State v. Wilson, 2022 Ohio 3763

Defendant Tyler Wilson was indicted for attempted murder, felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11(A)(2)), and related firearm specifications; jury acquitted him of attempted murder but convicted him of felonious assault and firearm specs and he received an aggregate 16–20 year sentence.
Incident: June 8, 2021, at a Shell station — a parking-lot dispute between Wilson and victim Billy Reffett; Reffett allegedly brandished a gun; Wilson fired one shot from his car; a dent/mark appeared near Reffett’s head; a subsequent high-speed pursuit occurred.
Wilson testified he fired a single, intentional “warning” shot to scare Reffett and protect himself and his passenger, denied intent to hit or kill, and denied aiming at Reffett.
At trial the court (and both counsel) declined to give a self-defense jury instruction; defense argued the shot was a warning and done out of fear; prosecution argued Wilson aimed and attempted to kill.
On appeal Wilson’s sole assignment of error alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request a self-defense instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Wilson)	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting a self-defense instruction	Counsel’s omission was reasonable because defendant’s testimony negated elements of self-defense and a warning shot does not constitute force directed at a person	Trial counsel should have requested self-defense because Wilson’s testimony produced evidence he feared for his life and fired to protect himself and another	Not ineffective — court held no self-defense instruction was warranted because Wilson’s position attempted to negate required elements (intent/force) rather than concede the State’s facts and assert a justification
Whether an intentional “warning shot” can support a self-defense instruction	A warning shot is not force exerted upon or against a person as required for the statutory self-defense framework	Warning shot is intentional use of the firearm to repel an aggressor and may support self-defense	Court held the warning-shot theory did not supply the necessary affirmative-defense framework here: Wilson denied intent to cause or attempt to cause harm and thus could not consistently claim self-defense

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-part ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Poole, 33 Ohio St.2d 18 (1973) (describes affirmative defenses as conceding the prosecution's facts while asserting independent justification)
State v. Robinson, 47 Ohio St.2d 103 (1976) (explains burden-of-production rule and trial-court duty when evidence tends to raise affirmative defenses)
State v. Millett, 273 A.2d 504 (Me. 1971) (quoted for the procedural test a court uses to decide whether an affirmative-defense instruction must be given)
State v. Martin, 21 Ohio St.3d 91 (1986) (discusses interaction of defenses and elements of charged offenses)
State v. Barnd, 85 Ohio App.3d 254 (3d Dist. 1993) (recognizes that testimony denying intent to harm is inconsistent with self-defense)
State v. Cook, 254 N.C. App. 150 (2017) (rejected self-defense instruction where defendant testified he did not intend to shoot anyone)
State v. Dykas, 185 Ohio App.3d 763 (8th Dist. 2010) (reiterates that self-defense cannot be used to negate an element of the crime)