State v. Cody, 2023 Ohio 4781

Donald E. Cody was convicted in a bench trial of two counts of assault for spraying mace into a truck occupied by Anthony Dugan and Donald Doughman at a convenience store drive-thru in Ohio.
Dugan and Doughman had a prior history with Cody, including previous conflicts and threats.
During the incident, Cody confronted Dugan and Doughman, threw or spat liquid at Dugan, then sprayed mace into their truck, causing physical harm.
Cody fled the scene after the incident; the police were called by the victims, and Cody was arrested later that day.
At trial, Cody argued self-defense, asserting he felt threatened due to being outnumbered, Dugan’s possession of a knife, and alleged racial slurs directed at him.
The trial court rejected Cody’s self-defense claim and found him guilty; Cody appealed on sufficiency and manifest weight of evidence grounds, focusing on the self-defense issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for assault	Cody assaulted Dugan and Doughman; elements of assault proven	Cody acted in self-defense; state failed to disprove self-defense	Sufficiency review does not address affirmative defenses like self-defense; overruled
Manifest weight of the evidence/self-defense	Evidence shows Cody was the aggressor, initiated confrontation, sprayed mace without provocation	Cody was outnumbered and threatened (knife, racial slurs); credibility issues with state’s witnesses	Trial court did not lose its way; affirmed conviction, Cody was the aggressor

State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 (Ohio 2006) (affirmative defenses like self-defense are not included in sufficiency review)
State v. Messenger, 171 Ohio St. 3d 227 (Ohio 2022) (state must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt; manifest-weight review applies)
State v. Barnett, 2012-Ohio-2372 (Ohio Ct. App.) (manifest weight review standard)
State v. Himes, 2023-Ohio-3561 (Ohio Ct. App.) (aggressors cannot claim self-defense)