[Disclaimer, do not use this as legal advice, really? This is entirely incomplete because the forum cut me off and also its an immensely complex topic. If you are arrested, then you need a lawyer licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction who knows the ins and outs where you are to have any kind of defense. Laws really, truly are different in different jurisdictions.].
Alright, due to some computer problems that last post somehow ended up posting while I was still typing stuff out. I think this had something to do with my breaking the forum's 40,000 character limit, which speaks volumes about the complexity of the topic. Therefore, I've drastically shortened it to provide only a small glimpse into Ohio self defense concerning oversimplified general offense not specific to any crime and as a defense against homicide generally. It appears I did not have room to cover battered woman syndrome, nor defense of others, nor defense of property, and I am furious all that typing went to waste..... I thus give you the abridged version:
Abridged answer concerning the Ohio Castle Law: It still really depends on the facts and circumstances.
That did used to be the case in Ohio, yes, until the castle doctrine law came into effect. Now it is not. However, this is not as cut and dry as people think it is. For example, it does not apply to one's driveway, nor their porch, nor the immediate exterior of one's home. Covered porches present a problem depending upon how covered/enclosed they are. Moreover, the castle doctrine doesn't cover a mere trespasser and the question becomes, "is this person a trespasser, or something more?" (This is explained and cited in detail in the spoiler below).
The castle doctrine does not provide a cut and dry "yes I can shoot people who go into my house," answer. Rather,
You still can't be at fault in creating the violent situation and you still must have had a bona fide belief that you were in imminent danger of great bodily harm and that your only means of escape from such danger was in the use of deadly force. We're talking about the law sanctioning the taking of a human life; so the standards aren't easy ones to meet. I would say, nor should they be.
The name of the case escapes me, but there is a case whereby a man failed to be acquitted of a murder charge under the "castle doctrine." He saw what he believed to be a man trying to break into his house through a basement window near his porch. He yelled (not saying anything but just yelling) and the startled, soon to be deceased man rose up with what the defendant thought was a metallic object in his hand. He fired once from a shotgun instantly killing the deceased, who in point of fact DID have a metallic object in his hand, a can of tuna with the label peeled off.... Confused? So was the defendant.
The other side of the story is that the deceased was out looking for the recently escaped family cat after his 6 year old daughter had begged him to "find Kitty." The deceased left the house in pursuit of the family feline with a can of tuna to coax it back to the call of "here kitty kitty...." It appears the man believed his cat ran under defendant's porch and and was "saying something" presumably to get the cat to come out. This is an example of the castle doctrine not applying in the case of a "mere trespasser." The jury didn't buy self defense in this case, because whether or not the defendant had a duty to retreat, the jury didn't think he met the second prong of establishing self defense. Namely, the jury didn't think he had a bona fide belief he was in imminent danger he could only get out of through the use of deadly force.....
A.) Self Defense Generally:
Self-defense is an affirmative defense with the burden of proof on defendant, State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St. 3d 323, 1997-Ohio-269, 673 N.E.2d 1339, 67 A.L.R.5th 775 (1997); State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St. 3d 247, 551 N.E.2d 1279 (1990), and it has three elements:
(1) the defendant was not at fault in creating the violent situation;
(2) the defendant had a bona fide belief that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that the only means of escape was the use of force; and
(3) the defendant did not violate any duty to retreat or avoid the danger.
State v. Cassano, 96 Ohio St. 3d 94, 2002-Ohio-3751, 772 N.E.2d 81 (2002); State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St. 3d 21, 2002-Ohio-68, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002); State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St. 3d 323, 1997-Ohio-269, 673 N.E.2d 1339, 67 A.L.R.5th 775 (1997); State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St. 3d 247, 551 N.E.2d 1279 (1990).
NOTE!: The elements of self-defense are cumulative. If the defendant fails to prove any one of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence, he or she has failed to demonstrate that he or she acted in self-defense. State v. Cassano, 96 Ohio St. 3d 94, 2002-Ohio-3751, 772 N.E.2d 81 (2002).
A subjective test is applied in determining whether a defendant properly acted in self-defense, under which the defense applies if the defendant honestly believed that death or great bodily harm was imminent, and that the only means of escape from such danger was in the use of deadly force. State v. Haines, 112 Ohio St. 3d 393, 2006-Ohio-6711, 860 N.E.2d 91 (2006); State v. Sallie, 81 Ohio St. 3d 673, 1998-Ohio-343, 693 N.E.2d 267 (1998). Mere verbal harassment does not constitute provocation entitling the defendant to defend himself or herself. City of Bucyrus v. Fawley, 50 Ohio App. 3d 25, 552 N.E.2d 676 (3d Dist. Crawford County 1988).
If a person in good faith and upon reasonable ground believes that a family member is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, such person may use reasonably necessary force to defend the family member to the same extent as the person would be entitled to use force in self-defense. State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St. 3d 247, 551 N.E.2d 1279 (1990).
B.) Duty to retreat
One of the elements of self-defense is that the defendant did not violate any duty to retreat or avoid the danger.
Because of this element, in most cases, a person may not kill in self-defense if the person has available a reasonable means of retreat from the confrontation. State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St. 3d 323, 1997-Ohio-269, 673 N.E.2d 1339, 67 A.L.R.5th 775 (1997); State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St. 3d 247, 551 N.E.2d 1279 (1990). However, there is no requirement that a person retreat, although retreat is possible, before using nondeadly force, City of Columbus v. Dawson, 33 Ohio App. 3d 141, 514 N.E.2d 908 (10th Dist. Franklin County 1986), and there is no duty to retreat when one is assaulted in one's own home. State v. Cassano, 96 Ohio St. 3d 94, 2002-Ohio-3751, 772 N.E.2d 81 (2002); State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St. 3d 323, 1997-Ohio-269, 673 N.E.2d 1339, 67 A.L.R.5th 775 (1997).] Indeed, there is no duty to 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. State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St. 3d 323, 1997-Ohio-269, 673 N.E.2d 1339, 67 A.L.R.5th 775 (1997).
NOTE!: Although there is no duty to retreat when one is assaulted in one's own home, because of the relative ease and rapidity with which police may be summoned to assist in the forcible ejection of a trespasser, the use of deadly force to eject a trespasser from one's home is not appropriate in the absence of a reasonable fear for the homeowner's safety. State v. Catlin, 56 Ohio App. 3d 75, 564 N.E.2d 750 (2d Dist. Montgomery County 1990).
Interesting NOTE: A defendant was not obligated to retreat in order to be entitled to claim that he acted in self-defense, where the murder occurred in the defendant's prison cell and retreat was impossible under the circumstances. The defendant was obligated by law and prison regulations to occupy the cell that he did, and retreat from a locked prison cell, which was seven and a half feet by 10 feet, was never an option. State v. Cassano, 96 Ohio St. 3d 94, 2002-Ohio-3751, 772 N.E.2d 81 (2002).
C.) Concerning Assault:
Self-defense seeks to relieve the defendant from culpability rather than to negate an element of the offense charged.State v. Sanders, 188 Ohio App. 3d 452, 2010-Ohio-3433, 935 N.E.2d 905 (10th Dist. Franklin County 2010), appeal not allowed, 127 Ohio St. 3d 1462, 2010-Ohio-6008, 938 N.E.2d 364 (2010). In general, every person has the right to defend himself or herself by the use of such force as the circumstances require to protect against such danger as he or she has good reason to apprehend. State v. Morris, 8 Ohio App. 3d 12, 455 N.E.2d 1352 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1982). There is no duty to retreat, even if it is possible to do so, before using nondeadly force in self-defense. State v. Belanger, 190 Ohio App. 3d 377, 2010-Ohio-5407, 941 N.E.2d 1265 (3d Dist. Allen County 2010); Cleveland v. Welms, 169 Ohio App. 3d 600, 2006-Ohio-6441, 863 N.E.2d 1125 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 2006); State v. Fritz, 163 Ohio App. 3d 276, 2005-Ohio-4736, 837 N.E.2d 823 (2d Dist. Montgomery County 2005). Further, there is no duty to 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. State v. Ward, 168 Ohio App. 3d 701, 2006-Ohio-4847, 861 N.E.2d 823 (4th Dist. Washington County 2006).
Although the defendant must show that he or she was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray, this does not require a showing that the defendant played no part in it, or even that the defendant was not engaged in criminal conduct when he or she was attacked. State v. Gillespie, 172 Ohio App. 3d 304, 2007-Ohio-3439, 874 N.E.2d 870 (2d Dist. Montgomery County 2007). It does require, however, that the defendant show that he or she had not engaged in such wrongful conduct toward his or her assailant that the assailant was provoked to attack the defendant. State v. Gillespie, 172 Ohio App. 3d 304, 2007-Ohio-3439, 874 N.E.2d 870 (2d Dist. Montgomery County 2007).
D.) Concerning Homicide
It is universally recognized that one is not punishable criminally for taking the life of another person when he or she has been put under the necessity or apparent necessity of doing so, without any fault on one's own part, in order to protect himself or herself from the peril of death or serious bodily harm at the hands of the person whose life he or she took. McGaw v. State, 123 Ohio St. 196, 9 Ohio L. Abs. 189, 174 N.E. 741 (1931); Cooper v. State, 121 Ohio St. 562, 8 Ohio L. Abs. 111, 170 N.E. 355 (1930); Marcoguiseppe v. State, 114 Ohio St. 299, 4 Ohio L. Abs. 194, 151 N.E. 182 (1926); State v. Champion, 109 Ohio St. 281, 2 Ohio L. Abs. 68, 2 Ohio L. Abs. 87, 142 N.E. 141 (1924). The person defending himself or herself is privileged to use only such force as is reasonably necessary to repel the attack. State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St. 3d 247, 551 N.E.2d 1279 (1990); State v. Cooper, 170 Ohio App. 3d 418, 2007-Ohio-1186, 867 N.E.2d 493 (4th Dist. Lawrence County 2007).
Example: A defendant who killed a victim after he was stabbed twice in the abdomen by the victim was not entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense. The evidence indicated that the defendant's use of force was greatly disproportionate to his apparent danger. The defendant suffered two minor stab wounds that did not require stitches, successfully disarmed the victim, but then stabbed the victim 14 times, which included six fatal wounds. The victim's throat was slashed, she was stabbed in the heart, lungs, abdomen, and shoulder, and she suffered from a broken vertebrae and multiple defensive wounds on her hands and arms. State v. Hendrickson, 2009-Ohio-4416, 2009 WL 2682158 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. Athens County 2009), appeal not allowed, 124 Ohio St. 3d 1416, 2009-Ohio-6816, 919 N.E.2d 215 (2009).
In order to establish self-defense State v. Goff, 128 Ohio St. 3d 169, 2010-Ohio-6317, 942 N.E.2d 1075 (2010); State v. Dykas, 185 Ohio App. 3d 763, 2010-Ohio-359, 925 N.E.2d 685 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 2010). the defendant must show the following:
• the defendant was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray
• the defendant had a bona fide belief that he or she was in imminent danger of great bodily harm and that his or her only means of escape from such danger was in the use of force
• the defendant did not violate any duty to retreat or avoid the danger State v. Goff, 128 Ohio St. 3d 169, 2010-Ohio-6317, 942 N.E.2d 1075 (2010); State v. Dykas, 185 Ohio App. 3d 763, 2010-Ohio-359, 925 N.E.2d 685 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 2010).
Example: Defendant did not establish self-defense, in a felony murder prosecution, where a resident in defendant's apartment building heard defendant exclaim "Die, [expletive], die," and another resident testified that defendant prevented the victim from retreating down the next set of common-area stairs and that defendant continued to strangle the victim after the victim had been rendered unconscious. State v. Griffin, 175 Ohio App. 3d 325, 2008-Ohio-702, 886 N.E.2d 921 (1st Dist. Hamilton County 2008).
Defendant charged with murder did not act in "self-defense" when he fatally shot the victim, where the victim did not possess a gun at the time of the shooting, defendant did not retreat when the victim approached defendant, defendant fired at the victim from behind at least two times, and the victim was either leaning over, lying on the ground, or in a crawling position when at least some of the shots were fired. State v. Jones, 2003-Ohio-952, 2003 WL 722846 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. Franklin County 2003). Where one acting in self-defense accidentally kills an innocent bystander, it is not a crime. State v. Clifton, 32 Ohio App. 2d 284, 61 Ohio Op. 2d 348, 290 N.E.2d 921, 55 A.L.R.3d 615 (1st Dist. Hamilton County 1972).
E.) Homicide Defense: Consistency with other claims or pleas
Testimony of a defendant that he or she did not intend to kill a decedent is entirely inconsistent and irreconcilable with the right of self- defense. State v. Champion, 109 Ohio St. 281, 2 Ohio L. Abs. 68, 2 Ohio L. Abs. 87, 142 N.E. 141 (1924).
NOTE!: The fact that the defendant testified that he was not trying to hit the decedent, and failed to present evidence that he feared assault from the decedent were inconsistent with, and negated the existence of, a homicide in self-defense. State v. Rogers, 43 Ohio St. 2d 28, 72 Ohio Op. 2d 16, 330 N.E.2d 674 (1975).
Upon a like principle, a plea of self-defense is inconsistent with the claim that the defendant did not commit the homicide. State v. Landrum, 96 Ohio App. 333, 54 Ohio Op. 343, 113 N.E.2d 705 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1953). Moreover, a request for an instruction on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter is incompatible with a theory of self-defense because self-defense requires that the defendant show evidence of fear, while voluntary manslaughter requires that the defendant show evidence of a sudden passion or fit of rage, and the defendant can not assert both.. State v. Loyed, 2004-Ohio-3961, 2004 WL 1688548 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 2004).
However, the assertion of the defense of self-defense does not preclude a consideration of the degree of homicidal guilt. State v. Jenkins, 48 Ohio App. 2d 99, 2 Ohio Op. 3d 73, 355 N.E.2d 825 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1976).
F.) Homicide Defense: Absence of fault
In order to establish self-defense, the defendant must show that he or she was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray. State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St. 3d 323, 1997-Ohio-269, 673 N.E.2d 1339, 67 A.L.R.5th 775 (1997); State v. Griffin, 175 Ohio App. 3d 325, 2008-Ohio-702, 886 N.E.2d 921 (1st Dist. Hamilton County 2008); State v. Turner, 171 Ohio App. 3d 82, 2007-Ohio-1346, 869 N.E.2d 708 (2d Dist. Clark County 2007); State v. Cooper, 170 Ohio App. 3d 418, 2007-Ohio-1186, 867 N.E.2d 493 (4th Dist. Lawrence County 2007). The "not at fault" requirement to establish a claim of self-defense means that defendant must not have been the first aggressor in the incident. State v. Turner, 171 Ohio App. 3d 82, 2007-Ohio-1346, 869 N.E.2d 708 (2d Dist. Clark County 2007). This requirement does not preclude the defense if the defendant was engaged in criminal conduct when he was attacked; rather, it requires a defendant to show that he was not at fault in creating the situation, i.e., that he had not engaged in such wrongful conduct toward his assailant that the assailant was provoked to attack. State v. Turner, 175 Ohio App. 3d 250, 2008-Ohio-1578, 886 N.E.2d 280 (2d Dist. Clark County 2008).
G.) Homicide Defense: Necessity of killing, generally
In order to justify a killing in self-defense, there must exist a necessity, either real or apparent, to take the life of the assailant. State v. Kelly, 44 Ohio L. Abs. 69, 63 N.E.2d 848 (Ct. App. 2d Dist. Montgomery County 1945). In allowing a killing in self-defense, the law presupposes that the assailant was at fault and the defendant not at fault, and that the defendant was in danger of loss of life or limb, or in danger of great bodily harm, or that he or she had reasonable apprehension of such danger. McGaw v. State, 123 Ohio St. 196, 9 Ohio L. Abs. 189, 174 N.E. 741 (1931). One killing in self-defense must honestly believe, upon reasonable grounds, that he or she is in such danger, (See Section H) although it is not the actual imminence of such danger, but the appearance of it, that is the test (See Section J). Mere threats, unaccompanied by acts of personal violence, or acts that might reasonably be taken as indicative of immediate personal violence of a grave character, are generally deemed insufficient to excuse a killing by the defendant. (See Section L)
Whether the necessity or apparent necessity to kill existed, as well as whether the killing was prompted by such necessity or by other motives, is a jury question. State v. Vancak, 90 Ohio St. 211, 107 N.E. 511 (1914).
H.) Homicide Defense: Bona fide belief; reasonable grounds for belief
In order for a homicide to be justified on the ground of self- defense, the accused must have entertained the bona fide belief, based on reasonable grounds, that he or she was in imminent danger of loss of life, or of suffering serious bodily harm, at the hands of the person killed. State v. Robbins, 58 Ohio St. 2d 74, 12 Ohio Op. 3d 84, 388 N.E.2d 755 (1979); State v. Melchior, 56 Ohio St. 2d 15, 10 Ohio Op. 3d 8, 381 N.E.2d 195 (1978); McGaw v. State, 123 Ohio St. 196, 9 Ohio L. Abs. 189, 174 N.E. 741 (1931); State v. Champion, 109 Ohio St. 281, 2 Ohio L. Abs. 68, 2 Ohio L. Abs. 87, 142 N.E. 141 (1924).
The test for self-defense relates to the actual state of mind of the slayer and its bona fides, or good faith. State v. Reid, 3 Ohio App. 2d 215, 32 Ohio Op. 2d 316, 210 N.E.2d 142 (3d Dist. Allen County 1965).
The circumstances must have been sufficient to excite fear of being killed, or of receiving bodily harm, and the defendant must have acted in good faith. State v. Morgan, 55 Ohio L. Abs. 344, 89 N.E.2d 323 (Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1949).
The size and strength of the assailant, as well as his or her reputation for violence, are facts upon which the party assailed may judge his or her danger. Cooper v. State, 121 Ohio St. 562, 8 Ohio L. Abs. 111, 170 N.E. 355 (1930).
I.) Homicide Defense: Subjective test for reasonableness
A person may act in self-defense not only when a reasonable person would so act, but when one with the particular qualities that the individual has would so act. One pleading self-defense in a homicide case has a right to have the fear that he or she claims induced him or her to kill measured by one's own physical and mental constitution, and not by that of a hypothetical reasonable person. Nelson v. State, 42 Ohio App. 252, 12 Ohio L. Abs. 215, 181 N.E. 448 (4th Dist. Athens County 1932). ] The test relates to the actual state of mind of the slayer, and whether such state of mind is on reasonable grounds, not reasonable as to a reasonable person, but reasonable as to the slayer. State v. Reid, 3 Ohio App. 2d 215, 32 Ohio Op. 2d 316, 210 N.E.2d 142 (3d Dist. Allen County 1965). Thus, a nervous, timid, easily frightened individual is not measured by the same standard by which a stronger, calmer, and braver person might be. Nelson v. State, 42 Ohio App. 252, 12 Ohio L. Abs. 215, 181 N.E. 448 (4th Dist. Athens County 1932).
J.) Homicide Defense: Mistake of fact; acting on appearances
The law of self-defense is based upon the necessity of the killing, but that necessity may be merely an apparent necessity. If the defendant killed another while entertaining the bona fide belief, based upon reasonable grounds, that he or she was in imminent danger of loss of life or of serious bodily harm at the hands of the person killed, he or she is excused from what otherwise would have been an unlawful killing, even though, in fact, he or she was mistaken as to the existence of the imminence of danger. The fact of the actual existence of such danger is not an indispensable prerequisite to the right to kill in self-defense. McGaw v. State, 123 Ohio St. 196, 9 Ohio L. Abs. 189, 174 N.E. 741 (1931); State v. Sheets, 115 Ohio St. 308, 152 N.E. 664 (1926); Marcoguiseppe v. State, 114 Ohio St. 299, 4 Ohio L. Abs. 194, 151 N.E. 182 (1926); State v. Champion, 109 Ohio St. 281, 2 Ohio L. Abs. 68, 2 Ohio L. Abs. 87, 142 N.E. 141 (1924); Napier v. State, 90 Ohio St. 276, 107 N.E. 535 (1914).
K.) Homicide Defense: Effect of aggression or provocation by accused
Self-defense is not available to a defendant who brought about the affray by initiating the first assault, State v. Robbins, 58 Ohio St. 2d 74, 12 Ohio Op. 3d 84, 388 N.E.2d 755 (1979); State v. Melchior, 56 Ohio St. 2d 15, 10 Ohio Op. 3d 8, 381 N.E.2d 195 (1978); State v. Morgan, 100 Ohio St. 66, 125 N.E. 109 (1919); Szalkai v. State, 96 Ohio St. 36, 117 N.E. 12 (1917); State v. Carr, 65 Ohio St. 612, 63 N.E. 1133 (1902), unless the defendant withdraws, in good faith, from the contest and notifies the other party of his or her withdrawal, or by words or acts reasonably indicates that he or she has withdrawn. State v. Davis, 8 Ohio App. 3d 205, 456 N.E.2d 1256 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1982); State v. Reid, 3 Ohio App. 2d 215, 32 Ohio Op. 2d 316, 210 N.E.2d 142 (3d Dist. Allen County 1965). Where a defendant has brought the conflict upon himself or herself, it is the defendant's clear duty to employ all the means in his or her power to avert the necessity of killing in self-defense. State v. Morgan, 100 Ohio St. 66, 125 N.E. 109 (1919); Szalkai v. State, 96 Ohio St. 36, 117 N.E. 12 (1917). A withdrawal, in such case, restores the right of self- defense. State v. Reid, 3 Ohio App. 2d 215, 32 Ohio Op. 2d 316, 210 N.E.2d 142 (3d Dist. Allen County 1965). However, so long as a defendant who made the first felonious attack continues in the combat and does not withdraw in good faith, the defendant cannot justify taking the life of his or her adversary, however necessary it may be to save his or her own; and the defendant must be deemed to have brought upon himself or herself the necessity of killing a fellow man. State v. Doty, 94 Ohio St. 258, 113 N.E. 811 (1916).
L.) Homicide Defense: Threats by deceased as justification
It can hardly be said that, from threats alone, unaccompanied by apparently hostile acts, a person may reasonably reach the conclusion that that person is in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm, if the person is in the proper exercise of his or her faculties. However, previous threats made by the deceased to the accused may have an important bearing on the accused's subsequent acts, as where the deceased makes a move that might reasonably indicate a personal attack. Previous threats and actions on the part of the deceased, if they came to the knowledge of the defendant, may have been sufficient to have created an impression generally in the community, so as to be useful in showing his or her general reputation as a "bad person" and, thus, aid the defendant in establishing a case on the facts which, if they appeared alone, would not have been sufficient to establish a clear case of self-defense. State v. Roderick, 77 Ohio St. 301, 82 N.E. 1082 (1907).
M.) Homicide Defense: Duty to retreat
As a general rule, to establish self-defense, it must be shown that the slayer has not violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger. State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St. 3d 323, 1997-Ohio-269, 673 N.E.2d 1339, 67 A.L.R.5th 775 (1997); State v. Turner, 171 Ohio App. 3d 82, 2007-Ohio-1346, 869 N.E.2d 708 (2d Dist. Clark County 2007); State v. Cooper, 170 Ohio App. 3d 418, 2007-Ohio-1186, 867 N.E.2d 493 (4th Dist. Lawrence County 2007). In most cases, a person may not kill in self-defense if a reasonable means of retreat from the confrontation is available. State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St. 3d 323, 1997-Ohio-269, 673 N.E.2d 1339, 67 A.L.R.5th 775 (1997). However, there is no duty to retreat where retreat is not possible under the circumstances. State v. Cassano, 96 Ohio St. 3d 94, 2002-Ohio-3751, 772 N.E.2d 81 (2002).
Example: A capital murder defendant was not obligated to retreat in order to be entitled to claim that he acted in self-defense, where the murder occurred in defendant's prison cell and retreat was impossible under the circumstances; defendant was obligated by law and prison regulations to occupy cell that he did, and retreat from locked prison cell, which was seven and a half feet by 10 feet, was never an option. State v. Cassano, 96 Ohio St. 3d 94, 2002-Ohio-3751, 772 N.E.2d 81 (2002).
However, although a person may not kill in self-defense if he or she has available a reasonable means of retreat from the confrontation, the duty to retreat does not apply if one is assaulted in his or her own home. State v. Miller, 149 Ohio App. 3d 782, 2002-Ohio-5812, 778 N.E.2d 1103 (1st Dist. Hamilton County 2002).
There is no duty to 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. State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St. 3d 323, 1997-Ohio-269, 673 N.E.2d 1339, 67 A.L.R.5th 775 (1997).
Thus, at common law, a person who, through no fault of their own, is assaulted in their home may stand their ground, meet force with force, and if necessary, kill the assailant, without any duty to retreat. State v. Cuttiford, 93 Ohio App. 3d 546, 639 N.E.2d 472 (9th Dist. Lorain County 1994).
In a nutshell, it isn't simple and there are still people in prisons who thought they understood the law but didn't.
Author
Topic: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread (Read 858705 times)