[Cite as State v. Perrien, 2020-Ohio-798.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 No. 108339 

 v. : 

 

DENNIS W. PERRIEN, JR., : 

 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 5, 2020 

 

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-18-626337-A 

 

Appearances: 

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 

Attorney, Theodore Parran, III, and Anna M. Faraglia, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee. 

Mark A. Stanton, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and 

Paul Kuzmins, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.: 

Defendant-appellant, Dennis Perrien, Jr. (“appellant”), brings the 

instant appeal challenging his convictions for reckless homicide and felonious 

assault. Appellant argues that he was denied his constitutional right to the effective 
assistance of counsel, his convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence and 

against the manifest weight of the evidence, the trial court committed plain error by 

failing to provide a jury instruction on the offense of negligent homicide, and he was 

denied his constitutional right to a fair trial. After a thorough review of the record 

and law, this court affirms. 

I. Factual and Procedural History 

The instant appeal pertains to a shooting that occurred on February 23, 

2018, in a warehouse of an industrial park on Cleveland’s west side. Appellant, 

victim Donald Van Horn III (hereinafter “victim”), and Jerrold Saxton met at the 

warehouse, which they planned to remodel into a clubhouse for their motorcycle 

club, the All American Men of Honor Motorcycle Club. The purpose of the February 

23 meeting was to assess the progress of the remodeling and sign the lease that had 

been drawn up by the owner, Scott Landry. 

Appellant discharged a single round from his 9 mm Ruger SR9c 

handgun. A primary issue in this appeal is whether the shot was discharged 

recklessly or negligently. The shot struck the victim from a distance of 

approximately one to three feet. Appellant immediately began performing life 

saving measures and emergency personnel were contacted. The victim ultimately 

succumbed to the gunshot wound, and was pronounced dead at the scene at 

approximately 10:00 a.m. 

There were no eyewitnesses to the shooting that could testify about the 

specific circumstances under which the shot was fired from appellant’s gun. 
Appellant advised the responding officers that he accidentally shot the victim and 

that he was joking around with the victim at the time the gun discharged. Appellant 

explained that he and the victim would often joke around with one another, during 

which the victim would pull his switchblade knife and appellant would pull his gun. 

Appellant was arrested for his involvement in the shooting on February 

23, 2018. On March 22, 2018, the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury returned a twocount indictment charging appellant with (1) murder, in violation of R.C. 

2903.02(B), and (2) felonious assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1). Both 

counts contained one- and three-year firearm specifications. The murder offense 

charged in Count 1 alleged that appellant caused the death of the victim as a 

proximate result of committing or attempting to commit felonious assault, an 

offense of violence. Appellant pled not guilty to the indictment during his 

arraignment on March 27, 2018. 

On January 7, 2019, the state filed a brief “regarding lesser included 

offenses.” Therein, the state argued that reckless homicide, in violation of R.C. 

2903.041(A), is a lesser-included offense of homicide, in violation of R.C. 

2903.02(B), and that negligent homicide, in violation of R.C. 2903.05(A), is not a 

lesser-included offense of homicide. Accordingly, the state maintained that 

negligent homicide “cannot be considered as a possible legal theory for jury 

instructions in this matter.” 

A jury trial commenced on January 8, 2019. At the close of the state’s 

case, defense counsel moved for a Crim.R. 29 judgment of acquittal. The trial court 
denied defense counsel’s motion. The defense did not call any witnesses. Defense 

counsel renewed the Crim.R. 29 motion after resting, and the trial court denied the 

renewed motion. 

On January 16, 2019, the state filed a brief regarding “jury instructions 

pertaining to accident.” Therein, the state argued that a jury instruction on accident 

was not proper because the state did not bear the burden of demonstrating that 

appellant acted purposefully, rather, the state had to demonstrate that appellant 

acted knowingly. The state contended that an accident instruction was only 

appropriate and warranted when a defendant is alleged to have engaged in 

purposeful conduct. 

The trial court instructed the jury on January 16, 2019. The trial court 

provided jury instructions on the murder offense charged in Count 1, the felonious 

assault offense charged in Count 2, including the mental state of knowingly, the 

lesser-included offense on Count 1 of reckless homicide, including the mental state 

of recklessly, and the defense of accident. On January 18, 2019, the jury returned its 

verdict. The jury found appellant guilty on Count 1 of the lesser-included offense of 

reckless homicide, a third-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2903.041(A), and guilty 

of the underlying one- and three-year firearm specifications. The jury found 

appellant not guilty on Count 2. 

The trial court held a sentencing hearing on February 26, 2019. The 

trial court sentenced appellant to a prison term of four years: three years on the 
firearm specification to be served prior and consecutive to one year on the reckless 

homicide conviction. 

On March 22, 2019, appellant filed the instant appeal challenging the 

trial court’s judgment. He assigns six errors for review: 

I. Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction 

on negligent assault. 

II. The trial court committed plain error when it failed to instruct the 

jurors on the offense of negligent homicide. 

III. Appellant’s conviction for reckless homicide is not supported by 

sufficient evidence where the evidence only supports a finding of 

negligence. 

IV. Appellant’s conviction for reckless homicide is against the manifest 

weight of the evidence. 

V. [Appellant] was denied a fair trial when he was not permitted to 

present evidence about the existence of the charge of negligent 

homicide even if a jury instruction was not forthcoming. 

VI. Trial counsel was ineffective for asking a question of the victim’s 

widow [to which] counsel did not know the answer and that no trial 

tactic would justify. 

For ease of discussion, we will address appellant’s assignments of error out of order. 

II. Law and Analysis 

A. Sufficiency and Manifest Weight 

In his third assignment of error, appellant argues that his conviction 

for reckless homicide was not supported by sufficient evidence. Specifically, 

appellant contends that the state failed to demonstrate the element of recklessness. 

In his fourth assignment of error, appellant argues that his conviction for reckless 

homicide is against the manifest weight of the evidence because the weight of the 
evidence demonstrated that he committed the offense of negligent homicide, not 

reckless homicide. Because these issues are closely related, we will address them 

together. 

The test for sufficiency requires a determination of whether the 

prosecution met its burden of production at trial. State v. Bowden, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 92266, 2009-Ohio-3598, ¶ 12. The relevant inquiry is whether, after 

viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier 

of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a 

reasonable doubt. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), 

paragraph two of the syllabus. 

In contrast to sufficiency of the evidence, weight of the evidence 

involves the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence. State v. 

Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). While “sufficiency of 

the evidence is a test of adequacy as to whether the evidence is legally sufficient to 

support a verdict as a matter of law, * * * weight of the evidence addresses the 

evidence’s effect of inducing belief.” State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382, 2007-

Ohio-2202, 865 N.E.2d 1264, ¶ 25, citing Thompkins at 386-387. “In other words, 

a reviewing court asks whose evidence is more persuasive — the state’s or the 

defendant’s?” Id. The reviewing court must consider all the evidence in the record, 

the reasonable inferences, and the credibility of the witnesses to determine 

“‘whether in resolving conflicts in the 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.’” Thompkins at 387, quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio 

App.3d 172, 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983). 

Appellant was convicted of reckless homicide, a third-degree felony in 

violation of R.C. 2903.041(A), which provides that “[n]o person shall recklessly 

cause the death of another[.]” 

The culpable mental state of “recklessness” is defined in R.C. 

2901.22(C) as follows: 

A person acts recklessly when, with heedless indifference to the 

consequences, the person disregards a substantial and unjustifiable 

risk that the person’s conduct is likely to cause a certain result or is 

likely to be of a certain nature. A person is reckless with respect to 

circumstances when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, 

the person disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such 

circumstances are likely to exist. 

“Substantial risk” is defined in R.C. 2901.01(A)(8) as “a strong 

possibility, as contrasted with a remote or significant possibility, that a certain result 

may occur or that certain circumstances may exist.” 

In the instant matter, appellant argues that he acted “instinctively, 

impulsively, [and] without active considerations of the underlying risk.” Appellant’s 

brief at 20. Appellant also contends that he did not have enough time to 

contemplate and disregard a known risk. Appellant maintains that the evidence 

presented at trial was indicative of negligence, not recklessness. We disagree. 

As an initial matter, we note that the state’s case was based almost 

entirely on circumstantial evidence, which has the same probative value as direct 

evidence. See Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d at 272, 574 N.E.2d 492. There were no 
eyewitnesses to the shooting that could testify about the specific circumstances 

under which the shot was fired from appellant’s gun (i.e. whether appellant and 

victim were wrestling with gun and it went off accidentally; whether the victim 

jokingly lunged at appellant with his knife and appellant reacted by drawing his gun; 

whether the victim had, in fact, drawn his knife and whether the blade was open, 

etc.). The only individual present inside the warehouse with appellant and the 

victim at the time of the shooting was Jerrold Saxton. However, his back was turned 

to the victim and appellant, and as a result, he did not see the specific circumstances 

under which the shot was fired. Two other witnesses, Kimberly Shaffer and Ann 

Marquard, were working in the office next door to the clubhouse in which the shot 

was fired. They did not see the specific circumstances under which the shot was 

fired. 

Saxton testified that he was friends with both appellant and the 

victim. On the day of the shooting, he walked through the perspective warehouse 

with appellant and the victim. As the three walked through the space to assess the 

progress of the renovations, he noticed some paint that was “overspray[ed]” on a 

wall. (Tr. 1038.) Saxton made a comment to appellant and the victim about his 

observation. The three were joking around with one another about the overspray. 

Saxton explained that the victim asked who was responsible for the overspray. 

When Saxton said that he did not know who was responsible, the victim “made a 

joking gesture * * * pointing at [appellant].” (Tr. 1039.) 
Appellant and the victim continued to “bust each other’s balls” about 

the overspray, and they both said they were doing the best they could with the 

renovations. (Tr. 1042.) Saxton walked away from appellant and the victim to put 

his soda down. The victim and appellant were still talking, but Saxton was not 

paying attention to the specific nature of their conversation. At this point, Saxton 

heard a “loud pop,” turned around, and saw the victim stumble backwards one or 

two feet. (Tr. 1042.) He initially thought the victim was joking around, but then 

observed blood coming from the victim’s chest. Appellant began to yell, “I didn’t 

mean it. It was an accident.” (Tr. 1043.) Saxton saw a knife and a gun on the ground 

near the victim. 

Saxton called 911. Although he could not remember exactly what he 

said to the operator, he opined at trial that he said he “needed to report a shooting, 

an accident.” (Tr. 1045.) The 911 call was played at trial, and Saxton did not 

mention the shooting was an accident during the recorded call. 

As noted above, Saxton testified that appellant and the victim were 

joking around with one another about the paint overspray. He did not hear either 

appellant or the victim raise their voice. Because his back was turned to appellant 

and the victim, he did not see a gun or a knife pulled when appellant and the victim 

were talking about the overspray. 

When Saxton spoke with first responders at the scene, he told them 

that the victim was accidentally shot. Saxton explained that he did not know for 

certain whether the victim was accidentally shot, but he was speculating that it was 
an accident because he knows appellant and the victim, and Saxton did not have any 

reason to think that the shooting was intentional. Saxton was assuming that the 

shooting was an accident “because I know both of them and I know that neither one 

of them have ever done anything to each other to try to harm each other.” (Tr. 1064.) 

On cross-examination, Saxton testified that he had never seen 

appellant and victim argue or get violent with each other. He knew the victim to 

carry a “[s]pring-action” knife, commonly known as a “switchblade.” (Tr. 1085.) 

This is the type of knife he saw on the ground near the victim’s body. Saxton testified 

that the victim would occasionally mess around with his knife: “when [victim] would 

joke around, he’d pull it out and pop it open and say, I cut you, and then he’d close 

it and put it away.” (Tr. 1085.) Saxton explained that “most of us never really took 

[the victim’s joking around] seriously,” and the victim never actually cut anybody. 

When Saxton walked away from appellant and the victim, he could 

not hear exactly what they were saying to one another as they were “pulling each 

other’s chain” about the paint overspray. (Tr. 1092.) Saxton never heard the victim 

pull out his knife and say he was going to cut appellant, and he never heard appellant 

pull his gun out or make any reference to a gun or a knife. When Saxton turned 

around after hearing the loud pop, he did not see a gun in appellant’s hand and he 

did not see a knife in the victim’s hand. 

Saxton testified that when Kimberly Shaffer, an employee of the 

victim’s company, came running into the warehouse where the shooting took place, 

he did not say that the shooting was an accident. However, Saxton confirmed that 
he has told people that the shooting was an accident “[e]very chance I can get.” (Tr. 

1105.) 

Although it did not bother him when he saw the victim playing or 

joking around with his knife in the past, Saxton testified that it would have 

concerned him if he saw appellant pull out a loaded gun in a joking manner. Saxton 

explained that his concern would not be that appellant would shoot the gun, but “a 

loaded gun it, to me, in my eyes, is much more dangerous than a knife.” (Tr. 1114.) 

Kimberly Shaffer testified that she was working for the victim’s 

heating and cooling company, BTU Comfort Solutions, at the time of the shooting. 

Her office was next door to the space that appellant, the victim, and Saxton were 

renovating to use as a clubhouse for their motorcycle club. Shaffer testified that 

when people were conversing in the clubhouse, she could not hear them. However, 

when the people in the clubhouse were yelling, she was able to hear them. Shaffer 

testified that she did not hear any yelling or arguing in the clubhouse before she 

heard the loud noise that she later learned was a gunshot. 

After hearing the loud noise and subsequent commotion, Shaffer ran 

from her office into the clubhouse. She saw the victim lying on the ground, and 

appellant was kneeling next to him with his hands on the victim’s chest. Shaffer 

testified that there was a knife that was on the ground near appellant and the victim. 

The knife was closed. Shaffer told appellant to grab the knife and cut victim’s shirt 

open so they could see where the blood was coming from. Shaffer confirmed that 

the knife was closed, and that appellant opened the knife. 
On cross-examination, Shaffer explained that she did not notice the 

knife and gun on the ground immediately when she ran from her office into the 

clubhouse. She noticed the knife on the ground next to the victim when she knelt 

down and began talking to him. 

Shaffer testified that she did not observe anything that led her to 

believe that there was a struggle or a fight between appellant and the victim. She 

did not observe any injuries that appellant had sustained. 

When police arrived on the scene, Shaffer told officers she thought the 

shooting was an accident. (Tr. 895.) Shaffer explained that appellant and the victim 

were best friends. Shaffer told several people that the victim had been accidentally 

shot, including another member of the motorcycle club, Saxton’s girlfriend, and 

appellant’s brother. Finally, Shaffer believed that she told Cleveland Police 

Detective Kevin Fischbach (“Det. Fischbach”) that the shooting was an accident. 

Ann Marquard was also an employee of the victim’s company. She 

testified that when people were in the clubhouse, she could hear them when they 

were talking, yelling, and using power tools. (Tr. 921.) On the day of the shooting, 

she heard “yelling as far as calling [911], don’t die on me.” (Tr. 922.) She walked 

from her office to the clubhouse and saw the victim laying on the floor, appellant 

standing over the victim, and Shaffer applying pressure to the victim’s gunshot 

wound. She did not hear any yelling or screaming coming from the clubhouse before 

she heard someone yell to call 911. 
The victim’s wife, Krista Van Horn (hereinafter “widow”), testified 

that she came to the scene after the shooting and asked appellant what happened. 

Appellant indicated to her that the shooting was an accident. (Tr. 954.) She did not 

believe that she had ever said that the shooting was an accident. 

Sergeant Michael Rybarczyk (“Sgt. Rybarczyk”), a 30-year veteran of 

the Cleveland Police Department, was the first officer to arrive on the scene. He 

heard appellant on the phone speaking to his mother and appellant said that “he 

shot [the victim]; that it was an accident; they were screwing around and like they 

always do; and [the victim] pulled a knife, I pulled my gun, and I accidentally shot 

him.” (Tr. 700.) In addition to telling this to his mother, appellant provided the 

same information about the shooting to Sgt. Rybarczyk. 

On cross-examination, Sgt. Rybarczyk explained that appellant 

blurted out that he shot the victim accidentally. (Tr. 777.) He authored a report 

documenting appellant’s statement that he shot the victim, they were fooling around 

like they always do, the victim pulled out a knife, appellant pulled out his gun, and 

appellant accidentally shot the victim. (Tr. 778.) 

Sgt. Rybarczyk testified that he did not observe anything apparent 

indicating that a struggle had taken place. Appellant directed Sgt. Rybarczyk to his 

gun that was on the ground. Sgt. Rybarczyk observed a knife on the ground next to 

the gun. He could not recall whether the knife was open. 

Sgt. Rybarczyk told the other officers on the scene that the shooting 

appeared to be “pretty cut and dry[.]” (Tr. 781.) He explained that his “cut and dry” 
statement was referring to the fact that he had identified the shooter and he was not 

looking for other suspects, rather than referring to the fact that the shooting was or 

was not an accident. (Tr. 782.) Finally, Sgt. Rybarczyk confirmed that when he was 

on the scene, he had no opinion about whether this was an accidental or a purposeful 

shooting. 

Det. Fischbach testified that when he arrived on the scene with his 

partner, they spoke with Sgt. Rybarczyk about what had transpired. The victim 

was laying on the ground on his back, and his hands were off to his side. 

Det. Fischbach observed a knife on the ground close to the victim’s head. He 

described the knife as a “work knife.” (Tr. 1585.) He confirmed that the knife’s blade 

was in the open position when it was observed and collected by police. 

Det. Fischbach testified about appellant’s holster. He opined that 

appellant had the holster for a while. He explained that the holster has “a release 

snap on top where you would use to cover the top end of the handgun.” (Tr. 1591.) 

The state introduced exhibit No. 25 at trial, which was a photograph of appellant’s 

holster. Appellant’s holster connected to his pants belt, and the holster was worn 

underneath appellant’s brown jacket. (Tr. 1593.) 

On cross-examination, Det. Fischbach acknowledged that the body 

camera footage captured by Sgt. Rybarczyk shows appellant saying that he and the 

victim were screwing around, and that the shooting was an accident. During an 

interview of Saxton, Det. Fischbach learned that the victim would often play with his 

knife. Det. Fischbach opined that “playful” was not the proper term to describe the 
conduct of 50-year-old adults in relation to a murder. He felt that “joking” was more 

appropriate to describe the conduct of adults than “playful.” 

Det. Fischbach testified that he did not learn anything more about 

why this homicide occurred, such as a potential motive, after conducting his 

investigation. Det. Fischbach confirmed that when he conducts an investigation, he 

presents the facts to the prosecutor and the prosecutor determines what charges to 

pursue. 

Finally, Det. Fischbach explained that appellant did not assert to him 

that the shooting was an accident. Even if appellant had, Det. Fischbach’s inquiry 

in this case and in other investigations would not stop merely because someone says 

it was an accident. 

Roger Polk, an Ohio CCW instructor and United States Marine Corps. 

Veteran, testified that appellant completed his CCW course in 2013. Polk explained 

that basic military firearms training involves rifles, not handguns. (Tr. 1223.) Basic 

training consists of 13 weeks, two of which are spent on the shooting range. 

(Tr. 1234.) 

In the military, there are basic “principles and fundamentals” of 

firearm safety. (Tr. 1230.) These safety principles and fundamentals are 

“constantly” drilled into your head during basic training. (Tr. 1231.) Polk described 

the principles and fundamentals: “you keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction; 

you keep your finger off the trigger until you’re ready to shoot; and you don’t load it 

until you’re instructed to load the gun.” (Tr. 1230-1231.) Polk testified that these 
three principles and fundamentals of gun safety apply regardless of what branch of 

the military a person serves. 

Polk emphasizes the same principles of gun safety in his CCW course: 

(1) the gun should be unloaded if you are not using it, (2) always keep the gun 

pointed in a safe direction, and (3) keep your finger off the trigger. (Tr. 1187-1190.) 

Polk opined that an accidental discharge of a firearm typically results when a person 

has their finger on the trigger before they are ready to shoot. (Tr. 1224.) 

Polk’s testimony demonstrates that appellant would have been taught 

the three principles and fundamentals of gun safety — both in his military basic 

training and during Polk’s CCW course. 

James Kooser, a firearms examiner with the Cuyahoga County 

Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, testified that appellant’s gun was a Ruger 

SR9c, 9 mm. He performed a trigger pull test and found that it had a trigger pull of 

“five and three quarters to six pounds.” (Tr. 1260.) Kooser explained that trigger 

pull is the amount of pressure it takes on the trigger to have the gun fire. 

Kooser confirmed that appellant’s firearm was operable and 

functioned normally. Kooser did not find any malfunctions or anything wrong with 

appellant’s gun during his examination. 

Cleveland Police Sergeant Michael Quinn (“Sgt. Quinn”), assigned to 

the Homicide Unit, testified that Sgt. Rybarczyk told him that appellant said the 

victim was his friend, they were fooling around, the victim had a knife, appellant had 

a gun, and appellant shot him. Sgt. Quinn explained that the victim’s wife was 
confused about what had transpired and wanted to speak with appellant. Sgt. Quinn 

did not remember the exact conversation between appellant and the victim’s wife, 

but appellant put his head down and apologized. 

Sgt. Quinn testified that when he learns that something may have been 

an accident, he has an obligation to conduct an investigation with an open mind to 

see where it takes him. (Tr. 1468.) 

On cross-examination, Sgt. Quinn acknowledged that the synopsis in 

his report did not indicate appellant stated the shooting was an accident, nor does 

the report contain the word “accident.” After watching the body camera footage 

obtained by Sgt. Rybarczyk, however, Sgt. Quinn confirmed that Sgt. Rybarczyk told 

him appellant stated this was an accident and that him and the victim were fooling 

around. 

Curtis Jones, from the Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner’s Trace 

Evidence Unit, testified at trial that he performed a chemical trace metal detection 

test on the hands of the victim. Jones did not observe a reaction on the hands of the 

victim after performing this test. If a person handles exposed metal on an object, 

such as the handle of a gun or a knife, or a metal pipe, they may have a positive 

reaction on the trace metal detection test. 

On cross-examination, Jones acknowledged that a negative test result 

on the trace metal detection test does not conclusively establish that the person did 

not touch or handle a metal object. (Tr. 1302.) Jones received information that the 
victim had potentially been in possession of a knife, but there was no indication 

whether the knife’s handle was metal. 

Jones also performed gunshot residue testing in this case. He 

performed a chemical Griess test on the victim’s sweatshirt that tests for gunpowder. 

This test indicated that the distance from the muzzle of appellant’s gun to the victim 

was “intermediate,” anywhere from one to three or four feet. (Tr. 1295.) Jones 

explained that the distance between the gun and the victim would not have been 

significantly less than one foot, otherwise there would have been the presence of 

“fouling,” another type of gunshot residue. 

Dr. Thomas Gilson, Cuyahoga County’s Medical Examiner, testified 

that appellant’s gun was fired from an intermediate range, somewhere between 7 

inches and 1.5 feet (18 inches). 

In support of his argument that the state failed to establish that he 

acted recklessly, appellant directs this court to State v. Peck, 172 Ohio App.3d 25, 

2007-Ohio-2730, 872 N.E.2d 1263 (10th Dist.), in which the Tenth Appellate 

District expounded on the definition of recklessness in determining the sufficiency 

of the evidence. In Peck, the defendant-appellant, a tow-truck driver, used a “snatch 

block,” a large pulley with a hook attached, to pull a tractor trailer out of a median 

and tow the tractor. The pulley that Peck used to pull and tow the tractor trailer was 

not sufficiently rated to pull the tractor trailer’s weight. The pulley broke, catapulted 

into a passing car, and the driver of a passing car was killed as a result of the incident. 

Peck was subsequently convicted of reckless homicide. Id. at ¶ 5. 
On appeal, the Tenth District reversed Peck’s conviction for reckless 

homicide, concluding that the evidence did not establish that he knew the risk 

associated with his conduct because he was not aware that the equipment, the 

pulley, was not sufficiently rated to tow the tractor trailer. The appellate court held 

that “[a] mere failure to perceive or avoid a risk, because of a lack of due care, does 

not constitute reckless conduct.” Id. at ¶ 12. In order to be convicted of recklessness, 

“one must recognize the risk of the conduct and proceed with a perverse disregard 

for that risk.” Id. The court explained: 

In contrast to the actor who proceeds with knowledge of a risk, the 

failure of a person to perceive or avoid a risk that his conduct may cause 

a certain result or may be of a certain nature is negligence. R.C. 

2901.22(D). Recklessness requires more than ordinary negligent 

conduct. The difference between the terms “recklessly” and 

“negligently” is normally one of a kind, rather than of a degree. “Each 

actor creates a risk of harm. The reckless actor is aware of the risk and 

disregards it; the negligent actor is not aware of the risk but should have 

been aware of it.” Wharton’s Criminal Law, 15th Ed., Section 27, at 170 

(emphasis sic); see, also, State v. Wall (S.D. 1992), 481 N.W.2d 259, 

262. 

Id. at ¶ 13. 

After reviewing the record, we find appellant’s reliance on Peck to be 

misplaced. The evidence presented at trial demonstrates that appellant had his 

finger on or near the trigger of the loaded gun that he drew from his holster and 

pointed at or in the vicinity of the victim who was standing less than two feet away. 

Appellant does not argue that he thought the gun was unloaded, that he dropped the 

gun and it accidentally fired, or that he and the victim wrestled for the gun during 
which it fired. He summarily argues that while he may have been negligent and 

careless, he was not reckless. 

The evidence in this case shows that appellant was aware of the risk of 

pointing a loaded gun at a target and having his finger on the trigger of the gun. 

These firearm safety principles and fundamentals were taught to appellant during 

his basic training in the military and Polk’s CCW course. By removing his loaded gun 

from his holster, pointing his loaded gun at or in the vicinity of the victim, and 

placing his finger on the trigger of his loaded gun that was pointed at or in the 

vicinity of the victim, appellant disregarded all three of the principles and 

fundamentals of firearm safety. 

The facts of this case are more like the facts presented in State v. 

Gough, 5th Dist. Licking No. 08-CA-55, 2009-Ohio-322. In Gough, the defendantappellant shot the victim in the head while playing with the victim’s gun during a 

party at which appellant was drinking. The victim died of a gunshot wound to the 

head, and Gough was convicted of reckless homicide. Id. at ¶ 6, 11. The victim’s gun 

was initially loaded, then it was unloaded by the owner, who loaded a bullet back 

into the gun after showing it to one of the party guests. Id. at ¶ 4. 

On appeal, Gough argued that his reckless homicide conviction was 

not supported by sufficient evidence because there was no evidence that he knew the 

gun had been reloaded and, as a result, the state did not demonstrate that he acted 

recklessly. The Fifth District rejected Gough’s argument and affirmed his 

conviction, concluding that Gough knew the risks created by his conduct because 
the gun owner usually kept the gun loaded, the gun had been loaded earlier in the 

evening, and Gough had previous experience with firearms. Id. at ¶ 21-23. 

In the instant matter, in reviewing the evidence in a light most 

favorable to the prosecution, as we must, we find the state presented sufficient 

evidence to find that appellant was aware of the risk when he drew his loaded gun, 

pointed it at or in the vicinity of the victim, and either had his finger on the trigger 

or failed to protect the trigger. Having completed basic training in the military, 

serving in the military, and completing Polk’s CCW course, appellant had previous 

experience with firearms. Appellant’s gun was loaded. There is no evidence that 

anyone other than appellant had possession and control of the gun on the day of the 

shooting. 

The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that appellant knew the 

risk created by his conduct. Appellant’s act of drawing his loaded gun and pointing 

it at or in the vicinity of the victim who was standing less than two feet away, and 

placing his finger on the trigger of the gun that required minimal force to discharge 

demonstrated a perverse disregard of a known risk that the victim would be shot 

and killed. 

In State v. Martin, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-362, 2007-Ohio7152, the defendant was convicted of reckless homicide after his girlfriend was 

fatally shot. The defendant alleged that the victim’s gun discharged when he tried 

to take it away from her. Id. at ¶ 37. On appeal, the Tenth District held that the 

defendant’s reckless homicide conviction was supported by sufficient evidence 
where the defendant admitted that the gun had been in his hand when it discharged, 

and the state’s evidence established that the shooting occurred while defendant and 

the victim were very close to one another and the state’s firearms examiner testified 

that the only way that the gun could be fired is to apply pressure to the trigger. Id. 

at ¶ 63. 

In the instant matter, as noted above, the evidence established that 

the shooting occurred while appellant and the victim were less than two feet away 

from one another. There is no evidence that appellant and the victim struggled for 

the gun or that the gun was in the possession of anyone other than appellant. There 

is also no evidence that something other than appellant’s finger caused the gun to 

discharge (i.e., dropping the gun and the gun firing upon hitting the floor, or 

bumping into an obstacle that came into contact with the trigger causing the gun to 

go off). The jury could have reasonably inferred that appellant drew his loaded 

weapon from his holster, pointed it at or in the vicinity of the victim, and had his 

finger on the trigger in a manner that applied enough pressure for the gun to 

discharge. 

Even if appellant did not have his finger on the trigger, the state’s 

evidence sufficiently established that by pointing a loaded weapon at or in the 

vicinity of the victim who was standing less than two feet away, appellant perversely 

disregarded a known risk that his conduct was likely to cause harm. The Supreme 

Court of Ohio has recognized that “a firearm is an inherently dangerous 
instrumentality, the use of which is reasonably likely to produce death” when fired 

at an individual. State v. Widner, 69 Ohio St.2d 267, 270, 431 N.E.2d 1025 (1982). 

While appellant may not have intended to apply enough pressure to 

the trigger to fire a round from the gun, appellant’s actions undoubtedly created a 

risk of harm to the victim, who was standing less than two feet away, and appellant 

perversely disregarded that risk by drawing his loaded gun from his holster, pointing 

it at or in the vicinity of the victim who was less than two feet away, and placing his 

finger on the trigger. See State v. G.G., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-188, 2012-

Ohio-5902, ¶ 14 (“A known risk of handling and manipulating a gun while standing 

in very close proximity to a child and while pointing it in the direction of that child, 

without checking the chamber to see if a bullet is still in the firearm, is that the 

firearm will discharge in the direction of the child, and the bullet will narrowly miss 

that child.”). 

In State v. Erby, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27799, 2018-Ohio-3695, 

the Second District explained that “a defendant may be guilty of reckless homicide 

for an unintentional shooting if the evidence supports a finding that he handled a 

firearm in a reckless manner, resulting in another person’s death.” (Emphasis 

added.) Id. at ¶ 20, citing State v. English, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-88, 2014-

Ohio-89, ¶ 13, and State v. Howse, 2012-Ohio-6106, 985 N.E.2d 246, ¶ 30-31 (9th 

Dist.). In Howse, the appellate court affirmed defendant’s reckless homicide 

conviction where the defendant “cocked a loaded handgun and pointed it at” the 

victim, but did not intend to shoot the victim. Id. at ¶ 31. The evidence showed that 
the defendant “was aware of the risks posed by firearms,” and despite this 

awareness, “acted with heedless indifference to the consequences” of his own 

handling of a loaded weapon that discharged. Id. at ¶ 30-31. 

In the instant matter, given the evidence presented by the state at trial, 

the jury had a reasonable basis for finding that appellant acted recklessly by 

removing his loaded gun from his holster and pointing it at or in the vicinity of the 

victim who was less than two feet away from him. There is no evidence in the record 

indicating that appellant did not know the gun was loaded or that something other 

than appellant’s finger caused the gun to discharge. Nevertheless, because 

appellant’s gun discharged, the jury could have reasonably inferred that appellant’s 

finger came into contact with the trigger, and applied enough force to cause the gun 

to discharge. Because appellant was a veteran and a CCW permit holder, the jury 

could have reasonably determined that appellant was aware of the risks posed by 

firearms, yet acted with heedless indifference to these consequences when he drew 

the loaded weapon and pointed it at or around the victim in the clubhouse. 

There is no evidence in the record that the bullet ricocheted off of 

anything before striking the victim. Therefore, the jury could have reasonably 

inferred that appellant pointed his loaded weapon directly at the victim. 

Kooser testified at trial that the amount of force required to discharge 

appellant’s gun was 5.75 to 6 pounds. (Tr. 1260.) Polk opined that the force needed 

to discharge striker fire pistols, such as appellant’s Ruger SR9c handgun, is “[m]uch, 

much lighter, dangerously so” than other handguns. (Tr. 1212.) To the extent that 
appellant argues that the minimal amount of force required to fire his gun supports 

a finding that he did not act recklessly, we disagree. Unlike Gough and Martin, the 

gun that fired the shot in this case belonged to appellant. Appellant did not pick up 

a gun with which he was not familiar. Therefore, the jury could have reasonably 

inferred that appellant knew that a minimal amount of force was needed to pull the 

trigger and fire the weapon, and, therefore, it was reckless for appellant to have his 

finger on or around the trigger while he was “joking around” with the victim. 

Saxton appreciated the difference between joking around with a knife 

and joking around with a loaded gun. Although it did not bother him when he saw 

the victim playing or joking around with his knife in the past, Saxton testified that it 

would have concerned him if he saw appellant pull out a loaded gun in a joking 

manner. Saxton explained that his concern would not be that appellant would shoot 

the gun, but “a loaded gun is, to me, in my eyes, is much more dangerous than a 

knife.” (Tr. 1114.) Saxton is not a veteran. Therefore, he did not complete the 

military basic firearms training during which the three principles and fundamentals 

of gun safety are emphasized. Nevertheless, Saxton’s testimony indicates that with 

less training than appellant, Saxton is still cognizant of the inherent danger posed 

by firearms. 

The aforementioned circumstantial evidence demonstrates that 

appellant drew his loaded weapon from his holster, pointed it at the victim who was 

standing less than two feet away from him, and placed his finger on or near the 

trigger. Appellant’s finger applied enough force to the trigger causing the gun to 
discharge. The state’s evidence, if believed, supports a finding that appellant 

handled his firearm in a reckless manner, and appellant’s reckless conduct resulted 

in the victim’s death. Therefore, although appellant and the victim may have been 

“joking around,” and the shooting may have been unintentional, the evidence 

supports the jury’s verdict. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, appellant’s reckless homicide 

conviction is supported by sufficient evidence. Appellant’s third assignment of error 

is overruled. 

Similarly, we find no basis upon which to conclude that appellant’s 

reckless homicide conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence. As an 

initial matter, to the extent that appellant argues that his conviction is against the 

manifest weight of the evidence because the evidence demonstrates that he 

committed the offense of negligent homicide rather than reckless homicide, 

appellant did not present this argument or proceed on this theory below. Rather, 

appellant defended against the charges on the theory that the shooting was 

accidental. Generally, a party cannot raise an argument for the first time on appeal 

that was not raised below. See State v. Wintermeyer, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio5156, ¶ 10. 

Appellant’s manifest weight challenge is based on his argument that 

the jury erred by believing the state’s version that appellant recklessly caused the 

death of the victim, rather than appellant’s theory that appellant and the victim were 

joking around with one another, the shooting was accidental, and appellant did not 
act recklessly. As noted above, the evidence presented at trial supports the 

conclusion that appellant recklessly caused the death of the victim. 

Appellant’s reckless homicide conviction is not against the manifest 

weight of the evidence merely because the jury rejected the defense’s theory that the 

shooting was an accident and found the state’s version of the events to be more 

believable. “‘[A] conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence simply 

because the jury rejected the defendant’s version of the facts and believed the 

testimony presented by the state.’” State v. Jallah, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101773, 

2015-Ohio-1950, ¶ 71, quoting State v. Hall, 4th Dist. Ross No. 13CA3391, 2014-

Ohio-2959, ¶ 2. The jury did not lose its way in resolving the conflicting theories 

based on the evidence presented at trial. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, we are unable to determine that the 

jury clearly lost its way in finding appellant guilty of reckless homicide. Appellant’s 

conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant’s fourth 

assignment of error is overruled. 

B. Negligent Homicide Instruction 

In his second assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court 

committed plain error in failing to provide a negligent homicide instruction to the 

jury. 

Because appellant did not object to the trial court’s jury instructions, 

we review for plain error. See State v. Erker, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107790, 2019-

Ohio-3185, ¶ 147, citing State v. Ruppart, 187 Ohio App.3d 192, 2010-Ohio-1574, 
931 N.E.2d 627, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.). In order to demonstrate plain error, appellant must 

show that but for the error pertaining to the jury instructions, the outcome at trial 

would have been different. Ruppart at id. 

The giving of jury instructions is within the sound discretion of the 

trial court, and this court reviews the trial court’s decision for an abuse of discretion. 

State v. Jackson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100125, 2014-Ohio-3583, ¶ 42, citing State 

v. Howard, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100094, 2014-Ohio-2176, ¶ 35, and State v. 

Martens, 90 Ohio App.3d 338, 629 N.E.2d 462 (3d Dist.1993). 

The question of whether a particular offense should be submitted to the 

finder of fact as a lesser included offense involves a two-tiered analysis. 

State v. Evans, 122 Ohio St.3d 381, 2009-Ohio-2974, 911 N.E.2d 889, 

¶ 13. “The first tier, also called the ‘statutory-elements step,’ is a purely 

legal question, wherein we determine whether one offense is generally 

a lesser included offense of the charged offense.” State v. Deanda, 136 

Ohio St.3d 18, 2013-Ohio-1722, 989 N.E.2d 986, ¶ 6, citing State v. 

Kidder, 32 Ohio St.3d 279, 281, 513 N.E.2d 311 (1987). The second tier 

looks to the evidence in a particular case and determines whether “‘a 

jury could reasonably find the defendant not guilty of the charged 

offense, but could convict the defendant of the lesser included offense.’” 

Evans at ¶ 13, quoting Shaker Hts. v. Mosely, 113 Ohio St.3d 329, 2007-

Ohio-2072, 865 N.E.2d 859, [] ¶ 11. “Only in the second tier of the 

analysis do the facts of a particular case become relevant.” Deanda at 

¶ 6. 

In determining whether an offense is a lesser included offense of 

another, a court shall consider whether (1) “one offense carries a 

greater penalty than the other,” (2) “some element of the greater 

offense is not required to prove commission of the lesser offense,” and 

(3) “the greater offense as statutorily defined cannot be committed 

without the lesser offense as statutorily defined also being committed.” 

Evans at paragraph two of the syllabus, clarifying State v. Deem, 40 

Ohio St.3d 205, 533 N.E.2d 294 (1988). 

After it has been determined that the offense is a lesser included 

offense, the second tier mandates that courts look to the evidence in a 

particular case and determine whether “‘a jury could reasonably find 
the defendant not guilty of the charged offense, but could convict the 

defendant of the lesser included offense.’” Deanda at ¶ 6, quoting 

Evans at ¶ 13. See also State v. Thomas, 40 Ohio St.3d 213, 216, 533 

N.E.2d 286 (1988). 

State v. Becker, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100524, 2014-Ohio-4565, ¶ 68-70. 

In the instant matter, appellant argues that the jury should have been 

instructed on the offense of negligent homicide, a first-degree misdemeanor in 

violation of R.C. 2903.05(A). R.C. 2903.05(A) provides that “[n]o person shall 

negligently cause the death of another * * * by means of a deadly weapon or 

dangerous ordnance as defined in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code.” 

Appellant acknowledges that negligent homicide is “not always a 

lesser-included offense of reckless homicide.” Appellant’s brief at 16. Nevertheless, 

appellant argues that negligent homicide must be a lesser-included offense based on 

the facts of this case: “[a]nalyzing the mens rea of each offense it is obvious that 

negligent homicide must be a lesser included offense of felony murder and reckless 

homicide as the trial court instructed the jury in this case.” Appellant’s brief at 16. 

Appellant argues that the Ohio Supreme Court’s holding in State v. 

Trimble, 122 Ohio St.3d 297, 2009-Ohio-2961, 911 N.E.2d 242, should be extended 

to the offense of negligent homicide. In Trimble, the Ohio Supreme Court applied 

the three-part Deem test and concluded that reckless homicide is a lesser-included 

offense of aggravated felony murder: 

The first prong of the Deem test is met because reckless homicide is a 

felony of the third degree, which carries a lesser penalty than felony 

murder. The second prong is met because a defendant cannot cause 

the death of a person under R.C. 2903.01(B) without also causing the 
death of that person under R.C. 2903.041. In purposely causing the 

death of another, one has to first become reckless in causing the death 

of another. Finally, the third prong is met because committing reckless 

homicide does not require the “committing or attempting to commit” 

another felony. R.C. 2903.01(B). 

District courts of appeals have also held that reckless homicide is a 

lesser included offense of felony murder. See State v. Anderson, [12th 

Dist. Butler No. CA2005-06-156, 2006-Ohio-2714, ¶ 9] (reckless 

homicide as a lesser included offense of aggravated felony murder 

charged under R.C. 2903.01(B)); State v. Alston, [9th Dist. Lorain No. 

05CA008769, 2006-Ohio-4152, ¶ 48] (reckless homicide as a lesser 

included offense of felony murder charged under R.C. 2903.02(B)). 

Trimble at ¶ 190-191. 

In the instant matter, appellant argues that the Trimble rationale 

should be extended to the facts of this case. In Trimble, the Ohio Supreme Court 

explained that one cannot knowingly cause the victim’s death as a proximate result 

of committing felonious assault without first becoming reckless in causing the death 

of another. In other words, in knowingly committing felonious assault which 

proximately causes the death of another, the defendant has to first become reckless 

in causing the death of another. 

Here, in arguing for an extension of Trimble, appellant appears to 

argue that one cannot knowingly or recklessly cause the victim’s death without first 

becoming negligent in causing the victim’s death. In other words, appellant 

contends that in knowingly committing felonious assault which proximately causes 

the death of another, or in recklessly causing the death of another, the defendant has 

to first become negligent in causing the death of another. 
Appellant points to no case law supporting his argument that 

negligent homicide is a lesser-included offense of either felony murder or reckless 

homicide or that the Trimble rationale should be extended to the offense of negligent 

homicide. In fact, appellant acknowledges that many of the cases from this court 

have held that negligent homicide is not a lesser-included offense of murder or 

reckless homicide. He contends, however, that these cases and the other cases from 

appellate districts in this state are “wrongly decided in relationship to the unique 

facts of this case.” Appellant’s brief at 16. 

In State v. Jones, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 80737, 2002-Ohio-6045, 

the defendant-appellant was charged with murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B). 

On appeal, Jones argued that the trial court erred in failing to provide jury 

instructions on the offenses of reckless homicide and negligent homicide, which 

defense counsel had requested. Id. at ¶ 84. 

This court applied the three-part Deem test and held that the trial 

court did not err in failing to provide a negligent homicide instruction to the jury: 

In accordance with the definition set forth in Deem, negligent homicide 

is not a lesser included offense of murder proscribed in R.C. 

2903.02(B). This is because this greater offense can be committed 

without the lesser offense, negligent homicide, also being committed. 

Accord State v. Ford[, 5th Dist. Stark No. 1999CA00177, 2000 Ohio 

App. LEXIS 3195 (July 10, 2000)] (negligent homicide is not a lesser 

included offense of murder as defined in R.C. 2903.02(B) because one 

can cause the death of another as a proximate result of committing or 

attempting to commit the proscribed felony by means other than by a 

deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance.) 

(Emphasis added.) Jones at ¶ 93. 
On the other hand, this court held that reckless homicide is a lesserincluded offense of murder: 

Regarding reckless homicide, we recognize it to be a lesser included 

offense. Here, an element of this murder statute, namely, commission 

of an underlying first or second degree felony, is not required to prove 

reckless homicide. However, we conclude an instruction on this lesser 

offense is nonetheless not warranted, because the jury could not have 

reasonably concluded that the evidence presented in this case supports 

a conviction for reckless homicide but not murder under R.C. 

2903.02(B). See Kidder, [32 Ohio St.3d 279, 513 N.E.2d 311]. 

Jones at ¶ 94. 

In addition to this court’s holding in Jones, the Supreme Court of Ohio 

has explicitly stated that “[n]egligent homicide is not a lesser included offense of 

murder.” State v. Koss, 49 Ohio St.3d 213, 551 N.E.2d 970 (1990), paragraph four 

of the syllabus. We decline to depart from this established precedent. 

After reviewing the record, we find no basis upon which to conclude 

that the trial court committed plain error in instructing the jury. Appellant was 

charged with murder and the trial court properly instructed the jury that the state 

had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense, 

including the “purposely” mens rea. 

The trial court properly instructed the jury that if they did not find that 

the state met its burden on the elements of murder, it could then consider whether 

the state proved every element of the offense of reckless homicide, including the 

“recklessly” mens rea. The trial court also agreed to provide a jury instruction on 

the defense of accident, over the state’s objection. (Tr. 1710.) These instructions 
could easily allow the jury to understand that recklessness goes beyond what is 

considered to be an accident. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, we are unable to conclude that the 

trial court committed plain error by failing to provide a negligent homicide jury 

instruction. The offense of negligent homicide was not charged in the indictment, 

and is not a lesser-included offense of either murder or reckless homicide. 

Appellant’s second assignment of error is overruled. 

C. Fair Trial 

In his fifth assignment of error, appellant argues that he was “denied 

a fair trial when he was not permitted to present evidence about the existence of the 

charge of negligent homicide even if a jury instruction was not forthcoming.” 

Citing to a single question during cross-examination of Det. 

Fischbach, appellant asserts that defense counsel “sought to educate the jurors 

about the offense of negligent homicide[.]” Appellant’s brief at 29. Defense counsel 

asked Det. Fischbach whether he “pitched [the incident] to the prosecutors as a 

negligent homicide[.]” (Tr. 1645.) 

Initially, the record reflects that the trial court sustained the state’s 

objection to this question. Furthermore, when this single question is read in context 

with the other testimony presented at trial, it is evident that defense counsel was not 

trying to “educate” the jury about the offense of negligent homicide. Rather, defense 

counsel was trying to elicit testimony that supported the defense’s theory that 
although this was an accidental shooting, the police and prosecutors rushed to 

judgment by arresting appellant and charging him with murder. 

There is no evidence in the record that appellant attempted to 

present evidence pertaining to the offense of negligent homicide, but was prohibited 

from doing so. Rather, the record reflects that appellant presented evidence about 

the defense’s theory that the shooting was an accident. As noted above, a party is 

generally prohibited from raising an argument for the first time on appeal that was 

not raised below. See Wintermeyer, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-5156, at ¶ 10. 

Finally, as noted above, had defense counsel presented evidence 

pertaining to the offense negligent homicide, this evidence would have been 

inconsistent with the defense’s theory that the shooting was accidental. See 

Samuels, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 52527, 1987 Ohio App. LEXIS 8852; Poole, 33 

Ohio St.2d 18, 294 N.E.2d 888. 

For all of these reasons, we find no basis upon which to conclude that 

appellant was denied a fair trial. Appellant’s fifth assignment of error is overruled 

D. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 

In his first and sixth assignments of error, appellant argues that he 

was denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. 

In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a 

defendant must demonstrate: (1) deficient performance by counsel, i.e., 

performance falling below an objective standard of reasonable representation, and 

(2) counsel’s errors prejudiced the defendant, i.e., a reasonable probability that but 
for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-688, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 

674 (1984); State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), paragraphs 

two and three of the syllabus. 

1. Negligent Homicide Instruction 

In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that counsel 

provided ineffective assistance by failing to request a jury instruction on the offense 

of negligent homicide. Appellant concedes that “trial counsel initially sought a jury 

instruction for negligent homicide.” Appellant’s brief at 16-17. However, after an 

off-the-record discussion between defense counsel, the prosecution, and the trial 

court, defense counsel withdrew his request for a negligent homicide instruction 

based on the discussion and his apparent belief that he could either request an 

instruction on accident or negligent homicide — not both. (Tr. 1712.) Appellant 

argues that counsel’s determination that he could only have one instruction or the 

other, not both, was wrong, and as a result, his performance was deficient. 

As an initial matter, appellant fails to identify any authority in 

support of his assertion that counsel erroneously believed that he could not have an 

instruction on accident and the offense of negligent homicide. As noted above, the 

defense of accident is totally inconsistent with a jury instruction on negligent 

homicide. See Samuels; Poole; see also State v. Gay, 11th Dist. Portage No. 88-P2043, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 4806, 9-10 (Nov. 2, 1990), citing State v. Hill, 31 Ohio 

App.3d 65, 508 N.E.2d 1038 (1st Dist.1987). (“[N]o instruction on negligent 
homicide is required when the theory of the defense is predicated on an accident.”) 

In Hill, the First District explained that because the defendant argued from the 

outset that the shooting was accidental, a jury instruction on negligent homicide 

would not be appropriate. Id. at 67. 

In the instant matter, the record reflects that after reviewing all of 

the evidence and the testimony presented at trial, defense counsel made the 

strategic, tactical decision to pursue the theory of accident to reduce appellant’s 

criminal culpability rather than pursuing the theory of negligent homicide. See 

State v. Taylor, 5th Dist. Richland No. 2005-CA-0112, 2006-Ohio-4064, ¶ 41. The 

decision about which defense or theory to pursue at trial is a matter of trial strategy 

“within the exclusive province of defense counsel to make after consultation with his 

[or her] client.” State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 524, 747 N.E.2d 765 (2001). 

A defendant is not denied the constitutional right to effective 

assistance of counsel if counsel makes the strategic decision to not pursue every 

possible trial strategy. State v. Brown, 38 Ohio St.3d 305, 319, 528 N.E.2d 523 

(1988). Absent a showing that counsel failed to research the facts or the law, or that 

counsel disregarded a crucial defense, this court defers to counsel’s judgment. State 

v. Clayton, 62 Ohio St.2d 45, 49, 402 N.E.2d 1189 (1980), citing People v. Miller, 7 

Cal.3d 562, 573-574, 102 Cal.Rptr. 841, 498 P.2d 1089 (1972). 

In this case, the record reflects that defense counsel considered the 

theory of negligent homicide and raised the issue of a negligence instruction. 
However, defense counsel ultimately decided to pursue the theory of accident rather 

than the theory that appellant acted negligently. 

The Ohio Supreme Court has explained that reviewing courts “will 

ordinarily refrain from second-guessing strategic decisions counsel make at trial, 

even where counsel’s trial strategy was questionable.” State v. Myers, 97 Ohio St.3d 

335, 2002-Ohio-6658, 780 N.E.2d 186, ¶ 152; see also State v. Conway, 109 Ohio 

St.3d 412, 2006-Ohio-2815, 848 N.E.2d 810, ¶ 95 (“[D]ebatable trial tactics do not 

constitute ineffective assistance of trial counsel.”). The Ohio Supreme Court has 

declined to second-guess a strategic decision made by trial counsel even when 

appellate counsel argues that he or she would have defensed against the charges 

differently. State v. Post, 32 Ohio St.3d 380, 388, 513 N.E.2d 754 (1987); State v. 

Mason, 82 Ohio St.3d 144, 169, 694 N.E.2d 932 (1998). 

After reviewing the record, we decline to second-guess trial counsel’s 

strategical and tactical decision to pursue the defense of accident rather than the 

theory that appellant committed the offense of negligent homicide. For all of the 

foregoing reasons, appellant’s ineffective assistance claim fails in this regard. 

Appellant’s first assignment of error is overruled. 

2. Widow 

In his sixth assignment of error, appellant argues that counsel’s 

performance was deficient during pretrial proceedings because counsel failed to 

conduct a reasonable investigation and failed to interview the widow before trial. 

Furthermore, appellant argues that counsel’s performance during trial was deficient 
because counsel asked the widow a question during trial to which counsel did not 

know the answer, and in doing so, elicited testimony at trial that “directly 

contradicted [the] theory of defense.” Appellant’s brief at 32. As noted above, the 

defense’s theory of the case was that appellant’s gun discharged accidentally. 

Defense counsel asked the widow whether she had a hair 

appointment on the day of or shortly after the shooting. The state objected, and the 

trial court called the parties to sidebar. During sidebar, the state argued that the 

testimony was irrelevant. In response, defense counsel explained, “[w]ell, the 

relevance is [the widow said she] had a hair appointment that day and she cancelled 

it and said her husband was accidentally shot and I want to see if she actually said 

that.” (Tr. 969.) The prosecutor asked defense counsel who the widow made the 

statement to, and defense counsel asserted that he wanted to find that out. “[The 

widow] had a hair appointment and it became recent knowledge to me that she 

cancelled it. She called and said, [m]y husband was accidentally shot. I want to see 

if she said — I meant to see if it comes from her mouth.” (Tr. 969.) 

On the day of the shooting, the widow asked appellant what had 

happened. Appellant asserted that the shooting was an accident. This testimony 

was elicited by the state. Defense counsel sought to ask the widow whether she 

believed appellant. 

The trial court explained that whether or not to believe appellant’s 

assertion is for the jury, not for the widow to testify about. The court asked the 

defense attorneys whether they knew the answer to the question (did the widow 
believe appellant’s assertion that the shooting was an accident?). Both attorneys 

confirmed that they did not. (Tr. 973.) 

Following the sidebar, the following exchange took place between 

defense counsel and the widow: 

[Defense Counsel]: Okay. Have you ever told anybody that this was an 

accident? 

* * * 

[Defense Counsel]: I said, Your Honor, has [widow] ever relayed to 

anybody that this was an accident. 

[Widow]: Have I ever said that it was an accident? I don’t believe so. 

(Tr. 975-976.) 

 

After reviewing the record, we find that appellant’s ineffective 

assistance claim regarding defense counsel’s question to the widow fails under the 

second Strickland prong. Assuming, arguendo, that counsel’s failure to interview 

the widow and the question with which appellant takes issue constitutes deficient 

performance, appellant cannot demonstrate a reasonable probability that but for 

counsel’s question, the result at trial would have been different. Even if the widow 

had testified that she had, in fact, communicated to people after the shooting that 

the victim was shot accidentally, this does not constitute a reasonable probability 

that the outcome at trial would have been different. Finally, the record reflects that 

counsel had recently learned about the widow’s purported statement — asserting 

that her husband had been accidentally shot in cancelling her hair appointment. 

Although counsel did not know the answer to the question with which appellant 
takes issue, counsel made a strategical, tactical decision to ask the question, which 

could have supported the defense’s theory of an accidental shooting. 

Finally, we note that this was a jury trial that spanned eight days 

during which 16 different witnesses testified. We decline to second guess counsel’s 

strategic decision to ask the single question with which appellant takes issues. An 

affirmative answer to the question would have supported the defense’s theory that 

the shooting was accidental, and a negative answer to the question was of little to no 

consequence in determining whether appellant recklessly caused the death of the 

victim. 

Because appellant has failed to demonstrate prejudice or a 

reasonable probability that the outcome at trial would have been different but for 

defense counsel’s question, appellant’s ineffective assistance claim fails in this 

regard. Appellant’s sixth assignment of error is overruled. 

III. Conclusion 

After thoroughly reviewing the record, we overrule appellant’s 

assignments of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment. Appellant’s conviction 

for reckless homicide was supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the 

manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not commit plain error in failing 

to provide a negligent homicide instruction to the jury, and appellant was not denied 

his right to a fair trial. Appellant was not denied his constitutional right to the 

effective assistance of counsel. 

Judgment affirmed. 
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the 

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s 

convictions having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case 

remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., JUDGE 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J., and 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR