State v. Parrish, 2020 Ohio 4807

Stacy Parrish was charged with domestic violence for hitting her husband on April 5, 2019; a bench trial occurred in June 2019.
Parrish did not testify but introduced testimony (neighbor Grace Porter) claiming she used nondeadly force in self-defense. The trial court found her guilty and told Parrish that she had to "prove self-defense."
The General Assembly had amended R.C. 2901.05 effective March 28, 2019, adding R.C. 2901.05(B)(1): if evidence "tends to support" that force was used in self-defense, the prosecution must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
The state conceded the trial court failed to apply the amended statute but argued the proper remedy was remand for the court to determine—in the first instance—whether Parrish met the threshold and whether the state disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court found the record (estrangement, conflicting testimony, neighbor’s statement that the husband "always wanna put his hands on her," only minor injury) sufficient, viewed in the light most favorable to Parrish, to meet the defendant’s burden of production under the amended statute.
The court held the trial-court error was not harmless, reversed Parrish’s conviction, and remanded for further proceedings; it explained a new trial is not required but is permitted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by failing to apply amended R.C. 2901.05(B)(1) (shifting burden to prosecution when evidence "tends to support" self-defense)	Conceded error; asked remand for trial court to decide whether Parrish met threshold and whether state disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt	Parrish argued the amendment lowered her production burden and placed on the state the burden to disprove self-defense once she raised the issue	Court held the trial court erred; the amendment removed the defendant’s burden to prove self-defense by a preponderance but did not eliminate the defendant’s procedural burden of going forward; when defendant meets that production burden, the prosecution must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt
Proper remedy on remand (new trial or reconsideration on existing record)	Trial court can apply the new burden to the existing trial record without a new trial	Parrish sought reversal and remand for further proceedings (trial court discretion whether to retry)	Court reversed and remanded for "further proceedings"; a new trial is not required because this was a bench trial and there is no indication the error prevented introduction of evidence, but the trial court may retry if it deems necessary

State v. Cross, 58 Ohio St.2d 482 (1979) (discusses appellate review when defendant fails to meet burden of production for an affirmative defense)
State v. Melchior, 56 Ohio St.2d 15 (1978) (standard for whether defendant has introduced sufficient evidence to raise an affirmative defense)
State v. Robinson, 47 Ohio St.2d 103 (1976) (trial court must view defense evidence in the light most favorable to defendant to determine if it raises the issue)
State v. Salaam, 47 N.E.3d 495 (2015) (first-district statement of elements for nondeadly-force self-defense)
State v. Kerrigan, 168 Ohio App.3d 455 (2006) (bench-trial error reversing conviction but permitting reconsideration on the existing record)
State v. Pepin-McCaffrey, 186 Ohio App.3d 548 (2010) (discusses when an incorrect legal standard may have prevented introduction of evidence, necessitating retrial)