State v. Hodgson, 2021 Ohio 4374

Background

Hodgson and four others lived in a homeless encampment; after disputes over a lost cell phone, Hodgson attacked four campmates with a rusty saw and a broken rake/handle, causing severe head/neck injuries.
Hodgson was indicted on 12 counts (attempted murder and felonious assault); after a three-day jury trial he was acquitted of attempted murder but convicted of six counts of felonious assault.
The trial featured dueling narratives: victims testified Hodgson attacked unprovoked; Hodgson claimed he acted in self-defense against multiple attackers.
Defense sought a Castle Doctrine/no‑duty‑to‑retreat instruction based on the campsite; the court declined, holding the campfire/common area was not part of Hodgson’s residence (his tent was separate).
On appeal Hodgson raised six assignments of error: (1–3) prosecutorial misstatements during voir dire and related trial-court and counsel responses; (4–5) insufficiency and manifest‑weight challenges focused on self‑defense; (6) entitlement to Castle Doctrine/no‑duty‑to‑retreat and an equal‑protection claim based on homelessness.
The Eleventh District affirmed: voir dire remarks were not prejudicial and were cured by instructions; evidence was sufficient and the verdict was not against the manifest weight; Castle Doctrine instruction was not warranted on these facts.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hodgson)	Held
Prosecutor's voir dire statements about burden of proof/self‑defense	Remarks were explanatory/contextual about proving elements; any lapse occurred before impanelment and was cured by court instructions	Prosecutor misstated law by treating non‑elements as "collateral" and omitted that state must disprove self‑defense, prejudicing the jury	No reversible misconduct: remarks occurred during voir dire, jurors were instructed the court would give the law, and correct instructions were given before deliberations; any error harmless
Trial court refusal to correct / failure to order mistrial	Trial court properly overruled objection; no prejudice	Court abused discretion by overruling objection and failing to correct; counsel ineffective for not moving for mistrial	No abuse of discretion; because voir dire remarks were not prejudicial, counsel was not ineffective for failing to move for mistrial
Sufficiency of the evidence to disprove self‑defense	State produced evidence that Hodgson created the situation, used unreasonable deadly force, and had means to retreat—so at least one element of self‑defense was disproved beyond reasonable doubt	Victims were intoxicated and their testimony conflicted; State failed to disprove self‑defense beyond a reasonable doubt	Evidence sufficient: viewed in State’s favor, rational jurors could find Hodgson was at fault, did not have reasonable belief of imminent deadly harm or could have retreated; thus self‑defense disproved on record
Manifest weight of the evidence	Victim injuries, physical evidence, and Hodgson’s admissions supported the State’s account; credibility choices for the jury	Conflicting, intoxicated witness statements and gaps in testimony undercut verdict	Not against manifest weight: jury credited victims and physical evidence; appellate court will not reweigh credibility absent a manifest miscarriage of justice
Castle Doctrine / no‑duty‑to‑retreat & Equal Protection	Statutory definitions govern; a tent can be a dwelling but the open campfire/common area is not a dwelling; no equal‑protection violation on these facts	As a homeless person using communal campsite living area, Hodgson was entitled to no duty to retreat; denying it discriminates against homeless persons	Instruction inappropriate: campfire/common area not part of Hodgson’s dwelling; no equal‑protection violation shown; later statutory amendment (post‑trial) expands no‑duty rule but does not alter result here

Key Cases Cited

State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio 1984) (prosecutorial conduct requires reversal only when it deprives defendant of a fair trial)
State v. Smith, 87 Ohio St.3d 424 (Ohio 2000) (test for prosecutorial misconduct: impropriety and prejudice to substantial rights)
Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1986) (improper remarks must be evaluated in context of entire trial)
State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497 (Ohio 2018) (shorthand voir dire remarks cured by correct jury instructions given later)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest‑weight standards)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review; verdict will not be disturbed unless reasonable minds could not reach it)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (elements required to establish self‑defense)
State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 1986) (credibility and conflicting testimony are for the factfinder)
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1985) (rational‑basis review for most equal‑protection classifications)
Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1993) (rational‑basis standard applied to legislative classifications)