State v. Clemmons, 2020 Ohio 5394

Defendant Juan Clemmons (on probation for a prior assault conviction involving the same victim) was charged after an October 2, 2019 altercation with Kenneth Wells: charges included assault, aggravated menacing, and misconduct at an emergency.
Witnesses (Wells and Officer Strack) testified that Clemmons lunged at and assaulted Wells on a bench; Wells pulled a box cutter and cut Clemmons; medical personnel treated both parties’ injuries; Clemmons later returned armed with a large butcher knife and was tazed by police.
Clemmons pleaded guilty to misconduct at an emergency; he contested assault and aggravated menacing at a bench trial, claiming self-defense and that Wells was the primary aggressor.
The trial court found Wells credible, rejected Clemmons’s account as fabricated, convicted Clemmons of assault and aggravated menacing, and sentenced him the same day.
On appeal, Clemmons challenged (1) that the state failed to disprove his self-defense claim (manifest weight/sufficiency) as to assault, and (2) that aggravated menacing lacked sufficient evidence that Wells subjectively believed he would suffer serious physical harm.
The appellate court affirmed the assault conviction (trial court did not lose its way on credibility/self-defense) but reversed and vacated the aggravated menacing conviction for insufficient evidence that the victim believed he faced serious physical harm.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether assault conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence/self-defense issue	State: Clemmons was the initial aggressor; the state disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt	Clemmons: He acted in self-defense; Wells was armed and the primary aggressor; Wells’ testimony was inconsistent	Affirmed. Trial court credited Wells; the record supports that Clemmons was initial aggressor and self-defense was disproved
Whether aggravated menacing conviction was supported by sufficient evidence (Crim.R. 29)	State: Clemmons returned armed and yelled toward Wells/medics, creating an imminent threat that would make Wells fear serious physical harm	Clemmons: No threats were made; Wells did not subjectively believe he faced serious physical harm; approach was not aggressive	Reversed and vacated. Evidence insufficient to show Wells subjectively believed Clemmons would cause serious physical harm

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (sets forth Ohio manifest-weight review standard)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (elements of self-defense where deadly force is involved)
State v. Robbins, 58 Ohio St.2d 74 (Ohio 1979) (self-defense principles for deadly force)