Login | April 19, 2024
Appeals court rules jury should have been instructed on lesser offense in assault case
JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: July 29, 2014
The 10th District Court of Appeals recently ruled that a trial court should have instructed a man’s jury regarding aggravated assault as a lesser included offense.
John Patterson appealed his convictions for felonious assault and having a weapon under disability from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
On appeal, he argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury on aggravated assault and self-defense and that his conviction was against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence.
“The evidence clearly indicated that Patterson struck Jhuty Imhotep Minter in the eye while holding a handgun in the hand which struck Minter,” Judge Gary Tyack wrote on behalf of the three-judge appellate panel.
As a result of the blow, Minter lost all of the vision in one of his eyes.
“Thus, Patterson was clearly guilty of felonious assault unless attendant facts established that self-defense applied or that the aggravated assault statute applied,” Tyack stated.
The judges first addressed Patterson’s self-defense argument.
They emphasized that self-defense only applies when the person who inflicts harm is not at fault for giving rise to the affray.
In Patterson’s case, the judges found he went looking for Minter and approached him with a gun in his hand.
“Clearly, Patterson was responsible for the encounter and the assault on Minter. The evidence did not support a self-defense theory and the trial court was correct not to give a jury charge as to self-defense,” Judge Tyack wrote, overruling one of Patterson’s assignments of error.
The judges next determined that Patterson clearly had a weapon despite being under a legal disability.
The facts also showed that he knowing caused Minter serious physical harm with a deadly weapon.
“The evidence clearly supported the conviction for felonious assault,” Judge Tyack continued.
“The most challenging issue centers around aggravated assault as an offense of inferior degree as opposed to felonious assault.”
The judges maintained that felonious assault occurs when a person causes serious physical harm to another or another’s unborn.
Aggravated assault, however, is defined as a person acting under a sudden passion or a sudden fit of rage that is brought on by serious provocation from the victim.
When reviewing Patterson’s case, the judges found Minter had encountered the son of Patterson’s girlfriend about 20 minutes prior to the incident.
The boy, who was seven at the time, told his mother that Minter had propositioned him and the woman in turn told Patterson about the allegation.
Patterson told the court he believed that Minter had asked the boy to perform oral sex.
Minter described Patterson approaching him with a gun and being “in a rage” only 20 minutes after Minter had spoken to the boy.
The appellate judges found that Minter’s alleged solicitation of the boy qualified as serious provocation.
“We see the provocation as being sufficient to enrage a person who is acting in the role of stepfather to a 7-year-old. The trial court should have allowed the jury to consider the inferior offense of aggravated assault,” Judge Tyack wrote, sustaining the assignment of error.
“As a result of our findings, the verdicts of guilty as to felonious assault and related conviction is vacated. The conviction, having a weapon under disability, is affirmed. The case is remanded for a new trial as to the felonious assault charge and related firearm specification.”
Presiding Judge Lisa Sadler and Judge Amy O’Grady concurred.
The case is cited State v. Patterson, 2014-Ohio-2740.
Copyright © 2014 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved