Ohio Supreme Court Announces Self-Defense Jury Instruction Does Not Require Intent to Harm or Kill Assailant
by David M. Reutter
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that a defendant need not “intend to harm or kill another person to be entitled to a self-defense jury instruction.” The Court found error in the lower courts’ ruling otherwise and concluded the defendant’s counsel was ineffective for failing to request a self-defense jury instruction.
In June 2021, Tyler Wilson engaged in a heated argument with Billy Reffett at a gas station. The argument ensued after Reffett pulled up to a gas pump between another vehicle and the car driven by Wilson, who yelled at Reffett for coming too close to his vehicle. Reffett backed his truck up until he was able to confront Wilson through the window.
A verbal altercation ensued. Wilson testified at trial that Reffett pointed a gun at him and said, “I’ll smoke you out here.” Wilson retrieved a gun he had in the car, aimed it out the window, and fired up. The evidence showed it hit the truck’s doorframe. Reffett pulled forward and turned around. A highway chase followed, but no further incident occurred. Wilson was subsequently arrested and charged with attempted murder and felonious assault. At trial, Wilson testified he was not trying to harm or kill Reffett but to “scare” him and make him “back off.”
At the charge conference, the trial court opinionated that the self-defense instruction did not apply because Wilson testified he did not intend to harm or kill Reffett. Wilson’s trial counsel agreed and did not request the instruction. The jury acquitted Wilson of the attempted murder charge but convicted him of the felonious assault charge. Wilson timely appealed.
The Ohio Court of Appeals, Second District, affirmed with an opinion that concluded that self-defense did not apply because Wilson did not intend to harm or kill anyone. Thus, his trial counsel was not ineffective.
The Ohio Supreme Court granted Wilson’s request for review. The Court’s analysis determined that the self-defense statute, R.C. 2901.05(B)(1), does not contain “any language … specifying that a defendant must have acted with an intent to harm or kill another person in order to assert and be qualified to a self-defense jury instruction.” Additionally, the Court explained that self-defense case law only requires an intent to repel or escape for the instruction to apply. See State v. Messenger, 216 N.E.3d 653 (Ohio 2022); State v. Champion, 142 N.E. 141 (Ohio 1924). “Our case law provides that the only requisite state of mind or intent that a defendant must have had to assert self-defense is that he or she intended to use force and that such force was used to escape or repel his or her attacker,” the Court declared.
The Court concluded that Wilson met that standard through his testimony, which established Reffett pointed a gun at him, he became “scared for [his] life” when Reffett threatened him, and Wilson had no duty to retreat. The trial and appellate courts erred by reading “words into the statute and controlling case law that are not there,” according to the Court.
Finally, the Court ruled that Wilson presented an affirmative defense to the charges. The burden of production in self-defense “is ‘not a heavy one.’” State v. Palmer, 238 N.E.3d 33 (Ohio 2024). “The question is not whether the evidence should be believed but whether the evidence, if believed, could convince the trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was acting in self-defense. Wilson’s testimony crossed that threshold. The Court, therefore, held that Wilson’s attorney was ineffective for not requesting a self-defense jury instruction.
Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment the Court of Appeals, vacated Wilson’s conviction, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. See: State v. Wilson, 237 N.E.3d 179 (Ohio 2024).
As a digital subscriber to Criminal Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
