State v. Wilson, 237 N.E.3d 179

Tyler Wilson was charged with felonious assault and attempted murder after firing a gun during an altercation at a gas station with Billy Reffett.
Wilson testified that he fired a shot out of his car window to scare Reffett, claiming Reffett had threatened him and pointed a gun at him.
The incident was partially captured by surveillance video; the central issue was whether Wilson fired in self-defense or as an assault.
At trial, Wilson's counsel did not request a self-defense jury instruction, agreeing with the court that Wilson did not intend to harm Reffett, only to scare him.
The jury convicted Wilson of felonious assault but acquitted him of attempted murder. The appellate court affirmed, finding no entitlement to a self-defense instruction and no ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed whether the intent required for a self-defense jury instruction demands an intent to harm or kill, and whether failure to request the charge was ineffective assistance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is intent to harm/kill required for self-defense instruction?	Wilson: Only intent to repel/escape force required, not intent to harm/kill.	State: Self-defense requires intent to use force to harm/kill; mere intent to scare is insufficient.	Rejected defendant's position; intent to repel/escape suffices.
Was the evidence sufficient to warrant a self-defense charge?	Wilson: His testimony supported that he fired to protect himself, so self-defense should go to jury.	State: Wilson denied intent to harm, so he negated felonious assault rather than justifying it.	Evidence warranted the instruction; jury should decide.
Was counsel ineffective for not requesting the instruction?	Wilson: Counsel's failure prejudiced him as self-defense was the only supported defense.	State: Decision was reasonable trial strategy, not ineffective.	Counsel was ineffective, prejudicing Wilson.
Did the appellate court err in affirming the conviction?	Wilson: Lower courts imposed an improper heightened burden on self-defense claims.	State: Lower courts correctly interpreted law and facts.	Yes; conviction vacated and remanded for new proceedings.

State v. Champion, 109 Ohio St. 281 (Ohio 1924) (self-defense focuses on intent to repel or escape force, not to harm or kill)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (articulating the elements required for self-defense)
State v. Messenger, 171 Ohio St.3d 227 (Ohio 2022) (discussing burden of production for self-defense jury instructions)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishing standards for ineffective assistance of counsel)