State v. Jones, 104 N.E.3d 34

Background

On July 19, 2015 James Vickery was stabbed outside an alley in Chillicothe and suffered serious internal injuries; Brian Jones was charged with felonious assault.
Vickery testified Jones ambushed and repeatedly struck him; Vickery had a knife in his pocket but testified he did not use it.
Jones testified he entered the alley after hearing Rebecca Cade yell for help, was struck by Vickery, and then stabbed Vickery after Vickery pulled a knife and threatened him.
Defense requested a jury instruction on aggravated assault (voluntary manslaughter–style mitigation) and argued defense of another; the court refused aggravated-assault instruction but instructed on self-defense.
The jury rejected self-defense and convicted Jones of felonious assault; he was sentenced to four years.
On appeal Jones argued (1) the trial court erred by refusing aggravated assault and defense-of-another instructions, and (2) counsel was ineffective for failing to request a defense-of-another instruction. The court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by refusing aggravated-assault (inferior-degree) instruction	Jones: evidence of serious provocation (being punched and victim pulling a knife) warranted instruction	Trial court/State: evidence did not show subjective "sudden passion" required for aggravated assault; objective provocation also borderline	No error — court did not abuse discretion; insufficient evidence of the defendant actually being under sudden passion or fit of rage
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a defense-of-another instruction	Jones: counsel should have requested instruction and its absence prejudiced him	State: counsel reasonably pursued self-defense; no evidence Jones acted to defend Cade (Cade had fled)	No ineffective assistance — failure to request was reasonable trial strategy; no prejudice shown
Whether trial court committed plain error by not giving unrequested defense-of-another instruction	Jones: court should have given instruction sua sponte	State: no plain error because decision not to request can be trial strategy	No plain error — following Mohamed, no plain error when decision not to request is reasonable strategy
Standard for when an inferior-degree instruction must be given	Jones: where facts could support acquittal on greater offense and conviction on lesser	State: same legal standard; argued facts did not meet it	Court applied Deem/Shane/Mack standard: give inferior-degree instruction only when evidence could reasonably support it; here it could not

Key Cases Cited

State v. Comen, 50 Ohio St.3d 206 (Ohio 1990) (trial court must give jury all instructions relevant and necessary)
State v. Lessin, 67 Ohio St.3d 487 (Ohio 1993) (requested instruction must be correct, pertinent, and appropriate to the facts)
State v. Deem, 40 Ohio St.3d 205 (Ohio 1988) (aggravated assault is inferior degree of felonious assault; defines serious provocation standard)
State v. Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d 630 (Ohio 1992) (objective standard for provocation: arouse ordinary person beyond control)
State v. Mack, 82 Ohio St.3d 198 (Ohio 1998) (two-part test — objective and subjective — for aggravated-assault instruction)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (framework for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims)
McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (U.S. 1970) (right to counsel includes effective assistance)
State v. Mohamed, 88 N.E.3d 935 (Ohio 2017) (no plain error where decision not to request instruction may be reasonable trial strategy)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (elements of plain-error review)