State v. Ballein, 2022 Ohio 2331

On March 14, 2021, Dylan Ballein shot Amber’s ex‑boyfriend four times through Amber’s locked wooden backdoor; the victim survived multiple serious injuries.
Amber had an active protection order prohibiting the victim from being near her home.
Security camera audio/video and two police interviews of Ballein were admitted at trial; the recordings undercut Ballein’s initial claim that the victim was shouldering/forcibly attempting entry.
Ballein gave varying accounts to detectives, initially claiming the victim attempted forced entry and threatened them, later recanting aspects after video/audio review.
A jury convicted Ballein of attempted murder, felonious assault, and firearm specifications; the trial court merged counts and imposed an aggregate 13–18 year prison term.
On appeal Ballein raised: (1) the trial court erred denying his Crim.R. 29 motion because the State failed to disprove self‑defense beyond a reasonable doubt after the statutory burden shift; and (2) the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the State failed to rebut his self‑defense claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether the trial court erred in denying Crim.R. 29 on grounds the State failed to disprove self‑defense beyond a reasonable doubt	State argues it presented sufficient evidence on the charged offenses; the absence of self‑defense is not an element for sufficiency review	Ballein argues the 2019 amendment to R.C. 2901.05 shifted the burden so the State must produce sufficient evidence to disprove self‑defense, making Crim.R. 29 appropriate	Court held Crim.R. 29 denial was proper: self‑defense remains an affirmative defense for burden‑of‑production purposes, so sufficiency review of elements is unaffected by the statutory shift in persuasion burden.
2. Whether the conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence because Ballein acted in self‑defense	Ballein contends the State did not disprove the elements of self‑defense beyond a reasonable doubt and the evidence supports his belief of imminent harm	State contends video, audio, and Ballein’s inconsistent statements refute a bona fide belief of imminent deadly force and show disproportionate use of force	Court held the jury did not lose its way: the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Ballein was not acting in self‑defense given contradictory recordings, inconsistent statements, lack of a weapon or forced entry by the victim, and disproportionality of shooting four times.

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review).
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (manifest weight standard).
State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323 (1997) (self‑defense two‑step subjective/objective test).
State v. Robbins, 58 Ohio St.2d 74 (1979) (elements of justification/self‑defense).
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (2002) (no duty to retreat when lawfully present).
State v. Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d 630 (1992) (words alone usually insufficient to justify deadly force).
State v. Grinstead, 194 Ohio App.3d 755 (2011) (sufficiency is a question of law).
State v. Cooper, 170 Ohio App.3d 418 (2007) (affirmative defenses do not negate legal adequacy of the State’s proof).