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.
11 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2026 5 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. Belchergreen2 sentences2026However, “one who intervenes to help a stranger stands in the shoes of the person whom he is aiding, and if the person aided is the one at fault, then the intervenor is not justified in his use of force and is guilty of an assault.” * * * Therefore, one who claims the lawful right to act in defense of another must meet the criteria for the affirmative defense of self-defense.’ ” State v. Dixon, 2022-Ohio-2807, ¶ 35 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Belcher, 2013-Ohio-1234, ¶ 35 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Moss, 2006- Ohio-1647, ¶ 13 (10th Dist.); State v. Farmer, 2024-Ohio-6063, ¶ 52 (4th Dist.). 2024However, “one who intervenes to help a stranger stands in the shoes of the person whom he is aiding, and if the person aided is the one at fault, then the intervenor is not justified in his use of force and is guilty of an assault.” * * * Therefore, one who claims the lawful right to act in defense of another must meet the criteria for the affirmative defense of self-defense.’ ” State v. Dixon, 4th Dist. Hocking No. 21CA8, 2022-Ohio-2807, ¶ 35 , quoting State v. Belcher, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 24968, 2013-Ohio-1234, ¶ 35 , quoting State v. Moss, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 05AP-610, 2006-Ohio-16 | 2 | 4 |
State v. Dixongreen2 sentences2026However, “one who intervenes to help a stranger stands in the shoes of the person whom he is aiding, and if the person aided is the one at fault, then the intervenor is not justified in his use of force and is guilty of an assault.” * * * Therefore, one who claims the lawful right to act in defense of another must meet the criteria for the affirmative defense of self-defense.’ ” State v. Dixon, 2022-Ohio-2807, ¶ 35 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Belcher, 2013-Ohio-1234, ¶ 35 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Moss, 2006- Ohio-1647, ¶ 13 (10th Dist.); State v. Farmer, 2024-Ohio-6063, ¶ 52 (4th Dist.). 2024However, “one who intervenes to help a stranger stands in the shoes of the person whom he is aiding, and if the person aided is the one at fault, then the intervenor is not justified in his use of force and is guilty of an assault.” * * * Therefore, one who claims the lawful right to act in defense of another must meet the criteria for the affirmative defense of self-defense.’ ” State v. Dixon, 4th Dist. Hocking No. 21CA8, 2022-Ohio-2807, ¶ 35 , quoting State v. Belcher, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 24968, 2013-Ohio-1234, ¶ 35 , quoting State v. Moss, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 05AP-610, 2006-Ohio-16 | 2 | 3 |
State v. Wengergreen2 sentences2026Therefore, one who claims the lawful right to act in defense of another must meet the criteria for the affirmative defense of self-defense.” State v. Wegner [sic], 58 Ohio St.2d 336 , 340 . . . [(1979)]. 2024However, “one who intervenes to help a stranger stands in the shoes of the person whom he is aiding, and if the person aided is the one at fault, then the intervenor is not justified in his use of force and is guilty of an assault.” * * * Therefore, one who claims the lawful right to act in defense of another must meet the criteria for the affirmative defense of self-defense.’ ” State v. Dixon, 4th Dist. Hocking No. 21CA8, 2022-Ohio-2807, ¶ 35 , quoting State v. Belcher, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 24968, 2013-Ohio-1234, ¶ 35 , quoting State v. Moss, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 05AP-610, 2006-Ohio-16 | 1 | 7 |
State v. Farmergreen1 sentence2026However, “one who intervenes to help a stranger stands in the shoes of the person whom he is aiding, and if the person aided is the one at fault, then the intervenor is not justified in his use of force and is guilty of an assault.” * * * Therefore, one who claims the lawful right to act in defense of another must meet the criteria for the affirmative defense of self-defense.’ ” State v. Dixon, 2022-Ohio-2807, ¶ 35 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Belcher, 2013-Ohio-1234, ¶ 35 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Moss, 2006- Ohio-1647, ¶ 13 (10th Dist.); State v. Farmer, 2024-Ohio-6063, ¶ 52 (4th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Turnergreen1 sentence2019Accord State v. Turner, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24322, 2011-Ohio-5417, ¶ 13 . {¶ 35} In Ohio, self-defense involving the use of deadly force requires proof of three elements: 1) the defendant did not create the violent situation, 2) the defendant had a bona fide belief that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm and that the only way to escape was the use of force, and 3) the defendant did not violate any duty to retreat. | 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. Moss, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2006)
green
2 sentences2024However, “one who intervenes to help a stranger stands in the shoes of the person whom he is aiding, and if the person aided is the one at fault, then the intervenor is not justified in his use of force and is guilty of an assault.” * * * Therefore, one who claims the lawful right to act in defense of another must meet the criteria for the affirmative defense of self-defense.’ ” State v. Dixon, 4th Dist. Hocking No. 21CA8, 2022-Ohio-2807, ¶ 35 , quoting State v. Belcher, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 24968, 2013-Ohio-1234, ¶ 35 , quoting State v. Moss, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 05AP-610, 2006-Ohio-16 2016Id. {¶ 42} The evidence in the present case does not demonstrate error on the part of the trial court in concluding that appellant had failed to meet her burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that she acted in self-defense or defense of another. | 4 | 2012–2024 |
State v. Blevins
green
2 sentences2022State v. Blevins, 2019-Ohio-2744 , 140 N.E.3d 27 , ¶ 75 (4th Dist.). {¶37} Here there was no evidence that Melody was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. 2022State v. Blevins, 2019-Ohio-2744 , 140 N.E.3d 27 , ¶ 75 (4th Dist.). {¶37} Here there was no evidence that Melody was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Robbins
green
1 sentence2006State v. Robbins (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 74 , paragraph two of the syllabus. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.