State v. Palmer, 238 N.E.3d 33

Phillip Palmer, a 71-year-old taxicab driver, shot and wounded Nicholas Young, a heavily intoxicated passenger, after a dispute over cab fare escalated into a physical altercation at a gas station convenience store in Moscow, Ohio.
Palmer was the only black person in the store; all other individuals present, including Young, were white. Palmer testified that this contributed to his feeling of vulnerability.
During the confrontation, Young physically shoved Palmer twice, called him names, and, by some accounts, threatened to "whoop" Palmer.
Palmer shot Young after Young quickly approached Palmer's cab outside the store, believing he was in imminent danger; Palmer then fired a third shot at the ground near Young before fleeing the scene.
Palmer was indicted for attempted murder and felonious assault. At trial, he admitted to the shooting but claimed self-defense. The trial court refused to instruct the jury on self-defense, citing insufficient credible evidence. Palmer was acquitted of attempted murder but convicted of felonious assault.
The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed, holding insufficient evidence supported the self-defense instruction. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed, finding Palmer was entitled to the instruction and remanding for a new trial.

Issue	Palmer's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Was Palmer entitled to a self-defense jury instruction?	He presented sufficient evidence on all self-defense elements, so a jury instruction was required.	Insufficient credible evidence supported a reasonable belief of imminent danger or necessity of force.	Yes; the trial court erred by weighing evidence credibility rather than sufficiency.
What is the defendant’s burden of production under amended R.C. 2901.05?	Defendant must only present legally sufficient evidence tending to support self-defense; not prove by preponderance.	Defendant must present sufficient qualitative evidence to justify a jury instruction.	Defendant must present adequate, but not persuasive, evidence for all elements; trial court misapplied standard.
Who determines factual disputes regarding self-defense evidence?	Conflicting evidence on self-defense factors should be resolved by the jury, not the judge.	Trial courts are empowered to determine if facts are sufficient to warrant instructions.	Jury should decide factual disputes; judge overstepped by assessing credibility.
Is an objective or subjective test required for use of deadly force in self-defense?	Reasonableness should be assessed from Palmer’s perspective, considering his history and circumstances.	Both objective and subjective reasonableness are required; Palmer’s belief was not objectively reasonable.	Evidence was legally sufficient for a jury to find Palmer’s belief reasonable under the circumstances.

State v. Messenger, 171 Ohio St.3d 227 (burden of production for self-defense; legally sufficient evidence standard)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (elements required to establish self-defense)
State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323 (self-defense: objective and subjective component analysis)
State v. Fulmer, 117 Ohio St.3d 319 (trial court’s discretion in giving jury instructions)
State v. Wolons, 44 Ohio St.3d 64 (standard for reviewing refused jury instructions; abuse of discretion)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (legal sufficiency standard applies to defense evidence)
State v. Sheets, 115 Ohio St. 308 (objective reasonableness in self-defense claims)