State v. Rogers
110 N.E.3d 537
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Gary W. Rogers was indicted for felonious assault (second-degree felony) after an early-morning altercation on September 3, 2016; jury trial occurred May 31–June 1, 2017.
- Victim Mark Schlensker testified Rogers approached his parked vehicle and punched him repeatedly, causing a fractured nose, facial laceration, loss of part of an ear, and other injuries; photos and medical records were admitted.
- Mark had a concealed-carry handgun holstered under the driver’s seat but testified he did not reach for it or threaten Rogers.
- Rogers testified Mark threatened to shoot him and reached for the handgun; Rogers said he punched Mark to disarm him and claimed self-defense and sudden passion/serious provocation.
- Jury instructions included self-defense and the inferior-degree offense of aggravated assault (requiring serious provocation); jury returned guilty on felonious assault and not guilty on aggravated assault.
- Rogers was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and timely appealed raising four assignments of error (inconsistent verdicts, admission of prior domestic-violence evidence, manifest-weight challenge, and sentencing error).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether a guilty verdict for felonious assault is inconsistent with an acquittal for inferior-degree aggravated assault | State: Jury instructions permitted sequential consideration; verdicts are consistent because aggravated assault adds a mitigating element (serious provocation) that defendant failed to prove. | Rogers: Acquittal on aggravated assault is inconsistent with conviction for felonious assault and requires reversal. | Affirmed: Not inconsistent; jury found elements of felonious assault proven and found Rogers failed to prove serious provocation. |
| 2. Whether admission of testimony that Rogers had been arrested previously for domestic violence was plain error | State: Brief contextual testimony did not affect outcome; prosecutor did not rely on it in closing. | Rogers: Testimony was improper character evidence and prejudiced his defense. | No plain error: Admission was brief/contextual and did not clearly affect outcome. |
| 3. Whether the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence (self-defense/serious provocation) | State: Evidence and victim testimony supported jury’s credibility determinations. | Rogers: He proved self-defense and serious provocation by preponderance of evidence. | Affirmed: Jury did not lose its way; evidence supported rejecting self-defense and provocation. |
| 4. Whether the sentence is contrary to law because the court refused to find factors that would overcome the presumption of prison | State: Trial court considered statutory factors, followed procedures, and reasonably declined to find mitigating facts inconsistent with jury findings. | Rogers: Trial court erred by treating jury’s rejection of serious provocation as binding and thus refused to find facilitation/inducing factors. | Affirmed: Sentence not clearly and convincingly contrary to law; court permissibly weighed factors and acted within discretion and statutory framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Deem, 40 Ohio St.3d 205 (Ohio 1988) (distinguishes lesser-included and inferior-degree offenses and defines serious provocation for aggravated assault)
- State v. Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d 630 (Ohio 1992) (objective/subjective two-step test for sudden passion provocation)
- State v. Robbins, 58 Ohio St.2d 74 (Ohio 1979) (elements for claiming self-defense when using deadly force)
- State v. Mack, 82 Ohio St.3d 198 (Ohio 1998) (discussion of evaluating defendant's actual mental state under sudden passion)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard of appellate review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))