State v. Johnson, 2022 Ohio 2577

Curtis Johnson and Eric White became involved in a physical altercation inside Legacy Nightclub; White later brandished a firearm outside the club.
After being ejected, Johnson returned to his parked car, retrieved a handgun, and waited near the corner as White and others exited.
Another unidentified person fired shots into the air; as White and Catera Fowler ran south away from Johnson, Johnson fired multiple shots.
Fowler was struck by a fatal upward‑traveling bullet; the state presented evidence tying that bullet to Johnson’s firearm.
White was tried separately and acquitted; Johnson was convicted of murder, felonious assault, discharge of a firearm, and weapons under disability and sentenced to an aggregate term of 21 years to life with firearm specifications.
On appeal Johnson challenged (1) the trial court’s refusal to give a self‑defense jury instruction and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence linking him to the fatal shot.

Issue	State's Argument	Johnson's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by refusing a self‑defense instruction	Trial court properly found Johnson failed to meet the burden of production; his conduct (approaching/rekindling fight and firing at people running away) defeats self‑defense	Trial court shifted burden and should have given the instruction because White initiated force and brandished a gun	Denial affirmed — court applied correct production standard; evidence did not create a jury question on self‑defense because the fatal shooting occurred after the threat had subsided and Johnson had engaged in the confrontation
Whether evidence was sufficient to convict Johnson of murder based on circumstantial proof	Circumstantial evidence (trajectory, forensic linkage) is sufficient under Jenks and Nicely to permit a rational juror to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt	Insufficient — other shooters present; multiple inferences mean conviction cannot stand (relying on Jacobozzi)	Conviction affirmed — circumstantial evidence may sustain conviction; Jacobozzi’s approach is superseded by Jenks, and a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

State v. Melchior, 56 Ohio St.2d 15, 381 N.E.2d 195 (Ohio 1978) (standard for whether evidence "tends to support" an affirmative defense and raises a jury question)
State v. Davidson‑Dixon, 170 N.E.3d 557 (8th Dist. 2021) (explaining the defendant's production burden under R.C. 2901.05 and that an instruction is warranted only if evidence creates a jury question)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Nicely, 39 Ohio St.3d 147, 529 N.E.2d 1236 (Ohio 1988) (circumstantial evidence can alone support a conviction)
State v. Jacobozzi, 6 Ohio St.3d 59, 451 N.E.2d 744 (Ohio 1983) (older rule on resolving competing inferences in favor of the accused; treated as superseded by Jenks)
State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464, 19 N.E.3d 900 (Ohio 2014) (procedural rule on appellate advocacy and issues presented)
State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266, 933 N.E.2d 753 (Ohio 2010) (appellate scope of review and the court’s role in addressing issues raised by parties)