State v. Mowls
2017 Ohio 8712
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On June 3, 2016 Justin Mowls struck neighbor Steven Steinbach three times with a baseball bat; Steinbach sustained a broken arm, two broken ribs, and a forehead injury.
- Mowls claimed Steinbach brandished garden shears, stepped onto Mowls’s porch, and threatened him, so Mowls grabbed a bat for self‑defense.
- Steinbach and his sister contradicted Mowls: they testified Steinbach did not have shears and did not go onto Mowls’s porch; the sister witnessed Mowls «come flying out» with a bat and strike Steinbach.
- Deputy William White obtained statements and a warrant after hospital staff reported injuries inconsistent with Mowls’s ‘‘pushing’’ explanation.
- Mowls was indicted for felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11(A)(1)), tried by jury (who rejected self‑defense), convicted, and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.
- On appeal Mowls argued (1) the court erred by not instructing aggravated assault as a lesser offense (or counsel was ineffective for not requesting it) and (2) the trial court erred in denying his Crim.R. 29 motions for acquittal (insufficient evidence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Mowls) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the court should have instructed aggravated assault as a lesser/inferior offense or counsel was ineffective for failing to request it | No—evidence did not support serious provocation element required for aggravated assault | Provocation (escalating argument, intoxication, alleged brandishing of shears, stepping on porch) justified instruction | Court: No plain error; no evidentiary basis for aggravated assault instruction; counsel not ineffective |
| 2. Whether conviction should be vacated for insufficiency of the evidence (Crim.R. 29) | Evidence (victim and sister testimony) supported felonious assault and serious physical harm | Argued victim’s intoxication and provocation meant he induced the fight; testimony conflicted | Court: Sufficient evidence exists; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Comen v. Ohio, 50 Ohio St.3d 206 (setting rule: trial court must give all jury instructions relevant and necessary)
- Williford v. Ohio, 49 Ohio St.3d 247 (defendant entitled to complete jury instructions on issues raised by evidence)
- Deem v. Ohio, 40 Ohio St.3d 205 (definition and limits of provocation for aggravated assault)
- Shane v. Ohio, 63 Ohio St.3d 630 (words or fear alone generally insufficient for ‘‘serious provocation’’; objective/subjective test)
- Mack v. Ohio, 82 Ohio St.3d 198 (provocation standard and aggravated assault as inferior degree)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Jenks v. Ohio, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sufficiency standard: review evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- Tenace v. Ohio, 109 Ohio St.3d 255 (Crim.R.29 standard parallels sufficiency review)