10 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2026 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State v. Skinner, Unpublished Decision (10-22-2007)green2 sentences2025Similar to a claim of self-defense, “[p]ursuant to the defense of others doctrine, a person has a privilege to defend family members to the same extent he is entitled to protect himself.” State v. Skinner, 2007-Ohio-5601, ¶ 20 (9th Dist.). {¶26} A thorough review of the record does not support Webster’s assertion that the trier of fact clearly lost its way in finding that the State met its burden regarding the affirmative defenses of self-defense and defense of others. 2022Lorain No. 06CA009023, 2007-Ohio-5601, ¶ 20 , citing State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St.3d 247, 250 (1990). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Willifordgreen2 sentences2022Lorain No. 06CA009023, 2007-Ohio-5601, ¶ 20 , citing State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St.3d 247, 250 (1990). 2007Pursuant to the defense of others doctrine, a person has a privilege to *Page 11 defend family members to the same extent he is entitled to protect himself State v. Williford (1990 ), 49 Ohio St.3d 247 , 250 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Owens (Slip Opinion)green1 sentence2026See Owens, 2020-Ohio-4616, at ¶ 9-10 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Palmergreen2 sentences2025R.C. 2105.01(B)(1); State v. Palmer, 2024-Ohio-539, ¶ 1, 19 (addressing self-defense claims specifically by discussing changes in R.C. 2901.05 effecting self-defense, defense-of-others, and defense-of-residence claims). 2025Palmer at ¶ 1, 19 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thompkinsred1 sentence2023See Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387 . 10 {¶36} With respect to Mr. Esters’ claim that his convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence due to a defense of others, Mr. Esters acknowledges that “his defense of a third-person was not brought up at trial.” Mr. Esters further acknowledges that “there was no evidence that was presented that Bryan [Esters] thought Warren was defending himself * * *.” Mr. Esters nonetheless relies on current law and argues that the State failed to present evidence to disprove a defense of others claim. {¶37} As this Court explained in Warren, 9th Dist. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wengergreen1 sentence2019Lorain No. 97CA006973, 1999 WL 492595 , *5 (July 14, 1999), quoting State v. Wenger, 58 Ohio St.2d 336, 339 (1979). {¶19} Ms. Wells argues that she was entitled to a defense of others instruction because she, Ms. Brown, and Ms. Brown’s friend each testified that, when Mr. Clark pushed his torso through the window of her car, he began punching Ms. Brown. | 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. Warren
green
1 sentence2023Summit No. 29455, 2020-Ohio-6990, at ¶ 12 , in the past Ohio law required self-defense and defense of others “to be proven by a defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.” Effective March 28, 2019, however, R.C. 2901.05 was amended to place the burden of proof on the State in self-defense and defense of other cases. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Sowell (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2023“An error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment.” Id. at 691 . {¶47} Mr. Esters argues that trial counsel’s representation was prejudicially deficient because counsel did not raise a defense of others claim. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Feterle v. Huettner
green
1 sentence2022“In reviewing a record to ascertain the presence of sufficient evidence to support the giving of a[n] * * * instruction, an appellate court should determine whether the record contains evidence from which reasonable minds might reach the conclusion sought by the instruction.” (Alteration sic.) Murphy at 591 , quoting Feterle v. Huettner, 28 Ohio St.2d 54 (1971), syllabus. {¶22} The defense of others doctrine affords a person the privilege “to defend family members to the same extent he is entitled to protect himself.” State v. Skinner, 9th Dist. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Melchior
green
1 sentence2009No. 2003 CA 429, 2004-Ohio-7056, ¶14 , citing State v. Melchior (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 15 . {¶31} In the case sub judice, in order for a defense of others instruction to be warranted, Kramer must have shown that either Pratt or Strong was not at fault in creating the confrontation with Miguel; that they believed they were in -22- Case No. 4-09-12 imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm; that their only means of escape was through the use of force against Miguel; and, that they did not violate the duty to retreat or avoid the danger. {¶32} At trial, testimony was presented that either Kr | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Davis, Unpublished Decision (12-22-2004)
green
1 sentence2009No. 2003 CA 429, 2004-Ohio-7056, ¶14 , citing State v. Melchior (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 15 . {¶31} In the case sub judice, in order for a defense of others instruction to be warranted, Kramer must have shown that either Pratt or Strong was not at fault in creating the confrontation with Miguel; that they believed they were in -22- Case No. 4-09-12 imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm; that their only means of escape was through the use of force against Miguel; and, that they did not violate the duty to retreat or avoid the danger. {¶32} At trial, testimony was presented that either Kr | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Robinson
green
1 sentence2004State v. Robinson (1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 103 . {¶ 15} The first prong of defense of others was not sufficiently established as to entitle appellant to a defense of others instruction. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.