case, Brunson’s belief was neither objectively nor subjectively reasonable. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Thomas
green
1 sentence2012No. 08CA12, 2009-Ohio-4416 , ¶30, quoting State v. Keith, Franklin App. Nos. 08AP-28, 08AP-29, 2008-Ohio-6122, ¶23 , citing Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d at 330 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (12-9-2004)
green
1 sentence2008Thomas at 330 ; State v. Smith , Franklin App. No. 04AP-189, 2004-Ohio-6608 , at ¶ 16 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.