 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Smith12/9/2004
this particular defendant had an honest belief that was in imminent danger." Id. at 330-331. (Emphasis sic). Thus, "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, (emphasis sic.), quoting State v. Sheets (1926), 115 Ohio St. 308, 310. Finally, the accused must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger. Williford, supra. However, there is an exception to the third element when the accused is in his own home. Id. This exception extends to situations where the accused and the assailant cohabit in the same abode. "There is no duty to retreat from one's own home before resorting to lethal force in self-defense against a cohabitant with equal right to be in home." Thomas, supra, syllabus.
{ } The elements of self-defense are cumulative. State v. Jackson (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 281, 284. The trial court need not give an instruction on self-defense if every element of the defense is not raised by the evidence. Conversely, a trial court must instruct on self-defense if every element is raised by the evidence.
When such evidence is forthcoming the trial court must first, viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, determine whether or not it is adequate to raise the self-defense issue, and, if believed, would under the legal tests applied to a claim of self-defense permit a reasonable doubt as to guilt, stemming from that claim, to arise. * * * If the evidence adduced, so viewed, is legally insufficient to raise the issue, the trial court will have no occasion or obligation to instruct the jury on the elements essential to a valid claim of self-defense * * * from jury consideration.
State v. King (Nov. 10, 1997), Seneca App. No. 13-97-12, quoting Bucyrus v. Fawley (1988), 50 Ohio App.3d 25, 26-27. (Emphasis omitted; citations omitted.)
{ } The state contends that a self-defense instruction was not warranted on voluntary manslaughter because the evidence at trial was insufficient to raise an issue with regard to either the first or second elements.
{ } The evidence at trial, construed in a light most favorable to defendant, arguably raises a question of fact about who was responsible for the situation that ultimately led to Williams' death. Hayes testified that Williams had been fired from his job and was drinking heavily. By 7 p.m. he was intoxicated, and he continued to drink heavily for the next four hours. Hayes further testified that Williams was violent when he was intoxicated. After Hayes and defendant argued, an intoxicated Williams, who had expressed some romantic interest in Hayes, confronted defendant about defendant's relationship with her. The evidence is unclear as to how the physical altercation between defendant and Williams began; however, Walker testified that Williams twice threw defendant to the floor. Both Hayes and Walker testified that Williams threatened defendant with a candlestick. Construing these facts in favor of defendant, a reasonable jury, properly instructed, may have reasonably inferred that defendant was not a fault in creating the situation giving rise to the dispute.
{ } Similarly, the evidence at trial, construed in a light most favorable to defendant, arguably raises a question of fact concerning whether defendant had a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he could escape such danger only by using deadly force. As noted previously, the evidence at trial established that Williams had violent propensities when he was intoxicated and that he verbally cri
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|