State v. Pitts, 163 N.E.3d 1169

On September 6, 2018, Gerry Pitts was charged with assault after punching William Turner while Pitts sought to retrieve his little brother “Z” from Turner’s pickup; Pitts asserted the affirmative defense of defense of another.
Pitts’s offense occurred before the March 28, 2019 effective date of H.B. 228, but his jury trial began after that effective date; he was convicted and later appealed.
H.B. 228 amended R.C. 2901.05(B)(1) to shift the burden of persuasion on self-defense/defense-of-another: once the defendant produces evidence tending to support the defense, the prosecution must disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt; the defendant still bears the burden of production.
The State argued H.B. 228 is not retroactive and therefore should not apply to offenses committed before its effective date; several Ohio appellate districts were split on that issue.
The First District held that H.B. 228 is procedural (affecting the burden of proof at trial), applies prospectively to trials held after its effective date, and therefore the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury under the amended statute.
The court reversed Pitts’s conviction, remanded for a new trial, and certified the conflict question to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the burden-shifting changes in R.C. 2901.05 (H.B. 228) apply when the alleged offense predated the statute but the trial occurred after its effective date	H.B. 228 does not expressly provide retroactive application; absent clear legislative intent it should not be applied to pre-enactment conduct	H.B. 228 governs trials held after its effective date because it changes the trial burden and is procedural	Court held H.B. 228 is procedural and applies prospectively to trials held after its effective date; trial court erred by not instructing under H.B. 228; conviction reversed and remanded for new trial; certified conflict to Ohio Supreme Court
Whether Pitts’s conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence	State: the evidence supported guilt	Pitts: trial evidence supported defense of another and undermines weight of verdict	Court declined to address because the error in the jury instruction required reversal; assignment rendered moot

State v. Consilio, 114 Ohio St.3d 295 (de novo review of legal issues)
Landgraf v. USI Film Prod., 511 U.S. 244 (retroactivity analysis: ask whether new rule attaches new legal consequences to completed events)
E. Ohio Gas Co. v. Limbach, 26 Ohio St.3d 63 (prohibition on retroactive laws protects reliance on existing law)
Buckeye Candy & Tobacco Co. v. Limbach, 28 Ohio St.3d 40 (procedural changes are generally applied prospectively to pending proceedings)
EPI of Cleveland, Inc. v. Limbach, 42 Ohio St.3d 103 (remedial or procedural rules apply to proceedings after adoption)
Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 36 Ohio St.3d 100 (statutes presumed prospective absent clear retroactive language)
Love v. State, 286 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 2019) (treating burden-shift in self-defense context as procedural, applicable to hearings after amendment)