State v. Moore, 2021 Ohio 54

On March 31, 2019 Jovonta Moore shot and killed the victim at the home of the victim’s partner’s mother; Moore admitted the shooting but claimed self-defense.
Prior altercations between Moore and the victim occurred on March 23 and March 25, 2019; witnesses gave inconsistent accounts about threats, guns, and who fired earlier shots.
At trial witnesses varied in descriptions of the fatal encounter; some said the victim charged or moved toward Moore (unarmed), others gave different accounts; several witness statements to police conflicted with their trial testimony.
Moore was convicted of felony murder (R.C. 2903.02(B)) and two counts of felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) & (A)(2)), with firearm specifications; acquitted of murder under R.C. 2903.02(A).
On appeal Moore raised sufficiency/Crim.R.29, manifest-weight, ineffective-assistance for failing to request manslaughter/aggravated-assault instructions, and plain-error for the trial court’s not giving those instructions sua sponte.
The court noted the March 28, 2019 amendments to R.C. 2901.05 (shifting burdens on self-defense) applied at trial; trial counsel pursued a self-defense theory and did not request manslaughter/aggravated-assault instructions.

Issue	State's Argument	Moore's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence & denial of Crim.R.29 (felony murder, felonious assault)	Evidence showed Moore knowingly fired at and killed the victim; State disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt	Moore acted in self-defense; at most aggravated assault or manslaughter	Convictions supported by sufficient evidence; Crim.R.29 motion properly denied
Manifest weight of the evidence	Jury reasonably resolved inconsistencies; testimony supports conviction	Evidence weighs for self-defense or, at most, manslaughter (serious provocation)	Not against the manifest weight; convictions affirmed
Ineffective assistance — failure to request manslaughter/aggravated-assault instructions	Not deficient — omission consistent with defense strategy (self-defense); requesting would have undercut theory	Counsel deficient and prejudiced Moore; jury deadlocked on murder count	No ineffective assistance; trial strategy reasonable and no prejudice shown
Plain error — trial court’s failure to sua sponte give manslaughter/aggravated-assault instructions	No plain error where omission aligns with reasonable trial strategy	Court deprived Moore of due process by not instructing on lesser offenses	No plain error; no duty to give those instructions under the circumstances

State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 255 (Ohio 2006) (equating Crim.R.29 motion standard with sufficiency review)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest-weight review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (standard for deficient performance review)
Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1955) (deference to counsel’s reasonable trial strategy)
State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2010) (felony-murder mens rea tied to underlying felony)
State v. Lynch, 98 Ohio St.3d 514 (Ohio 2003) (distinguishing felony murder and involuntary manslaughter)
State v. Mohamed, 151 Ohio St.3d 320 (Ohio 2017) (plain-error review and when an omitted instruction may reflect strategy)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (plain and obvious error standard)
State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (Ohio Ct. App.) (framework for manifest-weight review)
State v. Sowell, 148 Ohio St.3d 554 (Ohio 2016) (showing reasonable probability standard for prejudice in ineffective-assistance claims)