State v. Reynolds, 2019 Ohio 2343

Defendant Lamar D. Reynolds, a barber renting a chair in the victim Damon Jenkins’ barbershop, was indicted for two counts of murder (purposeful and felony murder) and having weapons while under disability after Jenkins was shot and later died (Sept. 30, 2017).
Police recovered an operable handgun and a loaded clip from the barbershop; ballistic testing matched eight spent shell casings to that gun. Autopsy showed a fatal wound to the left lower thigh causing hemorrhage.
Reynolds was arrested outside the shop; officers found marijuana, a gun clip, and a holster on his person. He admitted during a videotaped interview and at trial that he shot Jenkins three times during a struggle over a gun.
Reynolds asserted self-defense at trial, testifying that Jenkins attacked him, tried to seize his gun, and that Reynolds shot to prevent Jenkins from killing him; he also placed the gun and clip on the counter before police arrived.
The jury acquitted Reynolds of purposeful (A) murder, but convicted him of felony murder (as a proximate result of felonious assault) with a mandatory three‑year firearm specification, and convicted him of having weapons while under disability. He was sentenced to an aggregate 18‑years‑to‑life.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Reynolds)	Held
Sufficiency / manifest weight of evidence for felony murder	Evidence (admissions, gun, ballistics, autopsy) proves Reynolds caused Jenkins’ death during felonious assault; convictions supported.	Claimed he acted in self‑defense; his testimony, if credited, negates culpability (justified use of deadly force).	Affirmed: evidence sufficient; jury reasonably rejected self‑defense under manifest‑weight review.
Having weapons while under disability conviction	Certified conviction and Reynolds’ admission that he used a firearm satisfy the statute.	(No developed argument on appeal; issue largely abandoned)	Affirmed (challenge disregarded for lack of briefing; would fail on merits).
Use of visible restraints (handcuffs/shackles) during trial	Court security needs justified restraints due to prior spitting and threats; restraints did not prejudice trial or impede defense.	Restraints were prejudicial, unnecessary given good behavior; requested alternatives and curative instruction.	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; record supported security concerns and no prejudice shown.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standards for sufficiency and manifest‑weight review)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (legal sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (U.S. 2005) (visible restraints may interfere with presumption of innocence and right to testify)
State v. Franklin, 97 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2002) (restraints should not be used absent unusual circumstances)
State v. Adams, 103 Ohio St.3d 508 (Ohio 2004) (trial court must exercise discretion before ordering restraints)
State v. Kidder, 32 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1987) (presumption against shackling defendants at trial)
Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (deference to fact‑finder on witness credibility)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (elements of self‑defense using deadly force)