State v. Messenger
2022 Ohio 4562
Ohio2022Background
- Messenger shot and killed his stepbrother Richard Pack, firing 14 times; he claimed he acted in self-defense.
- Messenger was tried for murder and felony-murder with firearm specifications; jury convicted and trial court sentenced him to 18 years to life.
- At trial the court instructed the jury on self-defense under amended R.C. 2901.05(B)(1), telling jurors that if evidence tended to support self-defense the State must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Messenger moved for acquittal (Crim.R. 29) and later appealed, arguing the State failed to present legally sufficient evidence to disprove his self-defense claim and that the State also failed under a manifest-weight test.
- The Tenth District held that the defendant retains the burden of production for self-defense (trial-level), so sufficiency review applies to the defendant’s production while the State’s rebuttal is reviewed for manifest weight; this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Messenger) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a claim of self-defense on direct appeal is reviewable under a sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard | Self-defense rebuttal should be reviewed for manifest weight only; elements of the offense remain subject to sufficiency review | Self-defense rebuttal must be reviewed under sufficiency because the State now must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt | Sufficiency review applies to the defendant’s burden of production; the State’s burden to disprove self-defense is subject to manifest-weight review |
| Whether H.B. 228 eliminated the defendant’s burden of production for self-defense | The amendment did not alter the defendant’s burden of production; it only shifted the State’s burden of persuasion | The amendment eliminated the defendant’s burden of production by requiring the State to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt | H.B. 228 did not eliminate the burden of production; defendant must still produce legally sufficient evidence of self-defense to trigger State’s duty to disprove it |
| Whether the statutory change converted self-defense into an element of the offense | The change is procedural and does not add an element to substantive offense definitions | The change effectively made absence of self-defense an element because State bears burden beyond a reasonable doubt | The amendment is procedural; self-defense remains an affirmative defense, not an element of the offense |
| Which standard of appellate review applies to each burden | Sufficiency applies to elements and defendant’s initial production; manifest-weight applies to the State’s burden of persuasion | Argued sufficiency should govern review of the State’s disproof as well | Court: sufficiency-of-the-evidence review applies to defendant’s burden of production; manifest-weight review applies to the State’s burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest-weight review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sufficiency review ensures due-process right is protected)
- Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895) (reasonable doubt is a product of proof, not the proof itself)
- Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978) (insufficient evidence means the case should not have been submitted to the jury)
- Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952) (presumption of innocence and burden allocation principles)
- Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 (1982) (statutory allocation of burdens does not necessarily convert defenses into elements)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) (reasonable-doubt standard applies to proof of elements)
- State v. Filiaggi, 86 Ohio St.3d 230 (1999) (standards for assessing defendant’s production of evidence)
- State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 (2006) (affirmative defenses are not elements of the offense)