State v. Wagner, 200 N.E.3d 1192

On Sept. 22, 2020, a highway shooting altercation occurred between Solomon Ford and Mark R. Wagner Jr.; Ford testified he saw Wagner with a gun and heard two shots; Ford’s vehicle had two bullet holes.
Wagner admitted firing two shots and claimed self-defense, saying Ford fired first; police recovered shell casings from Wagner’s vehicle and a bullet in the rear floorboard.
A grand jury indicted Wagner for Felonious Assault (R.C. 2903.11), Discharge of a Firearm on or Near Prohibited Premises, Improperly Handling Firearms in a Motor Vehicle, and Falsification; firearm specifications were attached to Counts One and Two.
At trial (July 2021) the jury convicted Wagner on all counts; the trial court merged the shooting counts, imposed prison and specification terms, and imposed 180 days for falsification.
After Wagner’s offense but before his trial, R.C. 2901.09 was amended (effective Apr. 6, 2021) to eliminate any duty to retreat and to bar the trier of fact from considering retreat as a factor at trial; the parties disputed whether the amendment governed Wagner’s trial.
The appellate court held the amended statute applied to trials held after its effective date, found the trial court erred in giving a duty-to-retreat instruction, reversed the shooting-related convictions and remanded for retrial on those counts, and affirmed the falsification conviction.

Issue	State's Argument	Wagner's Argument	Held
Whether the amended R.C. 2901.09(C) (no duty to retreat; trier of fact shall not consider retreat) applied at Wagner’s trial for an offense committed before the amendment	The State argued the change is substantive and cannot be applied retroactively to this case	Wagner argued the statute governs trials held after its effective date and thus the jury should not consider retreat	The court applied the amendment prospectively to trials after its effective date (following Brooks line), held the duty-to-retreat instruction was improper, reversed and remanded shooting counts for retrial
Whether the prosecution’s late disclosure of a detective’s gunshot-residue swab report (Crim.R. 16) required relief	State did not successfully obtain relief on appeal and argued no reversible prejudice	Wagner argued late disclosure prejudiced his cross-examination and warranted a new trial	The court found this issue moot in light of the remand on the shooting counts and declined to address it; falsification conviction affirmed

State v. McEndree, 159 N.E.3d 311 (Ohio Ct. App.) (discusses retroactivity analysis and statutory application to pending cases)
State v. Kaplowitz, 797 N.E.2d 977 (Ohio 2003) (applies R.C. 1.58 principles to determine which version of a statute governs pending prosecutions)
Walls v. State, 775 N.E.2d 829 (Ohio 2002) (explains presumption that statutes operate prospectively and the retroactivity framework)
Bielat v. Bielat, 721 N.E.2d 28 (Ohio 1999) (distinguishes substantive versus remedial statutes for retroactivity)
State v. Gloff, 155 N.E.3d 42 (Ohio Ct. App.) (applied amended self-defense statute prospectively to trials held after the amendment)