State v. Faggs (Slip Opinion), 151 N.E.3d 593

Defendant Clinton D. Faggs was charged with one count of third-degree felony domestic violence (R.C. 2919.25(A)) and one count of misdemeanor assault (R.C. 2903.13(A)) for allegedly beating his girlfriend’s seven‑year‑old son as corporal punishment.
At trial Faggs maintained the conduct was "reasonable and necessary" parental discipline; the bench trial court convicted him and sentenced him to community control and community service.
On appeal the Fifth District affirmed, concluding reasonable parental discipline is an affirmative defense and the defendant bears the burden to prove it.
The Fifth District certified a conflict with the Seventh District’s decision in State v. Rosa, which treated reasonableness as part of the state’s burden to prove the physical‑harm element.
The Ohio Supreme Court accepted review to resolve whether reasonableness is an element of the offenses (requiring disproof by the State) or an affirmative defense (requiring proof by the accused), and whether placing the burden on the defendant violates due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the reasonableness of parental corporal punishment an element of domestic violence/assault (i.e., must the State prove the discipline was unreasonable)?	State: No — statutes only require proof of knowingly causing physical harm.	Faggs: Yes — Suchomski suggests reasonableness bears on the "injury"/physical‑harm inquiry, so the State must prove the discipline was unreasonable.	No — reasonableness is not part of the physical‑harm element under R.C. 2919.25(A) or R.C. 2903.13(A).
Is reasonable parental discipline an affirmative defense under Ohio law?	State: Yes — it should be treated as an affirmative defense; defendant must prove it.	Faggs: No — it is part of the offense element and thus must be disproved by the State.	Yes — it qualifies as a justification, is peculiarly within the accused’s knowledge, and the accused can fairly be required to adduce supporting evidence under R.C. 2901.05(D)(1)(b).
Does placing the burden on the defendant to prove reasonable parental discipline violate due process?	State: No — R.C. 2901.05(A) constitutionally permits requiring the defendant to prove affirmative defenses by a preponderance.	Faggs: Yes — it infringes on fundamental liberty interests in childrearing and due process.	No — binding Ohio and U.S. precedent permits allocation of burden to defendant for affirmative defenses other than specified exceptions; statute is constitutional.

State v. Suchomski, 58 Ohio St.3d 74 (1991) (discussed parental right to discipline and language that created confusion about whether reasonableness is part of the "injury" element)
State v. Rosa, 6 N.E.3d 57 (7th Dist. 2013) (held reasonableness is part of the state’s burden to prove physical harm)
Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977) (due process does not require the State to disprove every affirmative defense)
Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 (1987) (upheld state allocation of burden to defendant for certain affirmative defenses)
State v. Ireland, 155 Ohio St.3d 287 (2018) (Ohio Supreme Court reaffirming that states may require defendants to prove affirmative defenses by a preponderance)