combined subjective and objective test in Ohio

2026See, e.g., State v. Davidson-Dixon, 2021- Ohio-1485 (8th Dist.) (nondeadly force; imminent danger of great bodily harm). “[T]he second element of self-defense is a combined subjective and objective test.” State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323, 330 (1997); State v. Watson, 2026-Ohio-188, ¶ 43 (8th Dist.).

2026See also State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323, 330 (1997) (“[T]he second element of self-defense is a combined subjective and objective test.”).

2026State v. Woods, 2023-Ohio-3549, ¶ 54 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Lane, 2023-Ohio-1305, ¶ 24 (6th Dist.); and State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323, 330 (1997).

2026State v. Woods, 2023-Ohio-3549, ¶ 54 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Lane, 2023-Ohio-1305, ¶ 24 (6th Dist.); and State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323 , 330 (1997).

2019The second element is a combined subjective and objective test: “self-defense ‘is placed on the grounds of the bona fides of defendant’s belief, and reasonableness therefor, and whether, under the circumstances, he exercised a careful and proper use of his own faculties.’” Id. at 330, quoting State v. Sheets, 115 Ohio St. 308, 310 (1926). {¶117} Over the state’s objection, the trial court instructed the jury on self-defense, stating “the Defendant must prove by the greater weight of the evidence that: 33 A. He was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the circumstances; B.

2008Fink's belief that he was in danger of imminent use of force by Wolfe must not only be "honest," but "reasonable." As the Supreme Court of Ohio has explained, "the second element of self-defense is a combined subjective and objective test." State v. Thomas , 77 Ohio St.3d 323 , 330 , 1997-Ohio-269 , citing State v. Sheets (1926), 115 Ohio St. 308 , 310 . "[T]he jury," or finder of fact, "first must consider the defendant's situation objectively, that is, whether, considering all of the defendant's particular characteristics, knowledge, or lack of knowledge, circumstances, history, and conditio

2026State v. Woods, 2023-Ohio-3549, ¶ 54 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Lane, 2023-Ohio-1305, ¶ 24 (6th Dist.); and State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323 , 330 (1997).

2024Therefore, even if the jury believed appellant’s testimony regarding an aggressive Dougie, accusing appellant of sleeping with M.T., the evidence of appellant’s bona fide belief depended on the jury disbelieving the state’s witnesses who testified that Dougie never drew his gun to threaten appellant. {¶ 37} The bona fide belief element of self-defense “is a combined subjective and objective test.” State v. Woods, 2023-Ohio-3549, ¶ 54 (6th Dist.), quoting Lane, 2023- Ohio-1305, ¶ 24, citing State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323, 330 (1997).

2026The second element of self-defense "is a combined subjective and objective test." State v. Helmondollar, 2024-Ohio-2077, ¶ 43 (5th Dist.), quoting State v. Thomas, 1997-Ohio-269 (1997).

2025As noted previously, the trial court stated that Donovan “turned his back to the armed victim and calmly walked to his residence to retrieve his firearm[], [and he] seemed unhurried and dispassionate.” Based on that, the trial court found that Donovan “did not have reasonable grounds to believe or an honest belief that he was in imminent danger of bodily harm . . . .” In analyzing this factor, it “‘is a combined subjective and objective test.’” State v. Helmondollar, 2024-Ohio-2077, ¶ 43 (5th Dist.), quoting State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323, 330 (1997).

2024But “[i]f 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.” Id. {¶ 37} A self-defense claim requires a defendant to produce evidence “(1) that the defendant was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray; (2) that the defendant had a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force; and (3) that the defendant did not violate

2024But “[i]f 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.” Id. {¶ 37} A self-defense claim requires a defendant to produce evidence “(1) that the defendant was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray; (2) that the defendant had a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force; and (3) that the defendant did not violate

2026“If the force used was so disproportionate that it shows a purpose to injure, self-defense is unavailable.” State v. Barker, 2022-Ohio-3756, ¶ 28 (2d Dist.), citing Wallace-Lee at ¶ 43 , quoting State v. Macklin, 2011-Ohio-87 , ¶ 27 (8th Dist.). {¶ 33} The bona-fide-belief element of self-defense “is a combined subjective and objective test.” State v. Thomas, 1997-Ohio-269, ¶ 29 .

2024“A bona fide belief requires weighing the use of force against the believed danger, permitting ‘only such force as is necessary to repel an attack.’” Woods at ¶ 54 , quoting Lane at ¶ 24 , citing State v. Barker, 2022-Ohio-3756, ¶ 28 (2d Dist.).

2025Thus, Donovan’s “belief must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances and he must subjectively believe he needed to resort to force to defend himself . . . .” Id., citing Thomas at 330-331 . {¶14} “The subjective part requires consideration of whether the defendant himself actually believed that he was in imminent danger.” Id. at ¶ 44, citing State v. Watson, 2023-Ohio-3137, ¶ 86 (5th Dist.).

2025Thus, Appellant's "belief must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances and he must subjectively believe he needed to resort to force to defend himself." Id., citing Thomas at 330-331 . {¶47} "The subjective part requires consideration of whether the defendant himself actually believed that he was in imminent danger." Id. at ¶ 44, citing State v. Watson, 2023-Ohio-3137, ¶ 86 (5th Dist.).

2025“If the force used was so disproportionate that it shows a purpose to injure, self-defense is unavailable.” Id., citing State v. Wallace-Lee, 2020-Ohio-3681, ¶ 43 (2d Dist.). {¶ 42} The bona-fide-belief element “is a combined subjective and objective test.” State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323, 330 (1997).

2024Greene No. 2019-CA-19, 2020-Ohio-3681, ¶ 43 . {¶ 77} The bona-fide-belief element “is a combined subjective and objective test.” State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323, 330 , 673 N.E.2d 1339 (1997).

2026“Then, if the objective standard is met, the jury must determine if, subjectively, this particular defendant had an honest belief that [he] was in imminent danger.” Id. “‘Although the term “great bodily harm” is not statutorily defined, Ohio courts of appeal have concluded that the term is substantially similar to “serious physical harm,” which is statutorily defined.’” State v. Daniel, 2024-Ohio-5551, ¶ 40 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Chavez, 2020-Ohio-426, ¶ 69 (3d Dist.); see R.C. 2901.01(A)(5). {¶112} Appellant testified that I.C. had been unusually interested in his handgun and that he

2026See, e.g., State v. Davidson-Dixon, 2021- Ohio-1485 (8th Dist.) (nondeadly force; imminent danger of great bodily harm). “[T]he second element of self-defense is a combined subjective and objective test.” State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323, 330 (1997); State v. Watson, 2026-Ohio-188, ¶ 43 (8th Dist.).

2026“Then, if the objective standard is met, the jury must determine if, subjectively, this particular defendant had an honest belief that [he] was in imminent danger.” Id. “‘Although the term “great bodily harm” is not statutorily defined, Ohio courts of appeal have concluded that the term is substantially similar to “serious physical harm,” which is statutorily defined.’” State v. Daniel, 2024-Ohio-5551, ¶ 40 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Chavez, 2020-Ohio-426, ¶ 69 (3d Dist.); see R.C. 2901.01(A)(5). {¶112} Appellant testified that I.C. had been unusually interested in his handgun and that he

2025See State v. Murray, 2025-Ohio-1485, ¶ 26 (2d Dist.) (“R.C. 2901.09 was amended to reflect that the ‘duty to retreat’ element is no longer required where the person using force in self-defense or defense of another is in a place in which the person lawfully has a right to be”). -10- Case No. 1-25-04 St.3d 323, 330 (1997) (“self-defense ‘is placed on the grounds of the bona fides of defendant’s belief, and reasonableness therefor, and whether, under the circumstances, he exercised a careful and proper use of his own faculties’”), quoting State v. Sheets, 115 Ohio St. 308, 310 (1926).

2025Cumberlander, 2024-Ohio-2431, at ¶ 45 (10th Dist.), quoting State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323, 330 (1997).

2025This element involves “a combined subjective and objective test.” State v. Morris, 2024-Ohio-2960, ¶ 30 (3d Dist.); see also State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio 3 The third element may no longer be required in certain circumstances because of amendments to R.C. 2901.05 and R.C. 2901.09 effective April 6, 2021.

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.),

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.),

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.),

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.),

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.),

2025The defendant’s state of mind is crucial to this defense”). {¶ 62} Furthermore, in addition to describing the second element as a combined subjective and objective test, the Supreme Court in State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St.3d 247 (1990), reiterated the three prongs of self-defense as stated in Messenger, 2022-Ohio-4562 , and added that “[t]he defendant is privileged to use that force which is reasonably necessary to repel the attack.” Williford at 249 , citing State v. McLeod, 82 Ohio App. 155, 157 (9th Dist.1948).

2024Woods, 2023-Ohio-3549, at ¶ 54 . “‘[A]n individual’s belief that he or she was in imminent danger must be objectively reasonable, and the individual must have an honest subjective belief to that effect.’” (Citation omitted.) State v. Alexander, 2023-Ohio-3450, ¶ 19 (9th Dist.) “A bona fide belief requires weighing the use of force against the believed danger, permitting ‘only such force as is necessary to repel an attack.’” Woods at ¶ 54 , quoting State v. Lane, 2023-Ohio-1305, ¶ 24 (6th Dist.).

2024State v. Knowlton, 2023-Ohio-3759, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.). {¶40} The Ohio Supreme Court has described “the second element of self- defense [as] a combined subjective and objective test.” State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323, 330 (1997). “[T]he jury first must consider the defendant’s situation objectively, that is, whether, considering all of the defendant’s particular characteristics, knowledge, or lack of knowledge, circumstances, history, and conditions at the time of the attack, [he] reasonably believed [he] was in imminent danger.” (Emphasis deleted.) Id.