State v. Asp, 2023 Ohio 290

James C. Asp was indicted for one count of assault (felony 4) for biting Deputy Chancellor Stoney during an arrest following domestic‑disturbance calls on June 9, 2020.
Deputies Terrell and Stoney entered Asp’s residence; a physical struggle ensued, Stoney testified Asp bit his chest/arm/armpit and cut his forearm; deputies deployed a taser and handcuffed Asp; body‑camera footage was played at trial.
Asp was found competent after evaluation, proceeded to jury trial (self‑represented with standby counsel), did not testify or present witnesses, and did not introduce evidence supporting self‑defense; closing argument contained defenses but is not evidence.
Jury convicted Asp of assault on a peace officer; the trial court sentenced him to 10 months incarceration.
Asp appealed, raising (1) sufficiency/manifest‑weight of the evidence and (2) plain error for failing to instruct the jury on self‑defense under the post‑2019 statutory scheme.
The appellate court affirmed: it held the evidence (deputy testimony, photographs, body cam) was sufficient and that Asp was not entitled to a self‑defense instruction, so any instructional error was harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency / manifest weight of the evidence that Asp knowingly caused physical harm to a peace officer	State: Deputy testimony, photos, and body‑cam show Asp bit and injured Dep. Stoney; a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt	Asp: Evidence did not prove he "knowingly" caused physical harm; conviction against manifest weight	Affirmed. Viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, jury reasonably found elements proven; not a manifest miscarriage of justice
Failure to give self‑defense jury instruction and burden‑shifting under amended R.C. §2901.05	State: No legally sufficient evidence of self‑defense was presented at trial; defendant did not meet burden of production so no instruction required	Asp: Trial court applied pre‑amendment standard and should have shifted burden to State under post‑2019 law	Court: Defendant presented no evidentiary support for self‑defense (no testimony, only argument). No instruction required; any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (standard for manifest‑weight review)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sufficiency standard — viewing evidence most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49 (intent may be inferred from acts and circumstances)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (manifest‑weight miscarriage‑of‑justice language)
State v. Mann, 19 Ohio St.3d 34 (private citizen may not use force to resist arrest absent excessive force by officer)
Columbus v. Fraley, 41 Ohio St.2d 173 (same principle regarding resisting arrest)
Antill v. State, 176 Ohio St. 61 (jury may accept portions of testimony; credibility determinations for factfinder)