2022 Ohio 4004
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- On March 27, 2021, Michael Midkiff followed Rachel Skabla to ex‑boyfriend Matthew Hiestand’s truck and stabbed Hiestand with a railroad spike; Hiestand required nine staples and suffers lasting injuries.
- Midkiff was charged with two counts of felonious assault; trial occurred June 14, 2021; a jury convicted him and he was sentenced to 7 to 10½ years' imprisonment.
- Midkiff requested a self‑defense instruction; the trial court instructed on self‑defense but included the pre‑April 6, 2021 duty‑to‑retreat because the offense occurred before the effective date of S.B. 175.
- Defense counsel did not object to the jury instructions or the verdict form at trial.
- On appeal Midkiff raised four assignments: (1) failure to give a “stand your ground” instruction; (2) faulty/incorrect self‑defense instructions; (3) conflicting/confusing instructions; and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to instructions/verdict form.
- The appellate court affirmed, applying plain‑error review where appropriate and rejecting the ineffective‑assistance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing a “stand your ground” (no duty to retreat) instruction | State: duty to retreat instruction was proper because offense occurred before S.B. 175 took effect | Midkiff: entitled to stand‑your‑ground instruction because law changed before trial | Held: No error — statute is substantive and not retroactive; old duty‑to‑retreat rule applied |
| Whether the court’s self‑defense instruction incorrectly stated burdens (linking R.C. 2901.05(A) and (B)(1) with “and”) | State: instruction accurately required proof of both elements of the offense and that defendant did not act in self‑defense | Midkiff: wording was misleading and misstated burden | Held: Instruction was an accurate statement of law; no reversible error |
| Whether instructions were conflicting or confusing | State: combined wording correctly conveyed legal standards; no conflict | Midkiff: instructions were inconsistent and confusing (use of “and” vs “or”) | Held: No conflict that would change outcome; plain‑error review fails |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to instructions/verdict form | State: counsel’s performance was not deficient because instructions were correct and no rule requires separate verdict on self‑defense | Midkiff: counsel should have objected and sought separate verdict form on self‑defense | Held: No deficient performance or prejudice; ineffective‑assistance claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978) (plain‑error standard; Crim.R. 52(B) applied cautiously)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective‑assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
- State v. Bird, 81 Ohio St.3d 582 (1998) (strong presumption that counsel’s conduct is sound trial strategy)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (prejudice standard for ineffective‑assistance claims)
- State v. Brown, 96 N.E.3d 1128 (2017) (elements required to support a self‑defense instruction)