State v. Warmus, 197 Ohio App. 3d 383

Warmus shot Williams in a downtown Cleveland parking lot dispute over a $10 vs $20 parking fee after a headlock exchange.
Witnesses saw Warmus shoot Williams at close range; none observed Williams with a gun, though one witness saw Williams reach for a gun as shots occurred.
Warmus claimed self-defense, stating Williams pulled a gun and forced him to retrieve his own; eyewitnesses disputed his version.
Detectives and witnesses provided opinions on reasonableness of force, with some lay witnesses giving viewpoints on self-defense writ large.
The trial court admitted an audio expert's interpretation of a 9-1-1 recording; issue contested on whether words were accurately heard.
The court later remanded or corrected certain issues on burden of proof and other-acts evidence, with an overall affirmation in part and reversal in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of lay opinions on self-defense	Warmus argues witnesses offered improper opinions on state of mind of self-defense.	Warmus contends these opinions should have been limited to facts, not mental state.	Court allowed lay opinions; deemed helpful under Evid.R. 701.
Admission of expert interpretation of 9-1-1 audio	Warmus contends the audio expert invaded the jury’s fact-finding on spoken words.	Warmus argues expert words interpretation is beyond expert scope and not necessary.	Exadura allowed but harmless error; not outcome-determinative.
Prosecutorial misconduct regarding execution-style description and 404(B) evidence	Warmus claims improper portrayal of execution-style shooting and illegal firearm transport implications.	Warmus asserts mischaracterizations and improper questioning more prejudicial than probative.	No reversible error; isolated issues deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Remmer hearing requirement for juror transportation incident	Remmer hearing should have been conducted due to possible juror exposure.	No Remmer hearing necessary; judge avoided discussing case with juror.	No plain error; Remmer hearing not required given record and actions.
Preliminary jury instruction on burden of proof for self-defense	Instruction incorrectly stated who bears the burden (state vs Warmus).	Instruction error small; correct written instructions would guide the jury.	Error acknowledged but not prejudicial; no reversal required.

State v. Thomas, 77 Ohio St.3d 323 (1997) (defines the elements and subjective test for self-defense)
State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St.3d 247 (1990) (discusses duty to retreat and belief in danger)
State v. Sallie, 81 Ohio St.3d 673 (1998) (recognizes subjective belief and reasonableness in self-defense)
State v. Koss, 49 Ohio St.3d 213 (1990) (establishes combined subjective-objective test for self-defense)
State v. Morris, 8 Ohio App.3d 12 (1982) (lay opinions allowed to summarize factual observations)
State v. Duncan, 53 Ohio St.2d 215 (1978) (excited utterance four-part test)
State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 (2008) (execution-style shootings described in death investigations)
State v. Palmer, 80 Ohio St.3d 543 (1997) (discusses nuances of self-defense and intent)
State v. Williams, 4 Ohio St.3d 53 (1983) (audio/visual evidence and best evidence rule context)
Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (juror exposure due process safeguards and Remmer standard)