Supreme Court Reverses Conviction: Clarifies Law Regarding Self-Defense
In September, 2023, Attorney Kate Bowling argued on behalf of Defendant Tyler Wilson to the Ohio Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was asked to answer the question, “Is a Defendant entitled to a self-defense instruction for firing a warning shot which was not intended to harm or injure the aggressor?”
Today, the Ohio Supreme Court released a decision in State v. Tyler Wilson, holding in favor of Defendant Wilson, and reversing his trial court convictions.
Defendant was originally charged in Clark County, Ohio in 2021, with Attempted Murder, Felonious Assault, and firearm specifications. Attorney Bowling was not Defendant’s trial Counsel. Following a jury trial, Defendant Wilson was convicted of felonious assault with firearm specifications, and sentenced to an indefinite prison term of 16-20 years (the maximum allowable term permitted by law for the charges).
At trial, Defendant’s former attorney presented testimony which established that Defendant Wilson was involved in an altercation where he ultimately fired his gun upon the driver of another vehicle. The Defendant presented testimony which supported a claim of self-defense, but his trial counsel failed to ask the Court to instruct the jury regarding the law of self-defense. This meant that the jury could not consider that Wilson acted in self-defense when deciding upon their verdict.
On appeal to the Second District, Defendant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a self-defense jury instruction. He also argued that, based on the evidence presented at trial, he was entitled to a self-defense jury instruction. The State argued on appeal that Defendant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction because he testified at trial that he never meant to hit or hurt the person threatening him, rather he fired his gun in the direction of his aggressor, intending only to scare the other person. Essentially, the question became, “Can a Defendant claim self-defense for firing a warning shot?”
The Second District Court of Appeals upheld Defendant’s conviction, holding that Defendant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction. According to the Second District, Defendant could not claim self-defense where he testified he never intended to hit or harm the other person. This approach by the Second District was incorrect, and misapplied Ohio precedent regarding self-defense. The case was accepted by the Ohio Supreme Court.
In its full decision, released today, the Ohio Supreme Court determined that a defendant, in certain circumstances, can claim self-defense where he fires upon an aggressor, even where Defendant has no intention of actually causing harm. Said another way, firing a warning shot to repel an attack can be an act of self-defense and a Defendant is entitled to a jury instruction accordingly.
Full decision available here: State v. Wilson