State v. Elko, 158 N.E.3d 929

On September 24, 2016, Olmsted Falls officers Sgt. Floyd Takacs and Officer Daniel Daugherty arrested Christie Elko after a domestic-complaint call from Aaron Watkins; dash/body cam footage only captured part of the encounter.
Officers testified Elko pulled away and resisted handcuffing; Elko testified officers approached aggressively, put hands on her before announcing an arrest, and used excessive force when taking her to the ground and placing her in the cruiser.
Elko was indicted for assaulting a peace officer and resisting arrest; the assault charge was dismissed at trial and the jury acquitted on assault but convicted her of resisting arrest (misdemeanor); she was sentenced to time served.
Elko had earlier entered and then withdrawn a no-contest plea to resisting arrest after arguing the state withheld exculpatory disciplinary-file material; trial later proceeded to a jury verdict.
At trial Elko requested a jury instruction that an officer’s use of excessive or unnecessary force is a complete defense to resisting arrest; the trial court refused that instruction.
The appellate court held the refusal was erroneous because the record contained sufficient evidence from which a jury could find the officers used excessive force, and reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that an officer's excessive force is a complete defense to resisting arrest	State: instruction unnecessary because arrest was lawful, force was reasonable, and Elko denied using force (so cannot assert an affirmative defense)	Elko: evidence showed officers used excessive force, making the instruction appropriate; resisting an unlawful or excessively forceful arrest differs from resisting a lawful arrest	Court: Reversed — sufficient evidence supported the requested instruction; refusal was error; remanded for new trial
Whether Elko’s trial testimony denying she used force foreclosed an excessive-force instruction	State: Elko’s denial of resisting precludes asserting the affirmative defense	Elko: subjective denial doesn’t negate evidentiary record showing force occurred or that she reasonably resisted it	Court: Rejected the state’s argument; defendant’s denial did not automatically preclude the affirmative defense where record evidence supported it

Marshall v. Gibson, 19 Ohio St.3d 10 (Ohio 1985) (trial court must give clear, correct jury instructions applicable to the evidence)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (appellate review of trial-court discretion uses abuse-of-discretion standard)
State v. Wolons, 44 Ohio St.3d 64 (Ohio 1989) (trial court has discretion to determine whether evidence warrants a jury instruction)
State v. Mitts, 81 Ohio St.3d 223 (Ohio 1998) (same; appellate review of instruction refusals)
Columbus v. Fraley, 41 Ohio St.2d 173 (Ohio 1975) (absent excessive force, a private citizen may not use force to resist even an unlawful arrest)
Swiecicki v. Delgado, 463 F.3d 489 (6th Cir. 2006) (a lawful arrest is a necessary element of resisting-arrest offense under Ohio law)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (limitations on civil claims that would invalidate a criminal conviction)
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. 2007) (clarifies timing and relation of certain civil claims to criminal convictions)