State v. Rengert
2021 Ohio 2561
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- In May 2018 Shalene Rengert (defendant) stabbed her husband, Thomas; a Delaware County grand jury indicted her for felonious assault (deadly weapon) and domestic violence.
- Trial began August 6, 2019; Rengert claimed self‑defense. The jury convicted on both counts; the court merged offenses and imposed five years community control.
- Key disputed facts: Rengert testified Thomas punched and choked her and she stabbed to create an escape after hiding a knife under the mattress; Thomas testified she straddled him and stabbed his leg.
- Rengert sought to call (1) a witness to Thomas’s reputation for untruthfulness, (2) a witness to his reputation for violence, and (3) a battered‑woman‑syndrome expert; the trial court excluded all three.
- The trial court instructed on self‑defense (including deadly force) but changed OJI language from statutory "tends to support" to "may support" and included a duty‑to‑retreat instruction; Rengert did not request a Castle‑Doctrine instruction.
- Rengert appealed, asserting six assignments of error (witness exclusions; improper rebuttal; jury‑instruction errors including duty to retreat; cumulative error; insufficiency and manifest‑weight challenges to the rejection of self‑defense). The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rengert) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Word change in jury instruction from statutory "tends to support" to "may support" | Court still instructed burden on State; wording change was within court discretion and not prejudicial | Change undermined statutory allocation of burden and misled jury | No abuse of discretion; instruction adequate and not prejudicial |
| Omission of Castle Doctrine / duty to retreat instruction | State elected to carry the burden under amended R.C. 2901.05; trial instruction appropriately addressed retreat as part of self‑defense elements | As a resident, Rengert had no duty to retreat and trial should have instructed jury on Castle Doctrine | Failure to give Castle Doctrine instruction was not plain error; Rengert did not show the omission affected substantial rights |
| Sufficiency of evidence to disprove self‑defense | Evidence showed Rengert created the situation and lacked a bona fide belief of imminent deadly harm; State proved at least one element beyond a reasonable doubt | Evidence was insufficient to disprove self‑defense | Evidence was sufficient; conviction not against manifest weight |
| Manifest weight of evidence (self‑defense) | Credibility conflicts were for jury; jury reasonably rejected Rengert’s story | Verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence | No manifest‑weight error; jury did not lose its way |
| Exclusion of three witnesses (reputation for untruthfulness; reputation for violence; battered‑woman expert) | Witnesses were inadmissible: rehabilitation limited under Evid.R.608, propensity barred under Evid.R.404/405, and no factual basis shown for syndrome expert | Testimony/expert would bear on credibility, victim’s propensity, and explain battered‑woman dynamics | Trial court acted within discretion; exclusions proper |
| Rebuttal witnesses | Rebuttal testimony explained/refuted facts newly raised by defense (including origin of defendant’s black eye) | State’s rebuttal witnesses merely restated State’s case‑in‑chief and did not rebut new facts | Rebuttal witnesses were properly admitted; no abuse of discretion |
| Cumulative error | No reversible errors were found; cumulative‑error doctrine inapplicable | Combined errors deprived Rengert of a fair trial | Because no individual errors requiring reversal were found, cumulative‑error claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Long, 372 N.E.2d 804 (Ohio 1978) (plain‑error standard)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- State v. Coleman, 525 N.E.2d 792 (Ohio 1988) (jury charges reviewed as a whole)
- State v. Fisher, 789 N.E.2d 222 (Ohio 2003) (structural‑error/harmless‑error discussion)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1991) (structural‑error framework)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (failure to instruct generally subject to harmless‑error review)
- State v. Thomas, 673 N.E.2d 1339 (Ohio 1997) (Castle Doctrine: no duty to retreat in one’s home)
- State v. Jamison, 552 N.E.2d 180 (Ohio 1990) (self‑defense credibility is for the factfinder)