State v. Baker, 207 N.E.3d 6

Angela Baker, living in her car in a Meijer parking lot, used a racial slur (the "N-word") and told two Black teenage brothers they were "going to die," then drove her car toward them several times but did not physically strike them.
The victims (ages 15 and 17) responded with racial insults and threatened to "beat [her] ass;" portions of the encounter were captured on a cell‑phone video, body‑cam footage, and an eyewitness observed Baker try to hit the youths with her car.
Baker was arrested and charged with two counts of aggravated menacing and, after admitting to using racial animus against Black people generally, two counts of ethnic intimidation (one per victim).
Baker moved to dismiss asserting selective prosecution because the victims were not charged for their insults and threats; the trial court denied the motion.
At trial the court refused Baker’s request for a self‑defense instruction; a jury convicted her on all four counts. The court merged the aggravated‑menacing counts into the ethnic‑intimidation counts, sentenced Baker to jail and community control, and Baker appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecution was selective (equal protection)	State: charging decisions were proper because Baker instigated the encounter with racial epithets and threats and evidence showed racial animus supporting ethnic‑intimidation charges.	Baker: victims engaged in the same conduct (racial insults and threats) but were not prosecuted, showing selective prosecution based on her race.	Court: Denied. Baker failed to show similarly situated others or discriminatory motive; Flynt two‑prong test not met.
Whether trial court erred by refusing a self‑defense jury instruction	State: evidence did not show Baker had a bona fide belief of imminent death/great bodily harm when she used deadly force (vehicle).	Baker: victims threatened to fight her and said "beat your ass," which tends to support a self‑defense claim and required a jury instruction.	Court: Denied. Baker did not produce evidence that she reasonably believed she faced imminent death or great bodily harm; no instruction required.

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (standard for appellate review of mixed questions of law and fact in motions to dismiss)
State v. Getsy, 84 Ohio St.3d 180 (selective prosecution is an independent constitutional claim)
State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 (equal protection bars prosecutions based on unjustifiable classifications)
United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (defendant must produce some evidence that similarly situated defendants of other races were not prosecuted)
State v. Flynt, 63 Ohio St.2d 132 (two‑prong Flynt test for selective prosecution)
State v. Freeman, 20 Ohio St.3d 55 (mere showing of differing treatment is insufficient for selective prosecution)
State v. Mutter, 150 Ohio St.3d 429 (definition and elements of ethnic intimidation under Ohio law)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (elements for self‑defense involving deadly force)
State v. Michel, 181 Ohio App.3d 124 (trial court as factfinder and appellate standard when considering selective‑prosecution claims)