State v. Sepeda, 2022 Ohio 1889

Dec. 26, 2018 incident in Toledo: Anthony Edwards and Rafael Sepeda had an on-street confrontation after Edwards crossed in front of Sepeda’s SUV; Edwards sustained serious injuries after ending up on Sepeda’s vehicle’s hood.
Sepeda was indicted for one count of felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11(A)(2)); convicted at a 2019 trial and sentenced to three years; appellate court remanded for retrial because the trial court misapplied Evid.R. 404(B).
At retrial (May 17, 2021) eyewitnesses testified Sepeda executed a U-turn, drove onto the sidewalk and accelerated into Edwards without stopping; Sepeda and his wife testified Edwards jumped on a stopped vehicle and injured himself.
Sepeda sought to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses (negligent assault; simple assault) and on self-defense/defense of others; the trial court refused the requested instructions.
Jury convicted Sepeda of felonious assault at retrial; Sepeda appealed, arguing the court erred in failing to give the requested jury instructions.

Issue	State's Argument	Sepeda's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by not instructing on lesser-included offenses (negligent assault; simple assault).	Evidence showed Sepeda used his vehicle as a deadly weapon and acted knowingly, so felonious assault was supported and lesser instructions were unnecessary.	The jury could have found no knowing use of a deadly weapon (or only negligence/recklessness), so instructions on lesser offenses were required.	No plain error. Evidence did not reasonably support acquittal of felonious assault and conviction of a lesser offense; vehicle was used in a manner likely to cause great bodily harm.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying self-defense and defense-of-others instructions.	Sepeda failed to produce evidence he was not at fault or that he reasonably believed he faced imminent death/great bodily harm; his testimony denied striking Edwards and thus was inconsistent with asserting an affirmative self-defense claim.	Sepeda and his wife testified they feared for their safety and that Edwards physically attacked the vehicle, supporting self-defense.	No abuse of discretion. Sepeda’s testimony was inconsistent with admitting the prosecution’s facts; record lacked evidence of imminent danger or necessity to use the vehicle as force.

State v. Sepeda, 157 N.E.3d 889 (6th Dist. 2020) (appellate remand for retrial after erroneous Evid.R. 404(B) ruling)
State v. White, 988 N.E.2d 595 (6th Dist. 2013) (jury instructions must include all instructions relevant and necessary)
State v. Comen, 553 N.E.2d 640 (Ohio 1990) (same: scope of jury instruction duty)
State v. Wolons, 541 N.E.2d 443 (Ohio 1989) (abuse-of-discretion standard on jury instructions)
State v. Long, 372 N.E.2d 804 (Ohio 1978) (plain-error standard under Crim.R. 52(B))
State v. Carter, 734 N.E.2d 345 (Ohio 2000) (lesser-included-offense instruction required only where evidence supports both acquittal on greater and conviction on lesser)
State v. Petway, 156 N.E.3d 467 (Ohio App. 2020) (elements of self-defense; burden-shifting principles)
State v. Mohamed, 88 N.E.3d 935 (Ohio 2017) (plain-error requires showing error was plain, obvious, and affected outcome)