self-defense jury instruction in Ohio

2022Ineffective Assistance of Counsel {¶45} In his final assignment of error, Dixon contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel failed to object to the provision in the self-defense jury instruction that included the duty to retreat. {¶46} To prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, a defendant must show: “(1) deficient performance by counsel, i.e., performance falling below an objective standard of reasonable representation, and (2) prejudice, i.e., a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the proceeding's result would have been different.” State v

2022Ineffective Assistance of Counsel {¶45} In his final assignment of error, Dixon contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel failed to object to the provision in the self-defense jury instruction that included the duty to retreat. {¶46} To prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, a defendant must show: “(1) deficient performance by counsel, i.e., performance falling below an objective standard of reasonable representation, and (2) prejudice, i.e., a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the proceeding's result would have been different.” State v

2006Id. {¶ 30} We first address appellant’s claim that the juvenile court committed plain error by not giving a self-defense jury instruction.

2006Id. {¶ 30} We first address appellant's claim that the juvenile court committed plain error by not giving a self-defense jury instruction.

2025“Because the trial court is in the best position to gauge the evidence before the jury, we will reverse the trial court’s decision to deny a defendant’s request for a self-defense jury instruction only if the trial court’s ‘attitude [was] unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.’” State v. Palmer, 2024- Ohio-539, ¶ 22, quoting State v. Wolons, 44 Ohio St.3d 64, 68 (1989).

2024See Messenger at ¶ 25-26; see also State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 102, 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997), fn. 4. {¶ 22} Because the trial court is in the best position to gauge the evidence before the jury, we will only reverse the trial court’s decision to deny a defendant’s request for a self-defense jury instruction if the trial court’s “attitude [was] unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Wolons, 44 Ohio St.3d at 68, 541 N.E.2d 443.

2026In Ohio, a person may use deadly force in self- defense when he or she (1) ‘“was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray”’; (2) ‘“had a bona fide belief that he [or she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his [or her] only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force”’; and (3) ‘“did not violate any duty to retreat or avoid the danger.”’ State v. Wilson, 2024-Ohio-776, ¶ 20 , citing State v. Messenger, 2022-Ohio-4562, ¶ 14 , quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 24 (2002). “[W]hen a defendant presents evidence that tends

2025In Ohio, a person may use deadly force in self- defense when he or she: (1) “‘was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray’”; (2) “‘had a bona fide belief that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his [or her] only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force’”; and (3) “‘did not violate any duty to retreat or avoid the danger.’” (Brackets added in Messenger.) State v. Wilson, 2024-Ohio-776, ¶ 20 , quoting State v. Messenger, 2022-Ohio-4562, ¶ 14 , quoting State v. Barnes, 2002-Ohio-68 .

2026“A defendant is entitled to a self-defense jury instruction when he presents legally sufficient evidence for every element of a self-defense claim.” State v. Palmer, 2024-Ohio-539, ¶ 20 .

2025“A defendant is entitled to a self-defense jury instruction when [s]he presents legally sufficient evidence for every element of a self-defense claim.” State v. Palmer, 2024-Ohio-539, ¶ 1 .

2025To determine whether a manifest miscarriage of justice has occurred, we must review the entire record and the jury instructions “ ‘as a whole.’ ” State v. Fletcher, 2024-Ohio-5117, ¶ 100 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Wamsley, 2008-Ohio-1195 , ¶ 17, citing State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 32} Viewing the jury instructions as a whole, we do not find that the omission of -15- the phrase “Count Five” in the self-defense jury instruction amounted to plain error.

2020State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 , 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980). {¶ 21} In the case sub judice, appellant testified that he acted in self-defense and his counsel requested a self-defense jury instruction.

2013As there exists "no rational reason for a distinction between an intruder and a cohabitant when considering the policy for preserving human life where the setting is the domicile," the Supreme Court has held that "there is no duty to - 10 - Butler CA2012-10-213 retreat from one's own home before resorting to lethal force in self-defense against a cohabitant with an equal right to be in the home." Id. at 328 . {¶ 27} In the present case, once the trial court determined that a self-defense jury instruction was warranted, the court was obligated to give an accurate and complete instruction on the

2007See State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323, 1997-Ohio-269 . {¶ 37} While the court gave the self-defense jury instruction, the trial court denied appellant's request to include the "no duty to retreat" instruction based mainly on its conclusion that appellant was in a common area of the duplex rather than in the apartment.

2026In Ohio, a person may use deadly force in self- defense when he or she (1) ‘“was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray”’; (2) ‘“had a bona fide belief that he [or she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his [or her] only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force”’; and (3) ‘“did not violate any duty to retreat or avoid the danger.”’ State v. Wilson, 2024-Ohio-776, ¶ 20 , citing State v. Messenger, 2022-Ohio-4562, ¶ 14 , quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 24 (2002). “[W]hen a defendant presents evidence that tends

2025“Failure to assert an unviable defense does not constitute ineffective assistance.” State v. Davis, 2021-Ohio-4015, ¶ 26 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Roberts, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 1873 , *5 (8th Dist.

2025State v. McClain, 2025-Ohio-577, ¶ 20 (6th Dist.). {¶ 43} At no point did any party dispute that the jury instructions repeatedly affirmed that appellee had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of each offense, and after appellant met the threshold for a self-defense jury instruction, appellee had to carry the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden on whether appellant did not act in self-defense to each offense.

2025See, e.g., Wilks, 2018-Ohio-1562 at ¶ 115. {¶ 121} For these reasons, I would find the trial court’s instruction on self-defense in this case “probably misled the jury” on Ohio’s self-defense law (see Dean, 2015-Ohio- 4347 at ¶ 135), to the prejudice of Mr. Patterson’s substantial rights, and, thus, constituted reversible error.

2025State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-5119, ¶ 33 (6th Dist.). {¶ 19} As applied to the instant case, the undisputed evidence reflects that on Wednesday, June 21, 2023, without advanced notice to C.D., without the consent of C.D., without the requisite supervision, and in violation of the governing custody and visitation orders of the domestic relations court, appellant came into the family home.

2025See also State v. Harris, 2025-Ohio-2774, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.); State v. Bell, 2025-Ohio-2526, ¶ 20 (8th Dist.).

2025“In order for a defendant to receive the benefit of a jury instruction on the presumption contained in R.C. 2901.05(B)(2), the trial court must focus on the conduct and location of the victim at the time the defendant claims to be acting in self-defense.” State v. Estelle, 2021-Ohio-2636, ¶ 16 (3d Dist.). {¶ 28} After a thorough discussion with the parties, the trial court decided that Shaw was entitled to a self-defense jury instruction on Counts 1 through 12, which encompassed all the felonious assault and felony murder counts, and the single count for discharge of a firearm on or near a pro

2025State v. Kiehl, 2016-Ohio-8543 , ¶ 25 (11th Dist.) (“If there was no formal objection and the record does not reveal a material dispute over the jury instructions, appellate review must be limited to plain error under Crim.R. 52(B).”); State v. Gasper, 2024-Ohio-4782, ¶ 14 (“A defendant who fails to object to jury instruction waives all but plain error.”) {¶36} To establish plain error, a defendant must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, meaning “obvious”, and that it affected the defendant’s substantial rights; it affected the outcome of the trial.

2025To determine whether a manifest miscarriage of justice has occurred, we must review the entire record and the jury instructions “ ‘as a whole.’ ” State v. Fletcher, 2024-Ohio-5117, ¶ 100 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Wamsley, 2008-Ohio-1195 , ¶ 17, citing State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 32} Viewing the jury instructions as a whole, we do not find that the omission of -15- the phrase “Count Five” in the self-defense jury instruction amounted to plain error.

2025See also State v. Harris, 2025-Ohio-2774, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.); State v. Bell, 2025-Ohio-2526, ¶ 20 (8th Dist.).

2024See State v. Brown, 2017-Ohio-7424, 96 N.E.3d 1128, ¶ 35 (2d Dist.); State v. Patterson, 2d Dist.

2024See State v. Brown, 2017-Ohio-7424, 96 N.E.3d 1128, ¶ 35 (2d Dist.); State v. Patterson, 2d Dist.

2024(No. 2022-0987—Submitted June 27, 2023—Decided February 15, 2024.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Clermont County, No. CA2021-07-035, 2022-Ohio-2181. __________________ KENNEDY, C.J. {¶ 1} In this discretionary appeal from a judgment of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, we consider whether a taxicab driver who claimed self-defense for shooting a taxicab patron was entitled to a self-defense jury instruction at trial.

2024Palmer asserted several assignments of error, including that the trial court erred by refusing to provide a self-defense jury instruction. 2022-Ohio-2181, ¶ 12, 27, 29, 36.

2024The evidence presented at trial did not constitute an affirmative defense {¶ 31} Wilson asserts a single proposition of law, in which he argues that he was entitled to a self-defense jury instruction. “[A] court’s instructions to the jury should be addressed to the actual issues in the case as posited by the evidence and the pleadings.” State v. Guster, 66 Ohio St.2d 266, 271, 421 N.E.2d 157 (1981).

2024The evidence presented at trial did not constitute an affirmative defense {¶ 31} Wilson asserts a single proposition of law, in which he argues that he was entitled to a self-defense jury instruction. “[A] court’s instructions to the jury should be addressed to the actual issues in the case as posited by the evidence and the pleadings.” State v. Guster, 66 Ohio St.2d 266, 271, 421 N.E.2d 157 (1981).

2024To justify a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel, the appellant must overcome a strong presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy.” State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 558 , 651 N.E.2d 965 (1995), citing Strickland at 689 , and State v. Wickline, 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 114, 126 , 552 N.E.2d 913 (1990). {¶ 44} The lead opinion briefly nods at the notion that we “typically defer to trial counsel’s decisions as a matter of strategy” before it concludes that there was “little doubt” that counsel’s decision not to request a self-de

2024To justify a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel, the appellant must overcome a strong presumption that, under the 18 January Term, 2024 circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy.” State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 558, 651 N.E.2d 965 (1995), citing Strickland at 689, and State v. Wickline, 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 114, 126, 552 N.E.2d 913 (1990). {¶ 44} The lead opinion briefly nods at the notion that we “typically defer to trial counsel’s decisions as a matter of strategy” before it concludes that there was “little doubt” that counsel’s decision not t

2024See Messenger at ¶ 25-26 ; see also State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 102 , 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997), fn. 4. {¶ 22} Because the trial court is in the best position to gauge the evidence before the jury, we will reverse the trial court’s decision to deny a defendant’s request for a self-defense jury instruction only if the trial court’s “attitude [was] unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Wolons, 44 Ohio St.3d at 68 , 541 N.E.2d 443 .

2024See Messenger at ¶ 25-26; see also State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 102, 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997), fn. 4. {¶ 22} Because the trial court is in the best position to gauge the evidence before the jury, we will only reverse the trial court’s decision to deny a defendant’s request for a self-defense jury instruction if the trial court’s “attitude [was] unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Wolons, 44 Ohio St.3d at 68, 541 N.E.2d 443.

2024See State v. Hartman, 93 Ohio St.3d 274, 292, 754 N.E.2d 1150 (2001); Crim.R. 52(B). {¶ 170} At the close of the trial phase, the court instructed the jury: The defendant is allowed to use deadly force in self-defense.

2024See State v. Hartman, 93 Ohio St.3d 274, 292, 754 N.E.2d 1150 (2001); Crim.R. 52(B). {¶ 170} At the close of the trial phase, the court instructed the jury: The defendant is allowed to use deadly force in self-defense.