[Cite as State v. Johnson, 2023-Ohio-3920.]

COURT OF APPEALS

STARK COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:

Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.

 Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J.

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.

-vsCase No. 2022CA00163

ALFRED L. JOHNSON

 Defendant-Appellant O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Stark County Court of 

Common Pleas, Case No. 2022-CR-0342

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: October 27, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

KYLE L. STONE DONOVAN R. HILL

Prosecuting Attorney 122 Market Avenue, North

Stark County Ohio DeWalt Bldg., Suite #101 

Canton, Ohio 44702

CHRISTOPHER A. PIEKARSKI 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

Appellate Division 

110 Central Plaza South, Suite #510

Canton, Ohio 44702-1413
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00163 2

Hoffman, P.J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Alfred L. Johnson appeals the judgment entered by the 

Stark County Common Pleas Court convicting him following jury trial of murder (R.C. 

2903.02(A)) with a firearm specification (R.C. 2941.145(A)) and sentencing him to an 

aggregate term of incarceration of eighteen years to life. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of 

Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} On February 13, 2022, Appellant hosted his family at his home to watch the 

Super Bowl. In attendance were Appellant, his nephew Nick Oosdyk, Oosdyk’s sister 

Sara, Sara’s husband David, and Sara’s and David’s sons, E.B. and D.B. E.B. was 

thirteen years old, while D.B. was eleven years old. 

{¶3} Appellant and Oosdyk both had served in the military and both enjoyed 

shooting and guns. The men were close, spending time together on a monthly basis for 

around thirty years. 

{¶4} Both Appellant and Oosdyk regularly babysat E.B. and D.B. However, Sara 

did not want the boys to have access to guns. Appellant told Sara he kept his guns locked 

in a safe when babysitting the boys. Although Oosdyk normally carried a concealed 

weapon in a holster, he agreed to store his gun in his vehicle when he was with the boys. 

Neither Appellant nor Oosdyk had been known by Sara or David to violate the agreement. 

{¶5} Oosdyk was not generally a confrontational person. Although he and his 

sister Sara sometimes argued, he would walk away from the argument. He was not 

known by David, Sara, or Appellant to ever threaten anyone or engage in physical 

confrontations.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00163 3

{¶6} On the day of the Super Bowl, Oosdyk arrived at Appellant’s home around 

3:30 in the afternoon. David and the boys arrived soon after. Sara arrived around 6:00. 

Prior to Sara’s arrival, the boys played a Star Wars board game with Oosdyk and David. 

When the game started, David and Sara watched the game. The others were not 

interested in football, so the boys continued to play their game in another room, and 

Oosdyk went into the den with Appellant. 

{¶7} E.B. went to the den to see if Oosdyk wanted to play the Star Wars game 

with them again. Oosdyk declined. Oosdyk and Appellant appeared to be engaged in a 

normal conversation at the time. E.B. returned to the den later to discuss the game with 

Oosdyk. E.B. noticed the conversation between Appellant and Oosdyk was slightly 

“raised,” although they were not yelling. Tr. 315. E.B. chose to leave the den without 

saying anything. Shortly thereafter, E.B. heard Appellant and the victim discussing the 

Ukraine crisis through the wall. 

{¶8} At the end of the first quarter of the football game, David and Sara heard 

two shots. They could not place the sounds immediately. Sara thought the sounds were 

fireworks, while David believed there was a catastrophic furnace failure. When David and 

Sara got up to investigate and look for the boys, they heard a third shot. Shortly 

thereafter, they heard more shots in quick succession. The boys ran to David and Sara. 

{¶9} Appellant met David and Sara in the hallway and repeatedly yelled at them 

to get out of the house. His behavior was demanding and aggressive. Sara asked 

Appellant if Oosdyk shot himself. Appellant replied he had not. Sara then asked 

Appellant if he shot Oosdyk. Appellant replied affirmatively. When Sara asked if Oosdyk 

was still alive, Appellant told her to get out of the house.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00163 4

{¶10} Sara and David took the boys and left, calling 911 when they got home 

Appellant also called 911 and waited in his driveway for the police to arrive. Officer David 

Picard of the Uniontown Police Department was the first to arrive. When he encountered 

Appellant, Appellant had his hands in the air. The officer asked Appellant what happened. 

Appellant explained they were arguing and Oosdyk said the wrong things. Appellant 

stated he lost his temper. When the officer asked Appellant to stay still for a moment, 

Appellant told the officer to cuff him and be done with it. Appellant stated he had already 

screwed his whole life up. 

{¶11} After backup arrived, and with Appellant handcuffed in the cruiser, police 

cleared the scene so medics could safely enter. Oosdyk was found dead in the house as 

the result of five gunshot wounds. His blood alcohol level was .087, slightly above the 

legal limit to drive.

{¶12} Appellant was taken to the police station where he was booked. Appellant 

told Officer Picard he was stupid, and made a big mistake. 

{¶13} Lt. Nathan Weidman of the Uniontown Police Department spoke with the 

coroner and was informed Oosdyk was wearing a soft holster on his hip. Lt. Weidman 

went to Appellant’s home, where Oosdyk’s car was still parked. He was met at the house 

by Appellant’s son. While the son was cooperative, he told the officer his mom wanted 

one thing out of Oosdyk’s car before it was towed. After a conversation, both Appellant’s 

son and the police officer realized they both wanted Oosdyk’s gun from the vehicle, Lt. 

Weidman had the vehicle towed, where police found Oosdyk’s loaded pistol in the glove 

compartment.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00163 5

{¶14} Appellant was indicted by the Stark County Grand Jury with one count of 

murder with a firearm specification. The case proceeded to jury trial in the Stark County 

Common Pleas Court.

{¶15} Appellant testified at trial. Appellant testified during the Super Bowl, he was 

sitting in his chair in the den talking to Appellant, who was seated on the couch. According 

to Appellant, while the men often disagreed with each other, they could always say what 

they wanted without the other getting offended. Appellant testified Oosdyk was getting 

drunk, and the conversation turned from light-hearted to serious. Appellant claimed he 

teased Oosdyk that due to Oosdyk’s age, the military could recall him if a war with Russia 

took place. Oosdyk became agitated. Appellant claimed he tried to calm Oosdyk down, 

to no avail. Appellant claimed he became afraid because Oosdyk was 41 years old and 

in pretty good shape, while Appellant was 75 years old. 

{¶16} Appellant testified he suggested Oosdyk go sleep in a bedroom because he 

was drunk. Oosdyk insisted he was not drunk and could drive home. Appellant testified 

he told Oosdyk he was going to get Sara to try to talk to him. Appellant testified Oosdyk 

then said, “Okay, go get the bitch, I’ll kill her and the God damn boys, too.” Tr. 523. 

Appellant testified Oosdyk was angry with the boys because the boys had argued about 

the Star Wars game. 

{¶17} Appellant testified Oosdyk got off the couch and got in Appellant’s face to 

berate him about being retired after wasting his life working. Oosdyk sat back down on 

the couch and crossed his arms. Appellant grabbed his pistol because he could not let 

Oosdyk hurt the boys, and feared Oosdyk was going to carry through on his threat. 

Appellant concealed the gun behind his back. Appellant testified Oosdyk leaned forward 
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00163 6

and reached back while sitting on the couch. Appellant took this as a sign Oosdyk was 

going to get up and carry out his threat to kill the boys. Appellant shot Oosdyk in the face. 

Appellant expected the victim to drop over, but the victim continued moving. Appellant 

shot Oosdyk in the chest. Oosdyk managed to move a few feet before collapsing on the 

floor. Appellant testified he still believed Oosdyk was a threat because he was moving 

as if trying to get up. Appellant then shot Oosdyk twice more in the back and once in the 

back of his head. Appellant testified he believed he was protecting the boys, and had no 

other viable option but shooting Oosdyk. Appellant testified he assumed Oosdyk was 

carrying his gun that night because Oosdyk always had a gun. Appellant admitted he 

had at times carried a gun around the boys, and assumed Oosdyk also carried a gun 

around the boys. Although Appellant was a retired firefighter medic, he made no effort to 

aid Oosdyk, instead waiting for the emergency squad to arrive. Appellant claimed he was 

not honest with the police when he stated he lost his temper, and testified he never 

actually lost his temper with Oosdyk.

{¶18} The trial court instructed the jury on the defense of defense of others. The 

jury found Appellant guilty of murder and the accompanying firearm specification. The 

trial court convicted Appellant in accordance with the jury’s verdict. The trial court 

sentenced Appellant to a term of incarceration of fifteen years to life for murder and three 

years incarceration for the firearm specification, to be served consecutively for an 

aggregate term of eighteen years to life in prison. It is from the November 30, 2022 

judgment of the trial court Appellant prosecutes his appeal, assigning as error:
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00163 7

THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE 

EVIDENCE, AS THE STATE DID NOT MEET ITS BURDEN OF 

DISPROVING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT APPELLANT 

ACTED IN DEFENSE OF OTHERS.

{¶19} Appellant argues the jury’s verdict was against the manifest weight of the 

evidence, as the State failed to disprove his defense he was defending his niece’s family

when he shot Oosdyk.

{¶20} Appellant was convicted of murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A), which 

provides in pertinent part, “No person shall purposely cause the death of another.” At the 

close of Appellant’s jury trial, the trial court provided the jury with an instruction regarding 

defense of others, which means the trial court concluded the record contained evidence 

which tends to support Appellant used the force in defense of others when he shot and 

killed Oosdyk. R.C. 2901.05(B)(1); State v. Messenger, 171 Ohio St.3d 227, 2022-Ohio4562, ¶ 26. The guilty verdict means the State met its burden of persuading the jury 

beyond a reasonable doubt Appellant was not acting in self-defense when he killed 

Oosdyk. Id.

{¶21} The elements of self-defense in the use of deadly force are: (1) the 

defendant was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray; (2) the 

defendant had a bona fide belief he (or as applicable in the case sub judice, another) was 

in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and his only means of escape from such 

a danger was in the use of such force, and (3) the defendant did not violate any duty to 
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00163 8

retreat or avoid the danger. State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 24, 759 N.E.2d 1240 

(2002).

{¶22} Pursuant to R.C. 2901.05, if there is evidence presented at trial which tends 

to support a claim the defendant used force against another in self-defense or in defense 

of another, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant did not use 

the force in self-defense or defense of another. R.C. 2901.05(B)(1). Once the initial 

showing is made, the burden of persuasion requires the State to disprove at least one of 

the elements of self-defense or defense of another beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. 

Williams, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2019CA00188, 2021-Ohio-443, ¶17.

{¶23} The second element of self-defense requires the evidence tends to show 

the accused had reasonable grounds to believe or an honest belief, even if mistaken, he 

or another was in imminent or immediate danger of death or great bodily harm. In State 

v. Thomas, the Ohio Supreme Court explained:

[T]he second element of self-defense is a combined subjective and 

objective test. As this court established in State v. Sheets (1926), 115 Ohio 

St. 308, 310, 152 N.E. 664, self-defense “is placed on the grounds of the 

bona fides of defendant's belief, and reasonableness therefor, and whether, 

under the circumstances, he exercised a careful and proper use of his own 

faculties.” (Emphasis sic.) See, also, McGaw v. State (1931), 123 Ohio St. 

196, 174 N.E. 741, paragraph two of the syllabus. In Koss, we once again 

stated this test by approving similar jury instructions to those given in the 

case sub judice:
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00163 9

“In determining whether the Defendant had reasonable grounds for 

an honest belief that she was in imminent danger, you must put yourself in 

the position of the Defendant * * *. You must consider the conduct of [the 

assailant] and determine if such acts and words caused the Defendant to 

reasonably and honestly believe that she was about to be killed or to receive 

great bodily harm.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Koss, 49 Ohio St.3d at 216, 551 

N.E.2d at 973. Thus, the jury first must consider the defendant's situation 

objectively, that is, whether, considering all of the defendant's particular 

characteristics, knowledge, or lack of knowledge, circumstances, history, 

and conditions at the time of the attack, she reasonably believed she was 

in imminent danger. See 1 LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law (1986, 

Supp. 1996) 654, Supp. 71, Section 5.7. See, also, generally, State v. 

Shane (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 630, 634, 590 N.E.2d 272, 276 ... Then, if the 

objective standard is met, the jury must determine if, subjectively, this 

particular defendant had an honest belief that she was in imminent danger. 

See 1 LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law (1986, Supp. 1996) 654, 

Supp. 71, Section 5.7. See, also, generally, Shane, supra, 63 Ohio St.3d at 

634, 590 N.E.2d at 276.... 77 Ohio St.3d 323, 330-331, 673 N.E.2d 1339 

(1997).

{¶24} “[W]ords alone will not constitute reasonably sufficient provocation to incite 

the use of deadly force in most situations.” State v. Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d 630, 634-45, 

590 N.E.2d 272 (1992).
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00163 10

{¶25} Appellant argues the jury’s verdict rejecting his claim of defense of others 

and convicting him of murder is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In 

determining whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellate 

court acts as a thirteenth juror and “in reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence 

and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses, and determines 

whether in resolving conflicts in evidence the jury ‘clearly lost its way and created such a 

manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial 

ordered.’ ” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St. 3d 380, 387, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541, 

quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App. 3d 172, 175, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1983). We note the 

weight to be given to the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are issues for the 

trier of fact. State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967). The trier of fact 

“has the best opportunity to view the demeanor, attitude, and credibility of each witness, 

something that does not translate well on the written page.” Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio 

St.3d 415, 418, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997).

{¶26} We find the jury did not lose its way in rejecting Appellant’s claim he shot 

and killed Oosdyk defending his family. Even accepting Appellant’s testimony as true, 

the jury could conclude he did not have an honest and bona fide belief his niece’s family 

was imminent danger. Appellant testified when he first shot Oosdyk, Oosdyk was seated 

on the couch. Although according to Appellant’s testimony Oosdyk threatened to kill Sara 

and the boys, words alone are not reasonably sufficient provocation to incite the use of 

deadly force in most situations. Appellant claimed the victim reached backwards toward 

his left side where he usually carried a gun. However, Oosdyk was not carrying a weapon 

at the time, and Appellant was aware of Sara’s rule weapons not be present around the 
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00163 11

boys. Although Appellant claimed he believed Oosdyk would carry out his threat and he, 

being older and in worse physical condition than Oosdyk, would be unable to stop him 

absent the use of deadly force, there was evidence presented at trial Oosdyk was not 

known to be violent or confrontational, and would instead walk away from a confrontation. 

We find even if the jury believed Appellant’s testimony, the jury did not lose its way in 

finding he did not have an honest and bona fide belief his family was in imminent danger 

from Oosdyk, who was still seated on the couch in a different room from Sara and her 

sons when Appellant shot him in the face.

{¶27} We also find the jury did not lose its way if the jury discredited Appellant’s 

trial testimony he shot Oosdyk in defense of his family. Appellant spoke to the police 

immediately after the shooting and at his booking, and never mentioned shooting Oosdyk 

in defense of others. Appellant did not tell police Oosdyk had threatened Sara and her 

sons. Appellant told Officer Picard he and Oosdyk were arguing, Oosdyk said the wrong 

things, and Appellant lost his temper. Further, after the supposed danger was over

because Sara, David, and the boys had left the house, Appellant made no effort to aid 

Oosdyk, despite having previously been employed as a firefighter and medic. We find 

the jury could reasonably find Appellant’s statements to police on the night of the shooting 

more credible than his trial testimony.
Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00163 12

{¶28} The assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Stark County 

Common Pleas Court is affirmed. 

By: Hoffman, P.J.

Wise, J. and

Delaney, J. concur