State v. Lipkins
2017 Ohio 4085
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Corey Lipkins and victim Andrew Wells were roommates in a five-bedroom house; dispute arose over unpaid rent and repeated interpersonal hostility.
- On April 23, 2016, an altercation occurred in Lipkins’ bedroom during which Wells testified Lipkins struck him, pinned him to a bed, and punched him while another roommate, Terrance Hopewell, held Wells in a chokehold.
- Lipkins admitted punching Wells but claimed he acted in self-defense after Wells forced entry and attacked him; Hopewell testified he restrained Wells to defend Lipkins.
- Lipkins posted a Snapchat video after the incident boasting about assaulting Wells.
- A jury convicted Lipkins of misdemeanor assault and disorderly conduct; sentence imposed on the assault charge. Lipkins appealed raising evidentiary, prosecutorial-misconduct, jury-instruction (self-defense/Castle Doctrine and duty-to-retreat), and manifest-weight claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lipkins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of testimony about Lipkins’ prior bad acts/character | Testimony about lying, theft, and hostile relationship was relevant and intrinsic to motive for the altercation, not offered to show propensity. | Admission improperly presented "other acts"/character evidence under Evid.R. 404(B) and prejudiced Lipkins. | Court: Admission proper as intrinsic/motive evidence; no plain error. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing re: duty to retreat | Prosecutor argued Lipkins’ conduct and opportunity to leave undermined self-defense; comments were fair inferences attacking credibility. | Prosecutor misstated law by implying a duty to retreat (contrary to R.C. 2901.09(B)), prejudicing Lipkins. | Court: Statements not improper; context showed challenge to reasonableness of belief, not imposition of duty to retreat; no plain error. |
| Jury instructions — Castle Doctrine presumption (R.C. 2901.05(B)) | N/A (State opposed instruction) | Trial court should have instructed jury on statutory presumption that resident is presumed to act in self-defense when another unlawfully enters residence. | Court: Statute’s presumption inapplicable because both parties had right to be in residence; even if arguable, conflicting evidence made presumption inapplicable; no plain error. |
| Jury instructions — no duty to retreat (R.C. 2901.09(B)) | N/A | Court should have instructed jury that resident has no duty to retreat before using force. | Court: Omission not plain error; jury rejected self-defense theory on credibility and sufficiency grounds. |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | N/A | Convictions against manifest weight; Lipkins acted in self-defense per his testimony. | Court: Verdict not against manifest weight—jury reasonably credited Wells and other evidence (including Lipkins’ admissions and Snapchat video). |
Key Cases Cited
- Issa v. State, 93 Ohio St.3d 49 (Ohio 2001) (standard for appellate review of evidentiary rulings and other trial-court discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 2012) (three-step analysis for admissibility of other-acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B))
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
- State v. Jackson, 22 Ohio St.3d 281 (Ohio 1986) (omission of duty-to-retreat instruction not plain error when jury rejects self-defense on merits)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (deference to factfinder on credibility determinations)